Censorship or Responsibility: Which is the Lesser of Two Evils?

This game was made in 2015 and is currently the most violent game in stores. Parents are worried for their children playing these games, but in reality what they don't realise is that they are in control of what games they purchase. Mostly because one would have to be eighteen years or older to purchase these M rated games. Using these circumstances, it is not the developers fault for “exposing” children to high means of

Thousands of teens in the United States play violent video games everyday, for hours on end. Teens and children playing violent games are now accepted as a part of life. They sit in front of a screen and watch blood and gore, with no emotions and without cringing. The games become increasingly more violent, as the age that children begin to play these games drops, from twelve to ten to eight. Now, we have six or seven-year-old children playing games rated M, for 17 and older. Teens should not be allowed to play violent role-playing games because it teaches them that violence is acceptable, that it is fun to be violent, as well as desensitizing them to violence.

In discussions of video games, one controversial issue has been whose responsibility it is to deal with the behavioral problems of children and teens who get influenced by the content in games. On one hand, the game industry argues that the responsibility should lie with whomever bought the game. On the other hand, others such as parents and Parental guidance agencies contend that their children’s bad behavior stems from games and that the video game industry should regulate the content to protect children from negative influences within the game. Others even maintain that video games promote violent crimes. My own view is that it depends on the person playing the game because certain people can be more influential than others, especially children. I also believe that it is the responsibility of the buyer to know the game that they or their children are playing and to take responsibility for the things that happens within their own household.

In the essay “The Supreme Court Tackles Violent Video Games” written by Katy Steinmetz, the author does a good job showing all the different points of view on the subject. Should the government be allowed to prohibit the sale of video games or is it a violation of free speech? This question is very difficult to tackle, the author states direct quotes from protesters. One protester is Lisa McKee she states “I don’t think keeping violent games out of the hands of minors is the government's job… It is the parent’s job to monitor what their children are playing” Thinking about this situation is difficult because one could think like the Supreme Court Justice’s do which is that the video games can create dangerous scenarios for children and could

Video game effects are relatively new in modern society. Even though these games are often entertaining, the content of the game has been increasingly more and more violent as technology becomes more prevalent. The popularity of violent video games has caused an increase in controversy. Parents and experts feel that some games are just too violent and they demand the government to regulate the sales of these games. However, violent video games do not cause an increase in aggression, in adolescents. The forceful plan by the government is caused by an exaggeration of the effects of violent video games and this plan are indeed pointless.

The topic of whether or not minors should be allowed to purchase violent video games containing violent content is very popular in current years and there are many arguments to support either side of the debate. I personally believe that minors should be allowed to purchase video games with violent content. In this essay I will argue why I feel this way.

It has also been revealed in studies that exposure to violence in video games can produce violent behavior, and possibly even lead to violence at school or home. The resolution of this problem is not easy, but one short-term explanation is for government guidelines for game sales. If the government makes retailers keep track of which games are being sold to young kids, then children would not be able to buy violent games. Because video games have a rating system, it would only be needed for retailers to guarantee that minors and young children are unable to buy games with a rating greater than their age limit. I do think that as parents we need to focus on what we let our kids see and the activities they participate in. The debate about whether video games have a negative or positive actions depends on one’s philosophical perspectives. Parents need to reexamine their method on how their kids should interact and engage with video games. This good vs. bad approach might be comfortable, but it also seems to be out of touch with the kinds of thinking that we consider through to be in the highest attention of our kids. Is this exactly how we show our kids to ponder about things? I do not think so! We insist that they learn to be at ease with some level of

Video game violence has been a wildly debated topic since the beginnings of the industry. The topic evolved from the debate on media violence or violence in print media. However, the video game debate brings a new angle. Video games, because of their immersive nature, are said to have more impact on children. The proponents and opponents of video game censorship do not really fall into traditional political boundaries. The proponents of censorship tend to be some parents and doctors. Those opposed to censorship tend to be those who play the video games themselves. There is a center faction, however. The center faction consists of those doctors and psychologists who evaluate media violence on a

In the article, “State Lawmakers Again Trying to Justify Video Game Censorship” by Berin Szoka, Szoka discusses about the State Legislator to censoring on the video games. Also how the Supreme Court strikes a California law and supports the decision of Brown v. Ema. Censorship is a major problem with Video Games therefore they want to prove that violence video games can be prevented a violent activity.

Video Games. Children spend countless hours each day playing games such as mortal Kombat and Call of Duty. Whether you agree with them or not, it's hard to deny that they have become part of our daily life's. This all started back with SNES with games such as Super Mario Bros and Donkey Kong. I have to add that these are not the first but are the most recognisable games. However, since they’ve been around they have also been the subject of scrutiny in the media due to violence, adult themes and racial slurs. Today, I will discussing both sides of the argument.

Anyone who has played a video game knows there is a commonality of violence throughout the genres and ratings, because of this there is the ongoing argument that the influence video game violence causes real life violence. In order to curb the growing aggression in today's youth many parents support the idea of regulating children’s access to the video games they blame with the government and lawmakers. However many would argue that games aren’t to blame and, in fact, can help children with social bonding and harmless venting. There really is no solid ruling to support either standing, but should there be laws around the video games accessible to children or should this stay a matter varied by individual opinions?

In the 90’s there was even enough media attention to video game violence that the United States Congress had a hearing on issuing age appropriate labels, much like in movies, to video games to warn parents of the contents of a game. Each of these matters have only helped further tarnish the reputation of video games, and draw worse misconceptions about them.

Videos were showing bloody dead bodies, but in order to make it pleasant to view the carnage of the attacks they censored the dead bodies. It is good that they censored those videos to protect people from viewing graphic pictures. It shields people from seeing what is morally wrong. To some people censorship is a way to protect from bad things.The government in countries wants to protect and control their people. They can decide what is morally wrong. Things that are censored are most commonly know as bad.One example of censorship being good is that many millionaires make money and they don't have to tell the rest of the people how they make their money.Censoring what is bad in the world can benefit. It.It can make the view of the world a little more peaceful.The main reason people have censored things is not to do harm it

Over the years, the popularity of computer and video games has grown. Specifically violent video games make up more than 50 % of the top selling games. These games include violent themes that involve guns, crime, blood, and gore. There is an ongoing belief that these types of games are to blame for the many acts of violence in society and have encouraged America’s youth to act out in aggression. Several organizations, such as the PTC (Parents Television Council) have moved to discourage the development of violent games while also pushing for stronger regulations when purchasing such games. There is also debate among parents and concerns on how games can negatively influence their children. So is there a direct link between video games and violence? The truth is video games do not encourage violence in society based on several factors which include scientific studies, statistics on crime, and prevention measures adopted by game publishers.

There are many things in violent video games which minors should not watch, for example sexuality. It is not something that the parents would want their teen or child to be looking at in a game. It is their responsibility to stop this from happening by looking at what they are getting for their child. they should not blindly buy what their child wants.