I was a "freedom of speech" lawyer during the mock trial in class this week. It was not an easy side for me to be on, because I didn't always agree with the points I was trying to make. For that reason, I am extremely glad that I was on this side. I had lots of opportunities to look critically at the research regarding violent video games. In the end, after looking at the research, I do have to agree with the "freedom of speech" side. I strongly believe in protecting not only my rights, but as a (fake) representative of the citizens of America, it is my (fake) job to protect their rights as well.
I do not feel that the evidence concerning violent video games is conclusive enough to ban the selling of violent games to minors. Even if I wouldn't allow my children to play excessively violent video games (which I do not intend to allow them in my home), I do not think it is right to take away someone's ability to judge for them self what is appropriate and right. I really have to ask, where are all of these heinous crimes that adolescents are committing as a result of video games that warrant the sale of violent video games to be banned? I did not hear about a SINGLE violent crime being committed by an adolescent who plays lots of violent video games. I think without indisputable evidence showing that violent crimes are being committed as a result of video games, they cannot be banned if we believe in upholding the constitution of the United Sates.
I think the real selling point for me was, where do we draw the line? So, if the government can ban the sale of violent video games to minors, what else can they justify in banning? Books on the holocaust? Harry Potter movies and books (violence and witchcraft- many people think Happy Potter is inappropriate for these reasons)? Greek Mythology contains lots of stories that are explicitly violent. I just don't see an end to what the government can ban if they can ban the sale of violent video games WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS CRIMES BEING COMMITTED as a result.
I would love to hear from the jury giving some insight in to how they came to their conclusion. I know this was just a MOCK trial, but I am shocked by the UNANIMOUS vote against the sale of violent video games to minors. I really thought with this media class being a 300 level class and all, that we would have learned how to think more critically and hopefully set aside our biases. If this was a real court hearing, the jury's decision would have set precedent for future trials. There is no end to what that decision could do. Please give me some insight!
I feel the same way. As much in my heart as I would like to have that law passed, it is simply unconstitutional. I think the witness I represented had a lot of good points in her paper that I hadn't thought about before. The other side mentioned how r-rated movies are restricted to teens, and now that I think of it...how do we know that isn't unconstitutional either? You did a great job "laywering" BTW!
ReplyDeleteTrust me, I completely let myself think critically. I was a member of the supreme court and we discussed in depth why we all thought this was the case. Aside from our previous opinions, we felt that the attorneys and witnesses made much stronger points for the protection of minors. We even thought that sometimes points made by freedom of speech were actually detrimental to their case. More persuading was the fact that it wouldn't ban video games, it would only place more of a protection on those video games because teens can still get them, they just have to go through their parents. Hopefully, that would help for more parental monitoring. I really did side with the freedom of speech a lot but it was just that I was more convinced by the protection of minors arguments. :)
ReplyDeleteI feel that this trial was very difficult because of the bias involved. I was on the protection for minors side and so I wanted to that side to win. I feel that it was easier for us to defend our side because we were more passionate about it because of our LDS beliefs even though it may not have been constitutional. So, after the trial I thought a lot through the trial and talked to my husband about it and I agree with your point about where would the government's control end if they monitored video games.
ReplyDelete