In this essay I will be looking at the issue of whether or not violent video games (VVGs) are harmful to society. Video games are electronic games played across a variety of different platforms like computers and smart phones. Some research questions I will consider are, ‘What makes video games violent?’, ‘If VVGs are harmful, to what extent are they harmful?’ and ‘Should VVGs face more or less rigorous regulations?’ One of my assumptions is that it is difficult to control variables in order to, with validity, link VVGs effects with harm to society. Another assumption is that the studies into VVGs will primarily focus on any negative influences rather than any positives.

I will argue that because of how widespread and deep rooted in pop culture VVGs have become, society will inevitably be affected in some way, and therefore some regulation should be strongly considered. Furthermore, we should cautiously approach regulating VVGs as this topic is known to be sensitive to conflicting parties such as parents and children. However, there is a large range of uncontrolled factors in many of the published research studies on VVGs, and it is difficult to generalise many of their conclusions, as harmful to society. Therefore I will argue for the importance of understanding context when we examine VVGs and their effects. My aim in this essay is to highlight some complexities of the arguments surrounding VVGs and attempt to give a broader picture, and educate against the polarising views of hostility and dismissal often shown towards these games.

Are violent video games (VVGs) harmful to society?

My research will be conducted by reading academic books and eBooks, then looking in further detail at some of the studies and journal articles referenced in the introductory texts. I will also look at reputable news and gaming websites for relevant data regarding video games. The studies and games I will look at will be approximately over the past 15 years. To the best of my knowledge, there are no ethical concerns about my proposed methodology.

Part one will introduce the scope of the issue surrounding VVGs. I will be describing the general market for video games and particularly for VVGs. I will also be showing why the question of VVGs in relation to societal harm is a complex one. Part two will draw from case studies and research data in relation to possible issues of harm to society. I will be making arguments for and against freedom of expression across these issues whilst applying John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle and Joel Feinberg’s Offence Principle where relevant. The final part will consider the possible ways society might handle VVGs. I will suggest possible methods to counter the negative effects and/or encourage the positive effects of VVGs such as regulation and education.

Part 1: The Complex Issue

The Video Game Market

From the earliest video games that were around since the 1960s¹, it is no secret that the video game market has become a titan of industry and is ingrained in modern pop culture. One source claims that in 2011, the PC game market grossed $18.6 billion worldwide and in the United States alone, video game sales totalled $14.8 billion². Other sources claim that in 2014, video game sales across a variety of different platforms reached $64.9 billion in revenue worldwide and to put this into some context, filmed entertainment reached around $90 billion³. One issue about these statistics is that they are not necessarily representative of the actual number of game copies owned as the problem of piracy is still significant, especially for PC games⁴.

Sources from 2008 have claimed that 97% of twelve to seventeen year olds and 90% of eight to sixteen year olds in the United States play video games.

Furthermore, there are many types of free online games for the PC which are also not represented in the sales statistics⁵. This highlights one problematic issue concerning the topic at hand, that is, video game accessibility is unclear so it is also unclear as to how extensively they influence society. Some sources report that 65% of United States households play video games, the average player being thirty-five years old⁶. Other sources from 2008 have claimed that 97% of twelve to seventeen year olds and 90% of eight to sixteen year olds in the United States play video games⁷. Notably the target audience of video games in 2007 were principally for men aged eighteen to twenty-five⁸. However it is safe to think that the actual audience is different and constantly changing as new platforms and technologies shift in and out of prevalence. Therefore it is likely that members of society are being exposed to video games more so than it is deemed on paper.

