Friday, December 8, 2006

Like Violent Video Games? Don't Move to Germany.


A recent article from MSNBC reports that legislation is in the works in Bavaria and Lower Saxony to lock up creators, distributors, and even players of violent video games in the wake of a recent school shooting.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say I have serious reservations about media censorship. Germany both before and after reunification in 1989 has something of a history (though it is hardly unique) when it comes to censorship. While the official German constitution (taken from the West German constitution under post-WWII occupation) includes the right to free speech, it is subject to restrictions. Many of these restrictions, published in an index of "harmful materials" established by the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdende Medien or BPjM, are similar to American restrictions. Pornography may not be distributed to youth, and materials inciting violence or instructing people on how to commit crimes are heavily regulated. Materials provoking racial hatred are also regulated.

More notably, Germany regulates historical thought relating to its role and history in WWII strictly. The 2006 World Cup brought this regulation to the forefront of public view when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran announced his plan to attend games held in Germany (he did attend, with diplomatic immunity) and over 1000 people gathered in Nuremberg in protest.

Controversy has surrounded violent video games since their very inception; political leaders and special interest groups around the world have long sought their regulation and censorship. Germany is certainly no exception in this case, and current attempts to censor games in Germany mirror reactions in the United States after the Columbine High School shooting of 1999 where a group representing families of Columbine victims pressed charges against the creators of the video game Doom. The presiding Colorado judge dropped the case citing "social utility in expressive and imaginative forms of entertainment, even if they contain violence," but the gaming industry has long exercised a certain amount of self-censorship.

Recent studies have partially vindicated groups who claim violent video games exacerbate violent behavior. On November 28, 2006, researchers at Indiana University released a report finding that adolescents who played violent video games experienced increased emotional arousal and decreased self-control.

By the standards of the Colorado judge, the violent content and even effects of video games does not eradicate their social value. Nevertheless, many political states limit free speech when it incites violence. In my opinion, video games--even violent ones--do not intend to incite violence. Nevertheless, the Indiana U study and others like it demonstrate correlations between biological and psychological damage (not necessarily violence) and violent video games. Under Germany's "Youth Protection Law" (Jugendschutzgesetz) that seems reason enough to regulate or restrict their use, and Germany in fact already requires video games distributed within the country to be altered to limit their violent content (see the article listed in the first paragraph). But the legislation under review goes further than those restrictions to imprison players of violent video games.

The relation between violent video games and real-world violence is indirect, but it is not absent. Nevertheless, it seems absurd to imprison players on the off-chance that their game-play may cause them to commit an act of violence.

Thoughts are welcome.

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

At January 22, 2007 4:54 PM , Lanier said...

I think the study you mentioned is the same one I read about through Yahoo a week or two ago. If so, it's important to mention that the results showed only short term increases in emotional arousal and decreases in self-control. The article you linked glosses over that, but there's a quick, quoted mention in this CNN article:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/fun.games/11/28/video.games.brain.reut/index.html

That, I think, is a big distinction. I wouldn't be surprised if kids have similar results after playing full-contact sports, though I couldn't find any studies with a basic google search (looks like either researchers or the media are exhibiting a little bias here - you'd expect there to be at least be a study about it mentioned somewhere, regardless of the results). Regardless, it looks like more studies need to be done to demonstrate if there are any permanent effects.

I also think it's important to point out that increased emotional arousal and decreased self-control don't equal a desire to commit violent acts.

Relatedly, here's another study from Indiana that I came across while looking for the one you mention:
http://www.medicine.indiana.edu/news_releases/archive_02/violent_games02.html

It's conclusion is that video game violence effects kids who already have violent tendencies differently than kids who don't. And my conclusion is that issue is really one of parenting - teach your kids to be empathetic to the suffering of others and they'll be able to differentiate between violence in the service of art/entertainment/education and violence that they commit themselves.

Also, Ahmadinejad did not attend the Cup games. It's mentioned here:
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/world/16154091.htm

The protests in the article you mentioned occurred after he said he might come. I gathered from that article that the VP went instead, but not in an official role. It sounds like had he gone in an official role, he might've still be en brought up on charges as a representative of the government - looks like diplomatic immunity gets complicated there. Here's the relevant paragraph:

"However, the vice president has travelled to Germany as a private citizen and, as thus, has been granted no diplomatic protocol or added police protection – and would in theory not be liable for the policies of his president, the source said. "

 
At January 22, 2007 4:55 PM , Clara said...

Thanks for the Ahmadinejad correction. As for the other, I agree there's a difference, which is why I specifically said the study only *partially* vindicates those groups.

I suspected it was probably only a short-term increase, thanks for confirming that. I wonder if anyone's done a study on the long-term effects?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home