The US Supreme Court this week struck down a California law that would have restricted children from buying violent video games. The majority concluded that, violent or not, the games are free speech.
But is that decision putting children at risk? We took a closer look in Tuesday's Facebook Story of the Day, chosen by KRCG viewers every morning.
Our Facebook fans commented heavily that it is the role of parents to decide what games are right for their children. Steven says: It's not a government issue but a parenting issue.
A leader in the entertainment industry agrees. Bo Anderson is the President and CEO of the Entertainment Merchants Association, "The government should not be deciding what content is good or not."
But some argue the games cross the line and should be regulated like other items, dangerous to children. Jeff asks on Facebook, "The government bans the sale of tobacco and alcohol to children, why not mental toxins too?"
James Steyer runs common Sense Media which rates the content of games and videos. He helped to craft the California law in 2005 which would have banned the sale to minors of games that depict "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a humane being."
"I think it's naïve to suggest video games are the same as a book," says Steyer. "I don't think they have the same impact. One is an interactive game where you can repeatedly do the act hundreds if not thousands of times."
New research by psychologists at the University of Missouri points the finger at the games for desensitizing children to violence, and for making kids more aggressive. MU Psychologist Bruce Bartholow says, "What we are showing in this experiment is that playing a violent video game, even for 25 minutes, has a significant effect to the brain's response to violence indicating a desensitization process." But the MU study was small, just 70 people.
The University's News bureau describes the research methods. During the study, 70 young adult participants were randomly assigned to play either a nonviolent or a violent video game for 25 minutes. Immediately afterwards, the researchers measured brain responses as participants viewed a series of neutral photos, such as a man on a bike, and violent photos, such as a man holding a gun in another man's mouth. Finally, participants competed against an opponent in a task that allowed them to give their opponent a controllable blast of loud noise. The level of noise blast the participants set for their opponent was the measure of aggression.
The researchers found that participants who played one of several popular violent games, such as "Call of Duty," "Hitman," "Killzone" and "Grand Theft Auto," set louder noise blasts for their opponents during the competitive task - that is, they were more aggressive - than participants who played a nonviolent game.
In addition, for participants that had not played many violent video games before completing the study, playing a violent game in the lab caused a reduced brain response to the photos of violence - an indicator of desensitization. Moreover, this reduced brain response predicted participants' aggression levels: the smaller the brain response to violent photos, the more aggressive participants were. Participants who had already spent a lot of time playing violent video games before the study showed small brain response to the violent photos, regardless of which type of game they played in the lab.
The MU researchers will not say violent video games are the primary source if youth violence in our society. They do believe the games contribute to aggressive behavior.
Previous research on the games was not enough to sway the high court. Five justices called research linking video games to increased violence in children "not compelling," and "indistinguishable from effects produced by other media" like books or Saturday morning cartoons.
TV Station Profiles & Public Inspection Files forKRCG