Video Game Violence

The complex issue of VVGs and harm to society might start with establishing the meaning of ‘violence’ in video games which is a contested topic on its own. Analyses can show that up to 89% of video games contain violent content if violence is classified as ‘when the player can harm other characters in the game’⁹. Another classification of violence might be the intentional use of force to harm a human or animal that results in physical, psychological, fatal or nonfatal injury¹⁰. From these two classifications it can be seen already, that one might condemn destroying a machine enemy as violent whereas the other would not. To further complicate this issue, the classification of violence from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (well known for rating thousands of games in the United States), condemns scenes that involve aggressive conflict which may contain bloodless dismemberment¹¹. I will return to the problem of aggression in relation to violence later but first I would like to introduce the idea of a ‘spectrum of violence’ that often goes unaccounted for in many research studies of violence in video games.

There are two general stances that can be taken when measuring types of risks linked to VVGs¹². That is, the ‘Active Media perspective’ which treats the players of VVGs as influenced, passive recipients; and the ‘Active User perspective’ that emphasises the player as an active interpreter of VVGs. Both stances have different strengths and weakness, for example, the Active Media perspective focuses on measuring VVG effects on players, often conducted through laboratory experiments and collecting quantitative data¹³. This allows researchers to collect vast amounts of quantifiable data with a relatively high control of variables which helps establish a more valid direction of causality between VVGs and their effects on players.

Video games like Ryse: Son of Rome are steeped in violence and barbaric activity. Image credit: Crytek GmbH

However, laboratory experiments often sacrifice the realistic environment of playing VVGs, such as playing in the comfort of one’s home. This diminishes the real world applicability of studies since confounding variables might affect the measured outcome but could not be controlled for in the laboratory¹⁴. Contrastingly, the qualitative and subjectivist nature of the Active User perspective makes it difficult to generalise their results, and moreover, it is difficult to retest conclusions as the results will inevitably vary as these studies tend to focus on player differences¹⁵. Although this is not an exhaustive critique of the stances, I hope to show it is difficult to objectively determine violence in both quantitative and qualitative terms because of the different contexts in which violent acts can occur. In one research study into violent content in E-rated games (games for everyone), Kimberly Thompson and Kevin Haninger defined violence as ‘acts in which the aggressor causes or attempts to cause physical injury or death to another character’.

However, they did not include incidents where actions may have caused accidental injury to other characters. They broadly define ‘characters’, which includes personified objects that attacked either the player or other characters. They did not consider any routine acts of violence that represented normal play in sports games such as tackling in football, because the intent of the action is to stop the other player without intending physical injury¹⁶. The issue is that this method quantitatively misrepresents intentions to cause injury by ignoring a certain category of possible violent acts. Although tackling in football is not primarily intending to cause injury, it very well can be. A player can intentionally attempt to injure the opposition’s characters and it might cause them to lose but it is easy to adopt this style of play. Thus quantitatively misrepresented, seemingly innocent sports games have the capacity to act as a canvas for violent acts and this extends to other genres of games, depending on their content.

Innocent sports game or a canvas for violent acts? Image credit: EA Canada/ EA Sports

In a qualitative sense, it is difficult to separate different types of violent acts within games because they intend to express different things to the player in different ways. Similar to the example above, in the E-rated game FIFA 16¹⁷, it is possible to go around attempting to injure footballers which is not in the spirit of the game. Now compare it to another E-rated game, Gran Turismo 6¹⁸, a relatively realistic car racing simulator. This game rewards players for using legitimate racing strategies to win and earn credits to buy cars and upgrades. Unsurprisingly, crashing into opponents offers no points and often reduces speed which leads to worse finishing positions in races. However even though there are no graphic depictions of the real world consequences, the player is still free to crash into opponents at high speed if they wish to.

Therefore, although the genres of sport and racing games are different, in the spectrum of violence they can parallel similarly. The issue becomes more apparent when we try to compare the extent of violence in such examples. Is one more violent than the other? Does the freedom to intentionally injure others in a football match constitute more violence than high speed crashing in a racing simulator? Should the relatability of a football match, something most people can participate in, make the former more violent? But should we not also then consider that the real world consequences of intentionally crashing into other cars at high speed are far more severe, in and out of the racing track? With this in mind, I have not even introduced discussions on Teen-rated or Mature-rated video games, where the spectrum of violence is much wider as the player is often given greater freedoms to conduct an expanded range of violent acts. When discussions focus on video games that contain more violence, the horizon of contexts in which a player can commit violence also widens which I hope sheds some light onto how complex this issue can become.

