ViolenceBackInDaStreets2(now even more violent!)

The title of LAGuy's post seems to imply that perhaps by having violent video games we might be lowering the amount of real (non-virtual) violence that occurs in the world. The body of the post does not elaborate on that.
Leaving aside for the moment the legal question, can we first focus on whether it is an actual bad thing for kids to practice violence on a video game? Where I come from, it is not a good idea to put forward such a notion unless there is evidence to back that up. As it turns out there is such evidence and it comes from many studies. (expecting an onslaught from LAG here).
Returning to our legal argument, I have to say that I am quite ignorant of the law (which I understand does not serve well as a defense in a court of law), but why can't something that is provably harmful to minors be limited by law?
The article cited has the Entertainment Software Association claiming that it is impossible to determine what is violent content. I assume these are the same people who rate their own games based on their violent and sexual content. How dumb do they think we are?
Agreed ahead of time that this problem would be BEST SOLVED by parents helping their child make right choices (or making them for them).

LAGuy predictably replies: People always refer to all these "studies" on violence in the media and in the real world. I've seen a lot of these studies and they are underwhelming. If sociologists were racists and sexists (as they used to be) they'd instead constantly be referring to tons of studies that show whites are smarter than blacks and men are smarter than women. If people were honest about today's studies, they'd admit they prove very little. (See Steven Pinker in Blank Slate about this, by the way. He's not the only scientist who admits the weakness of the studies, but enough of a popularizer that he's worth quoting.)

Let's talk about minors. For as long as they've been around, they (particularly males) have played games that have near-endless amounts of pretend violence. But somehow now that it's on a video we should be concerned. (They also play games that include lots of real violence that causes broken bones and even some death, but this doesn't quite excite people so much as the chance to censor things.)

Let's talk about today's minors. If you look at the stats, in fact, the general trend in the last ten and even twenty years, has been less violence, even as violent videogames and gangasta rap has come to the fore. This doesn't "prove" anything, except that maybe people are too concerned about the wrong things.

As far as rating violence, it is abolutely correct no one can truly do it. This is not like asking for sodium content. It's an artistic judgment. What's more violent, Die Hard or Jackie Chan or The Three Stooges? There's more violence in a Bugs Bunny cartoon than in Reservoir Dogs, but different types of violence (please note when I use violence in this context, I'm talking about representations of violence, not real violence) have different artistic effects (on different people, too). I'd call all the violence in video games fairly cartoonish, much like blowing away people on the playground with imaginary rayguns--not as harmful, say, than shooting with something that looks like a real gun at things that look like real ducks at a carnival--but that's my judgment, everyone must make their own call.

I laugh at anyone who calls videogames "provably harmful." Mostly they're fun. Sure, if you waste too much time on them, they're probably no good--time better spent studying or playing with friends. Any obsession could be harmful.

But I realize parents don't always practice common sense when it comes to kids, and don't mind destroying a lot of freedom just to play it "safe." (It reminds me of how some wanted to blame Columbine--which happened during the present downtrend in high school violence--on The Matrix, as if the kids who were killed weren't fans as much as the killers.)

What if a study showed that kids who spent more than two hours a week reading the Bible were more likely to grow up and beat their kids? Can we take action then? No, because we're still protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment makes it clear that ideas are not to be compared to garbage or poison gas when it comes to regulation. Ideas are different, even for kids. It is possible that bad ideas will lead to bad consequences, for adults as well as kids. The First Amendment represents an experiment where we admit we don't all agree on what's good or bad information, and we'll take the chance that the best way to go about it is to leave things up to the individual (and in kids' cases, also their parents) and hope that the good drives out the bad. It's an experiment I'm proud to be part of, and I'm always saddened to hear about people so sure of themselves that they want to take a short cut, not just for themselves, but for everyone, whether they like it or not.

Columbus Guy says: Keepin' it short there, are we? (Although I have to admit, it's tough not to comment that John McCain, George Bush and Ruth Bader apparently wouldn't have a problem restricting the Bible . . .