FlipBoard
Oh, brother, here we go again.
William Fourkiller (…wow, seriously?), an Oklahoma state representative, wants to slap violent video games with a 1% tax. You might remember that California ate pavement over this exact issue in front of the Supreme Court, so why does Fourkiller think he can get away with such a vague law?
Because the law would tax any game rated Teen, Mature, or Adults Only, which Fourkiller no doubt thinks gets him around the whole “vagueness” problem these laws have. “Tales of Symphonia” and “Guitar Hero” are making you a fat violent slob, people! We’d look up more modern games with a “Teen” rating, but considering Fourkiller based this law on “Bully”, he might still own a PS2.
Fourkiller, for his part, justifies it with the usual line: they desensitize gamers to violence (which has never been scientifically proven, and probably never will), that video games cause bullying (again, there’s no proof of this at all), and that video gaming makes kids fat, because parents are incapable of taking away the controller.
For the record, as a rule, it’s frowned on to tax something defined as free speech because the power to tax means you can, say, drive a newspaper you don’t like out of business. But don’t worry, Oklahoma’s lawmakers understand that. The “driving the newspapers out of business” part, because that’s exactly what another Oklahoma lawmaker is trying to do.
See you at the Supreme Court, guys.
[ via Wired ]
image courtesy Rep. Fourkiller
![[avatar]](https://profilecdn-woven.netdna-ssl.com/photo/569/profile)
Why is it that when I hear a news story like this, I can always imagine what the person in the press photo is going to look like before I read it.
Well, his name is Fourkiller. He’d better be a Richard Kiel-looking mofo with a name like Fourkiller.
Let me just preface this by saying I play all sorts of video games including violent ones and games with ratings from E to Mature. That said I am in my 30’s and can make my own decisions. Additionally I am a parent of 2 children and I am pretty strict about the media that they consume from movies or books to video games because I’d like them to get to remain kids as long as they can.
That said, I find it pretty ridiculous that anyone can argue that repeated exposure to violence does not desensitize someone to violence. It doesn’t take a scientific study but rather a quick introspective look to see the truth in that.
I can see it in myself for instance. Using something graphic but non-violent as an example the first time I saw tubgirl many years ago I was instantly filled with revulsion followed by laughter as my brain kicked into self defense mode. These days something like tubgirl is about as shocking as the back of a box of cheerios because over the years I have become completely desensitized to that type of thing after seeing or being pranked with it countless times over the years.
The same can be said for violence. When I first started watching Mixed Martial Arts back in the 90’s I was shocked by the violence but still intrigued by the sport and even stopped watching for awhile but I came back and now after years and years as a fan I am completely detached from any sort of shock value associated to the violence.
Granted I am not every person but I’d be willing to postulate that the average person goes through a similar process.
Has any of that made me a more violent person? NO! Not in the very least. As a matter of fact I’m far less violent now than I was in my teens and early 20’s when I was regularly getting into fights.
So in conclusion I don’t think that violent games or media necessarily lead someone to become violent but I do 100% believe they desensitize us to violence and that an already unstable person might potentially be pushed over the edge and/or lose their last barrier between them and some sort of violent outburst.
I’m not in favor of legislation controlling the content of games and would much rather see responsible parenting and perhaps even (GASP) a bit of restraint on the part of game developers. There’s a level of violence necessary for some types of games and then there’s a level of way over the top crazy violence and crime that I personally don’t feel adds anything to the story of a game. Having sex with and then murdering a hooker to get your money back in GTA for instance. It doesn’t add anything to the game of substance and is merely there to grab headlines and get more exposure.
Sorry I got off track a bit there in the end but that’s my 2 cents.
I would argue that there’s a difference between “shock value” towards fake violence and witnessing actual violence. On a gut level, we know game violence and movie violence is fake. Real violence is on a whole other level of magnitude.
Let the free market decide! Unless I decide differently!
Unfortunately, these are Democrats. Video game violence tends to be a Democratic hobby horse, for some reason. Joe Lieberman was big into clueless video game hate in the ’90s.
I agree with you to an extent, Dan. I think fake violence in video games and movies has a very muted impact compared to real violence or gore seen on the internet or in person but I personally believe there is still an impact. Once again though I don’t think that would make a normal person go shoot up a school.