Part 2: From Violence to Harm

Violence and Aggression as Harm to Society

In order to determine whether or not VVGs are harmful to society, it is necessary to determine what is harmful to society and then to establish whether or not there is a link between violent video game content and the determined harm. For now, since we are considering harm on a societal level, a broad definition might be: ‘acts that produce consequences that go against the interests of society’. The nature of these societal interests are also a topic for discussion but one societal interest might be to increase public safety and as a means to an end, reduce rates of violent crime such as murder. Thus we might measure harm through observing relationships between violent video game content and violent crime in society.

In order to measure harm to society, we might first attempt to measure violent video game content, for example, by using a scale of intensity where 3 is ‘high’ and 0 is ‘absent’ violence¹⁹. A study like this would fall under the Active Media perspective as it attempts to quantitatively establish some measurement of violence in video games. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Active Media studies have dominated the published research into VVGs and their effects on people over the past thirty-five years²⁰. I noticed during my research that many of these studies focus on measuring aggression rather than explicitly violence. One of the reasons for this might be because ‘aggression is an observable behaviour’ and that not all acts of aggression can be considered violent²¹. Thus instead of generalising intensities of violent content, in video games, as direct causes to violence and therefore harm (which some researchers have done²²), measuring aggression might allow for a more flexible determinant of causality.

Grand Theft Auto V has been voted as one of the most violent online games due to its heavy content of graphic violence and criminal activity. Image credit: Rockstar Games

However, as with the earlier issue of violence, this depends on how we define and measure aggression. The inconsistent use of aggression in relation to violence and harm has caused much conflict across studies which makes it unclear as to which direction we should pursue research²³. Although I will not expand on the details of aggression here, I think it is important to be aware that the different classifications of aggression, which can be both extensive²⁴ as well as simplistic²⁵, will also affect the implications and conclusions of research in relation to societal harm.

An illustration of this issue can be seen in Craig Anderson and Karen Dill’s (2000) studies into the effects of video game violence and aggression. They found that increased exposure to VVGs, in adolescents, caused increased short term and long term aggressive behaviour, and was positively correlated to the likelihood of being involved in delinquent activities. Furthermore, they found that exposure to high intensity, ‘graphic’ VVGs greatly increased aggressive behaviour relative to low intensity VVGs²⁶. The overall conclusion could be made that increasing the duration and intensity of VVG exposure causes an increase in aggressive behaviour as well as the chance to be involved in criminal activity. Therefore this might be used to form a causal relationship between VVGs and harm to society.

However, conflicting studies such as Douglas Gentile et al. (2004), have shown that by considering more variables, the causal relationship is not so straightforward. It seems that by attempting to measure the extent of effects VVGs have (as compared to merely establishing a relation), other variables beyond exposure to VVGs significantly contribute to aggressive behaviour such as parental involvement²⁷. This is not a suggestion to disregard the former research conclusions but to instead be aware of the scope of possible variables and contexts we should consider when we analyse the extent of harm VVGs may commit to society.

Violent Video Games and…

The Freedom of Expression

In 2005, the California State Legislature passed a law that imposed civil fines of up to $1000 if a person sold or rented a VVG to somebody under 18 years old (minors), excluding specified relatives and legal guardians. According to the law, a violent video game was distinguished by a player’s ability to conduct acts on an image of a human being such as killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting, on top of a variety of other conditions. The reasoning behind this was to prevent the negative products of VVG exposure to minors; that is, VVGs causing minors to exhibit more violent, antisocial or aggressive behaviour as well as to suffer from psychological harm²⁸. In 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that this legislation violated the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. With a majority opinion contesting several points of the California law, the Supreme Court concluded that VVGs were protected expression under the First Amendment²⁹. Furthermore, there was an overwhelming number of supplementary amici curiae briefs supporting such a decision as compared to the relatively few supporting the state of California³⁰. However, some sources have suggested that the briefs supporting California had greater academic credibility in relevance to VVGs and their harmful effects on children³¹. In consideration of these debatable views, I will look at certain points of discussion regarding VVGs and the freedom of expression.

