A Critical Miss: Video Games, Violence, and Ineffective Legislation

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2014-07-03 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2014.950496
Richard Dillio
{"title":"A Critical Miss: Video Games, Violence, and Ineffective Legislation","authors":"Richard Dillio","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2014.950496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the use of social scientific research and the role it played in determining the constitutionality of various video game laws that aimed to restrict the access of minors. Several major cases are examined, with particular attention paid to the courts’ responses to the type, amount, and validity of the social science research presented by various state legislatures as support for the game restrictions. These restrictions are usually centered on assertions that video game violence is harmful to children, as it can increase aggression and antisocial behavior. The paper concludes that the usage of social scientific research by legislatures to censor video games has been unpersuasive and a failure in almost every attempt. Possible causes for this failure are examined.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2014.950496","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2014.950496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

This paper examines the use of social scientific research and the role it played in determining the constitutionality of various video game laws that aimed to restrict the access of minors. Several major cases are examined, with particular attention paid to the courts’ responses to the type, amount, and validity of the social science research presented by various state legislatures as support for the game restrictions. These restrictions are usually centered on assertions that video game violence is harmful to children, as it can increase aggression and antisocial behavior. The paper concludes that the usage of social scientific research by legislatures to censor video games has been unpersuasive and a failure in almost every attempt. Possible causes for this failure are examined.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关键失误:电子游戏、暴力和无效立法
本文考察了社会科学研究的使用及其在确定旨在限制未成年人接触电子游戏的各种法律的合宪性方面所起的作用。研究了几个主要案例,特别关注法院对各州立法机构提出的支持游戏限制的社会科学研究的类型、数量和有效性的回应。这些限制通常集中在电子游戏暴力对儿童有害的断言上,因为它会增加攻击性和反社会行为。这篇论文的结论是,立法机构利用社会科学研究来审查电子游戏的做法缺乏说服力,几乎每次尝试都是失败的。检查此故障的可能原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1