Mario Unmuzzled

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a St. Louis ordinance banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The ruling found that video games "contain stories, imagery, 'age-old themes of literature,' and messages, even an 'ideology,' just as books and movies do."

This is good news, though the challenge to the law covered only violence, not sex, both of which were verboten under the ordinance. This reflects a strange tension in public attitudes about what children need to be "shielded" from. Hacking off limbs? Protected. Whipping out the wrong one? Corrupting the youth; get the hemlock!

Comments

[Jim]

The paradox of 'sex vs. violence', when it comes to children, actually makes sense when you consider it from a historical perspective. The Christian religion has a long standing tradition of viewing sex as bad, only allowable out of necessity for procreation, perhaps a view deriving even from the legend of the original sin in the garden of Eden. Alternatively, the church has often endorsed and even practiced violence when performed against criminals, heretics or unbelievers. Should this surprise anyone?

To put a more secular, and modern, spin on this, most violence in the media occurs in a moral context. The bad guys commit unprovoked violence, the good guys return it in defense. The moral context for sex, however, is basically that it's OK between consenting adults as long as they don't cheat, lie or behave irresponsibly (i.e. forgo birth control or protections against disease). Parents are justifiably nervous that their teenage children will view themselves as 'consenting adults' and engage in behavior they're not emotionally ready for or take chances that can have long term life consequences due to the common youthful perception of immortality or infallibility. It is highly unlikely that your child will be recruited to fend off an alien invasion or a zombie attack, but much more likely he or she will be presented with opportunities to copulate. I think in this context the worry still makes some sense.

[Jim]

BTW that does not mean I support the silly law in question..... just my opinion of the psychology behind it.

[Tom]

Jim has pretty much got it down. It doesn't take much nuanced moral reasoning to understand that blowing people away with an Uzi is wrong. On the other hand, sexual morality is so complicated even most adults can't agree on it, much less children.

[Warren]

I don't buy it. Seems to me there are more opportunities to screw up your life with violence than with sex. Also seems to me, that the former is a much bigger problem for society (and therefore a more valid justification for legislation). I too have contempt for this silly law. Just saying that, allowing violence while prohibiting sex strikes me as even sillier.

[JDM]

"Seems to me there are more opportunities to screw up your life with violence than with sex."

There are 15 times as many teenage pregnancies as teenage murders. Granted, murder is not the only way to screw up your life with violence, but it should be an indicator.

[Croesus]

JDM,

Yeah, but damnit, we need these video games to train our kids for the coming invasion from Klandaathu! 🙂

[JDM]

A fair point, but wouldn't we also need them reproduce faster too?

[JDM]

That should be 150 times as many teenage pregnncies as murders.

While I'm at it, there should be no "too" at the end of my last post.

Also, I've mispelled pregnancies in this post.

[B.P.]

"Ordnance"? Enough with your violent language, already!

[Jim]

Warren,

I agree that the paranoia surrounding sex vs. violence may be unjustified and based partially on the historical social distrust of sex caused by the Christian religion; however it stands to reason that sexual morality is more complex and the numbers cited by JDM also show that it's certainly a more common situation than violence for most young people.

My take on this, from a personal level: sex can be separated from violence for young kids (they can understand the simple morality present in these situations, as is often reflected even in cartoons), but for teenagers who are having to think about these things and have the potential to act on it, it makes less sense to keep them from viewing fictional material they are old enough to understand and that may give some insight into the moral complexities of adult relationships. It would be pretty silly to expect them to figure it all out in a vaccuum before they hit the streets at age 18. Deciding just what is appropriate material, however, is the parent's job, not the state's.