Self-Harm

In chapter 1 of On Liberty, Mill argues that self-regarding actions should not face any interference if they only affect the actor ‘directly, and in the first instance’³². In chapter 4, Mill writes about the extents of ‘self-regarding qualities or deficiencies’³³, although here we can call them self-harm actions. Mill notes that ‘no person is an entirely isolated being’³⁴, and if the actions do not harm others directly but only through the actor, then those self-harms should not face interference. From this we might say Mill would not restrict VVGs solely on players neglecting responsibilities and harming their real world interests such as missing meals and being unhealthy. However, Mill points to an exception where interference is warranted (among a few others) and that is if an action ‘causes grief to his family by addiction to bad habits’³⁵.

Blue Whale is said to be banned by Saudi Arabia after the death of a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year-old-girl who allegedly killed themselves after taking the Blue Whale Challenge. The game essentially sets out a series of challenging and mostly self-harming tasks to the players ending with a final mission for the players to commit suicide in order to complete all the challenges successfully. Image credit: wonderfulengineering.com

Parents of VVG players might often be worried about the exposure to violence in such pastimes which might constitute as grief, although another cause of familial grief might be in the form of video game addiction. There are studies that attempt to show VVGs as a cause for addictive behaviour³⁶ as well as others that attempt to show the negative effects of video game addiction³⁷, however, we should note that the violent content of the video games might not be the predominant cause of addiction. It might be a contributing factor but there is inconclusive evidence that the violent content directly causes addiction and thus grief³⁸. If we say that violent content causes addiction and familial grief, on a principle level the context of analysis is important. For example, if we apply the Harm Principle to situations where players are addicted to VVGs and cause their families grief, those players should face some restrictions on their ability to play VVGs to the extent where they no longer cause familial grief. Similarly, if players do not cause familial grief, even though they may be addicted, the self-harm of excessive play should not face interference as long as they do not directly harm others.

Harm to Others

In looking at whether VVGs cause harm to others, we should distinguish them from weapons that are intended to cause harm such as guns, and instead regard them as possible tools for harm by their capacity to increase violent behaviour. In cases where the violent content of the video game causes harm to others, through the actions of players, we should consider restrictions based on the extent of violent content exposed to players. Although, as I also mentioned earlier, violent content may take different forms depending on the player it is exposed to. This means one game can affect two players in completely different ways. For example, it is possible for one player to become desensitised to violent content and thus have stronger ‘proviolence attitudes’ as well as lower empathy³⁹, which may lead to reduced prosocial behaviour towards people who face harmful situations. Alternatively it is possible for another player to use the violent content as a vehicle to relieve anger, frustration or stress⁴⁰ which may lead to the absorption of harmful acts by the VVG and thus less overall harm is committed to others in society.

As a utilitarian, Mill appeals to the greater good⁴¹ in relation to the Harm Principle which means harm is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for enforcing restrictions of VVGs. Taking from the above examples; if the good to society by absorption of harmful acts outweighs the bad to society by reduced prosocial behaviour, then the Harm Principle would argue against restricting VVGs on a societal level. However, we might still place restrictions on VVGs in individual cases where the violent content causes harm that outweighs the good gained from play. One might argue that reduced prosocial behaviour should not count as an act of harm to others, however Mill writes that ‘a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury’⁴². Therefore the Harm Principle would apply to the omission of acts that may reduce harm to society and thus, VVGs that may cause such omissions might warrant some restrictions.

