Thoughts on the mock trial

I thought class today was really awesome. Both sides did a great job of presenting their sides and the supreme court justices asked really well thought out questions. A couple of points I thought were made really well.

Protection for minors
1. The research evidence is strong that video game violence can influnce aggression. The effects may be small, but they are pretty consistent, and do show harm to minors.
2. There have been high profile cases where individuals have played violent video games and then acted violently (like our resident Nutcase Gang fellow!)
3. PLAYING a video game is not free speech. Making one is, but playing one is something completely different.

Freedom of Speech
1. The research has focused on relatively minor acts of aggression (at least in an experimental context, like the word completion task)
2. There isn't enough research on the topic (especially longitudinal research) to warrant such an historic court decision
3. Video games ARE covered by freedom speech...yep, this conflicts with the above, but I thought both freedom of speech lawyers did a really good job, as did the lawyers associated with both of these witnesses!

I was a little surprised at the outcome: generally it falls to the protection of minors side, because honestly the freedom of speech lawyers typically aren't up to scratch (typically, I have to assign people to be on this side, but with this class I got lots of volunteers) But I thought both sides were excellent! I probably went a little harder on the protection of minors witnesses, simply because we ran out of time on the other side (though they had less time to present their case, so hopefully it evened out). Something I do think is just wrong from the freedom of speech side is that they say the research is completely wrong and unreliable. There are issues with doing research on video games, but many of this research is experimental and participants are assigned RANDOMLY to play a violent game or not - how can you say this is biased? This wasn't the fault of the witness who was playing this person - this is actually how they presented this argument in the real court case.

So what do I think? I hate violent video games and don't think children should have them. When we lived in England, there were LAWS about allowing underage children to purchase, rent, or go to a movie. And this wasn't just for the worst ratings (18), it was for movies rated 15, and 12. I worked at Blockbuster video during my PhD (one job that really motivated me to keep going to school!) and we had to watch a training video every 6 months reminding us of this fact, and that the store could get fined, and we could be fired if we rented to underage kids. One interesting note: I actually signed one of the briefs that went to the supreme court supporting that view that violent video games do influence aggressive behavior.

Saying that, I'm also convinced that the research isn't quite there yet.....We are getting close, but you guys were right: there are no longitudinal studies that cover more than a year. We just don't know the long-term effects yet. And there are no studies on real crime (though one that I know of may be coming out soon). In America, we are not so keen to BAN things without lots of proof that they are harmful. And while I would love for kids not to have access to violent video games (because let's face it, some of them are absolutely awful, and I think obscene as defined by the court), I might even feel uncomfortable making these types of decisions without long-term research to back it up.

What this all shows is that this debate will likely go on for a very long time. This summer I went to a conference where some of the main players who wrote some of the briefs and were talked about in court (Bushman, Anderson, Gentile), actually talked about the trial. It was fascinating. And even in this group, views were mixed, with some feeling strongly that the supreme court messesd up royally, others felt they made the right decision. Regardless, it was a fascinating case, and I hope you enjoyed reinacting it!

I've decided to give you an opportunity for extra credit associated with this trial. You can get 5 points extra credit if you listen to the supreme court case conversation regarding this case and then write a 1-2 page paper with your thoughts on the recording, how you felt the real lawyers did, whether you feel like the Supreme Court made the right decision, and your thoughts on OUR trial. The recording is just 1 hour and is fascinating!

Here is the link:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=08-1448

I hope you take the opportunity to do this! They don't give their actual decision on the recording, so you'll have to read about that on the web (just google it, it was all over the news at the time....no recording of that to my knowledge).  I'd love to hear your thoughts on the actual Supreme Court Case!!!