Slashdot Mirror
What Came First, the Violence or the Videogame?
An anonymous reader writes "Another wave of video-game-violence panic is upon us. The pressed suits who read the pop news on television are wagging their so-called neutral fingers at an industry they have never understood. Planet Xbox 360 considers the many games they have played and the real-life murderers they have known in their own lives, and how little the talking heads know about either."
Before videogames, there was violence.
In the 60's, they blamed it on the rock 'n' roll.
In the 50's, they blamed it on Elvis' hips.
As far back as history records, there has been violence. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is just grabbing for straws that aren't there.
So, if studies consistently showed a mirror neuron response while playing shooters, would we not be obliged to take violent games off the shelf...?
No, we wouldn't. It undermines several principals of our government. The first is liberty. You might note boxing is not illegal. Watching boxing is a lot more likely to stimulate that part of the brain than video games are. Participating in boxing has been statistically shown to correlate with violent crime and sexual assault. It doesn't matter. We have free will and are responsible for what we do. Does red meat increase testosterone and increase the likelihood of violence? If so should we ban it? Meat in general? All sports? Walking into high oxygen areas in lower altitudes? Not taking hormone suppressants and sedatives to keep us passive and nonviolent?
It is not the government's job to take measures to force individuals to not take any action that might increase their chances of commiting crimes by running their lives for them. Arguably it is the job of parents to do that for their children, but never the government.
It's called personal responsibility.