Instigation

Mill accepted that opinions should generally have greater freedoms than actions and since VVGs are just opinions expressed in a certain way, they do not count as actions. However in chapter 3 of On Liberty, Mill points out an exception to the freedom of expression where opinions ‘lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act’⁴³. Mill illustrates this restriction on instigation with the corn-dealer example which shows that expressions should not be restricted on content alone but that contexts of expressions should also be taken into account. If we consider this rule for VVGs, there might be some VVGs that instigate similar to the corn-dealer example, but that would be taking the story and background of characters into account. However, considering violent content alone, if there is no narrative or conveyed message, then I find it quite hard to see the possibility of any instigation of harm. Therefore on violent content alone, VVGs should not face restrictions on the basis of instigation.

Offence

In looking at whether or not VVGs are offensive, in applying Feinberg’s Offence Principle, we should distinguish between the states of ‘mere nuisance’ offences caused by inconveniences⁴⁴, and ‘profound’ offences caused by wrongful (right-violating) conduct of others⁴⁵. In the Offence Principle, a mere nuisance offence is ‘not yet sufficient to warrant legal interference’⁴⁶, so even if VVGs cause these nuisance offences, which I believe that they often do, they still should not face restrictions. The more complex point of analysis is on profound offences, where VVGs would have to meet three standards in order to be considered profoundly offensive. That is, ‘the extent of offensive’, ‘the reasonable avoid-ability’ and the ‘Volenti’ standards⁴⁷.

The criteria for VVGs to be considered profoundly offensive is much more rigorous which creates this complexity. For example, many video games with high levels of violent content might fulfil the extent of offensive standard but since players choose to play the game, they can also choose to not play it, so by the other two standards, the VVGs would not be profoundly offensive and would not warrant restrictions, at least from retailer to player. However, in the emphasis of contextual importance, consider a parent who is extremely offended at the violent content of a video game but the player (their child) can only play in a communal area of the house. We might then say the reasonable avoid-ability standard is fulfilled but argue that the parent volunteers to the offence by purchasing the game for their child, so the Volenti standard remains unmet and the VVG would not be profoundly offensive. Now consider if the VVG was a gift from their child’s uncle and then we might argue the Volenti standard is met and the VVG becomes profoundly offensive if all these contexts occur simultaneously. In such a case I believe some restrictions would be warranted and this is a demonstration of how the delicate contexts surrounding VVGs can make restrictions warranted or unwarranted.

Part 3: Reducing Harm to Society

I believe the harms to society caused by VVGs are mainly channelled through people’s emotional state, whether it is familial grief, lower empathy, or being profoundly offended. Before addressing any specific topic of reducing harm by VVGs, I think it is important to stress that everybody makes mistakes and has done something they regret. Sometimes when we do not think clearly, we can harm others against the kinder nature of ourselves. In such inevitable situations, limiting the tools to cause harm to others is very important. An angry child with a gun can cause much more harm than an angry adult without one. Therefore limiting the accessibility of harmful weapons reduces the risks of unfortunate harms to society⁴⁸.

Regulation and Restriction

We might regard rating guides like the ones from the Entertainment Software Rating Board as a form of regulation in themselves. A 2004 journal article showed that 53% of 143 7^th to 12^th grade students claimed that their parents ‘never’ checked the ratings for video games that were bought or rented and only 15% of parents ‘always’ or ‘often’ checked ratings⁴⁹. Although we must be aware of bias claims as these were self-reports made by adolescents, it can nevertheless show that in the past, some (albeit sparse) enforcement and awareness of the rating guides were present. In contrast, a 2016 survey showed that 73% of parents ‘regularly check a game’s rating before making a purchase’ and furthermore, in 2013, ‘87% of individuals under the age of 17 were turned away when trying to purchase or rent Mature-rated games’⁵⁰.

Thus it appears that the rating guides have an observable effect on the exposure of VVGs to society on some level. I believe this approach to self-regulating exposure to VVGs by parents is a healthy alternative compared to governmental interference. Members of society should be allowed extensive freedom to choose the content they wish to consume. The positive and negative effects of VVGs are inevitable but I believe we should be more focused on prompting the utilisation of reputable rating guides so that society is better informed about what type of content they will be exposed to. This will allow people to make informed decisions that best suits their personal contexts, to which we are often ignorant.

However, in the minority cases where a VVG would cause great extents of harm to society, for example, fulfilling all the examined criteria simultaneously, then I would say governmental restrictions like banning the game would be more warranted. Although I am usually not an advocate of banning controversial expressions, in such cases, the harms to society might be so great and outweigh the possible goods, that banning the game might be in the greater interest of society.

Education

I think it is important to educate both VVG players and their contesters, and while I hope that education can reduce the potential negatives of VVGs I also hope that it can preserve the potential positives. I believe players will less likely cause harm if they are aware of the extent of their actions on a physical and emotional level.

One form of education might be helping young children understand that VVGs are set in worlds of fiction and their rules often should not be applied in reality. Some developmental psychology studies suggest they can have trouble with this⁵¹. This kind of education might also apply to older players who have become desensitised to high intensities of violence⁵². Real world actions have much larger ripples of effects and harms cannot just be erased with a press of a button. Sentient life in the real world cannot respawn after death at a moment’s notice unlike in a virtual world.

Another form of education might be to show, by example, compassion and building empathy towards others. It appears that VVGs might have negative effects on players and if that is the case, we should try to combat those effects rather than the players themselves. As it stands, the market for video games, including violent ones, continues to grow and they are a core part of life for many people. If we give people a strong foundation of compassionate and empathetic values, then on one hand, the potential harm to society from violent content will be diluted with greater success. On the other hand, it might mean VVG contesters will try to better understand why people play VVGs to such extents, rather than condemn their pastime as an absolute or potential threat to society.

Conclusion

I have attempted to show that VVGs have observable effects on society but whether they are harmful depends on the lens of observation we use. I have highlighted some of the difficulties in research studies such as being unable to rigorously control variables whilst maintaining real world applicability, which makes it difficult to assert that VVGs categorically harm society. Other research issues included conflicting classifications of terms like ‘violence’ and ‘aggression’. Furthermore, I introduced the idea of a ‘spectrum of violence’ which attempts to show some difficulties in measuring quantitative and qualitative evaluations of violence against standardised classifications. Thus I have emphasised the importance of understanding context in evaluating the harmful effects of VVGs.

I believe many of the studies I found either attempted to show a negative effect of VVGs or that there was no effect, with little focus being put on any positive effects. In my analysis of potential VVG harms in relation to freedom of expression, I have highlighted some positive and negative possibilities which show some contexts in which VVGs might face restrictions due to harm. I believe that in the majority of cases, the methods we use to combat the potential harms to society should be pragmatic regulations and education against ignorant perspectives.

I believe it is important to gain a greater understanding of why players play VVGs, for both players and their contesters. On the player’s side, this is to generate a self-awareness so that they do not get too absorbed into the game and transfer some harm into the real world. On the contesters side, this is to generate an understanding of player needs which are often complex as players can play the same VVG for different reasons. Some might play for catharsis whereas others might play for mastery and challenge over a game. It is important not to condemn VVGs as a gateway to delinquency just because they seem realistic and contain, what would be in the real world, excessive amounts of violence. Therefore I believe it is important for both parties to be able to distinguish the contextual reasons for playing VVGs as this would be the first step in resolving these conflicting perspectives.

Footnotes

1. S. L. Kent, The ultimate history of video games (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001), 17-20.
2. D. Grossman & G. DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill: a call to action against TV, movie and video game violence (New York: Harmony Books, 2014), 72.
3. S. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, J. Smith & S. Tosca, Understanding video games [eBook] (Taylor and Francis, 2015), 27.
4. I. Birnbaum, The state of piracy in 2016 (2016). Available online: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-state-of-pc-piracy-in-2016/ [Accessed 17/4/2017].
5. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Understanding video games, 28.
6. Ibid, 204.
7. Grossman & DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill, 73.
8. L. Kutner & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood: the surprising truth about violent video games and what parents can do (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008), 183.
9. D. A. Gentile & C. A. Anderson, Violent video games: the newest media violence hazard (Westport: Praeger, 2003). Available online: http://drdouglas.org/drdpdfs/106027_07.pdf [Accessed 17/4/2017], 2-3.
10. Grossman & DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill, 167.
11. Entertainment Software Rating Board, ESRB ratings guide (2017). http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.aspx [Accessed 17/4/2017].
12. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Understanding video games, 312-313.
13. Ibid, 315-16.
14. Ibid, 326-329.
15. Ibid, 336.
16. K. Thompson & K. Haninger, ‘Violence in E-rated video games’. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 5 (2001), 591-598.
17. EA Canada, FIFA 16 [Video Game]. (EA Sports, 2015).
18. Polyphony Digital, Gran Turismo 6 [Video Game]. (Sony Computer Entertainment, 2013).
19. L. Kutner & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood, 87.
20. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Understanding video games, 313.
21. J. J. Allen & C. A. Anderson, General aggression model (2016). Available online: https://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2015-2019/17AA.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017], 2-3.
22. L. Kutner & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood, 73.
23. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Understanding video games, 328.
24. L. Kutner & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood, 73.
25. R. G. Geen, Human aggression: second edition (Philadelphia, Open University Press, 2001). Available online:https://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204716.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017], 13.
26. C. A. Anderson & K. E. Dill, Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviour in the laboratory and in life (2000). Available online: http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/2357/mod_resource/content/2/optional_AndersonDill_Video%20Games%20and%20Aggressive%20Thoughts.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017].
27. D. A. Gentile, D. A. Walsh, P. R. Ellison, M. Fox & J. Cameron, Media violence as a risk factor for children: a longitudinal study (2004). Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6052/4784ea152bd95b596827744d5e04f3f3fe7b.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017].
28. California Legislative Information, AB-1179 Violent video games: sales to minors (2005). Available online:http://mediacoalition.org/files/Brown_EMA_California_AB1179.pdf [Accessed 21/4/2017].
29. Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) 564 U.S., 1.
30. The Media Coalition, Brown v. entertainment merchants association (2017). Available online: http://mediacoalition.org/brown-v-ema/ [Accessed 21/4/2017].
31. Grossman & DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill, 162.
32. J. S. Mill, On liberty [Ebook] (Cambridge: Penguin Classics, 2011).
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Grossman & DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill, 81-90.
37. L. S. Pagani, C. Fitzpatrick, T. A. Barnett & E. Dubow, ‘Prospective associations between early childhood exposure and academic, psychosocial, and physical well-being by middle childhood’, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 5 (2010), 425-431.
38. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Understanding video games, 338-340.
39. J. B. Funk et al. ‘Violence exposure in real life, video games, television, movies and the internet: is there desensitization?’ Journal of Adolescence, 27, (2004), 23-39.
40. L. Kutner & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood, 135-136.
41. J. S. Mill, On liberty.
42. Ibid.
43. Ibid.
44. J. Feinberg, Offense to others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 1.
45. Ibid, 2-6.
46. Ibid, 7.
47. R. Cohen-Almagor, Speech, media and ethics [eBook] (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 9-10.
48. L. Kutner & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood, 228.
49. D. A. Gentile et al. ‘The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance’. Journal of Adolescence, 27, (2004), 5-22.
50. Entertainment Software Rating Board, Consumer research (2017). Available online: https://www.esrb.org/about/awareness.aspx [Accessed 22/4/2017].
51. Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Understanding video games, 337.
52. Grossman & DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill, 96-100.

Bibliography

• Anderson, C. A. & K. E. Dill, Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviour in the laboratory and in life. 2000. Available online: http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/pluginfile.php/2357/mod_resource/content/2/optional_AndersonDill_Video%20Games%20and%20Aggressive%20Thoughts.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017].
• Allen, J. J. & C. A. Anderson, General aggression model, 2016. Available online: https://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2015-2019/17AA.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017]
• Birnbaum, I., The state of piracy in 2016, 2016. Available online: http://www.pcgamer.com/the-state-of-pc-piracy-in-2016/ [Accessed 17/4/2017].
• Brown v Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) 564 U.S., 1.
• California Legislative Information, AB-1179 Violent video games: sales to minors, 2005. Available online: http://mediacoalition.org/files/Brown_EMA_California_AB1179.pdf [Accessed 21/4/2017].
• Cohen-Almagor, R., Speech, media and ethics [eBook]. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.
• EA Canada, FIFA 16 [Video Game]. EA Sports, 2015.
• Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S., J. Smith & S. Tosca, Understanding video games [eBook]. Taylor and Francis, 2015.
• Entertainment Software Rating Board, Consumer research, 2017. Available online: https://www.esrb.org/about/awareness.aspx [Accessed 22/4/2017].
• Entertainment Software Rating Board, ESRB ratings guide, 2017. http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.aspx [Accessed 17/4/2017].
• Feinberg, J., Offense to others. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.
• Funk, J. B., H. B. Baldacci, T. Pasold. & J. Baumgardner, ‘Violence exposure in real life, video games, television, movies and the internet: is there desensitization?’ Journal of Adolescence, 27, (2004), 23-39.
• Geen, R. G., Human aggression: second edition. Philadelphia, Open University Press, 2001. Available online: https://www.mheducation.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204716.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017].
• Gentile, D. A., & C. A. Anderson, Violent video games: the newest media violence hazard. Westport: Praeger, 2003. Available online: http://drdouglas.org/drdpdfs/106027_07.pdf [Accessed 17/4/2017].
• Gentile, D. A., P. J. Lynch, J. R. Linder & D. A. Walsh, ‘The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance’. Journal of Adolescence, 27, (2004), 5-22.
• Gentile, D. A., D. A. Walsh, P. R. Ellison, M. Fox & J. Cameron, Media violence as a risk factor for children: a longitudinal study. 2004. Available online: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6052/4784ea152bd95b596827744d5e04f3f3fe7b.pdf [Accessed 19/4/2017]
• Grossman, D. & G. DeGaetano, Stop teaching our kids to kill: a call to action against TV, movie and video game violence, New York: Harmony Books, 2014.
• Kent, S. L., The ultimate history of video games, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2001.
• Kutner, L. & C. K. Olson, Grand theft childhood: the surprising truth about violent video games and what parents can do, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008.
• Mill, J. S., On liberty [Ebook] Cambridge: Penguin Classics, 2011.
• Pagani, L. S., C. Fitzpatrick, T. A. Barnett & E. Dubow, ‘Prospective associations between early childhood exposure and academic, psychosocial, and physical well-being by middle childhood’, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 164, 5 (2010), 425-431.
• Polyphony Digital, Gran Turismo 6 [Video Game]. Sony Computer Entertainment, 2013.
• The Media Coalition, Brown v. entertainment merchants association. 2017. Available online: http://mediacoalition.org/brown-v-ema/ [Accessed 21/4/2017].
• Thompson, K. & K. Haninger, ‘Violence in E-rated video games’. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 5 (2001), 591-598.

For more interesting information:

• Is Ethical Vegetarianism Consistent with Eating Artificial, Laboratory-Grown Meat?
• Is There Any Such Thing As “Vermin”?
• Should We Delete Our Facebook Accounts?
• A More Buddhist Facebook?
• Asians are most prolific online shoppers: research
• Twitter Is Stepping Up Its War Against Online Abuse
• Be careful of what you post online
• Social Media Rudeness Will Not Be Tolerated in Malaysia!
• Xyla was threatened and Twitter still stayed quiet
• Victory over Online Hate
• Facebook leaked keys to account data: Symantec
• Why so rude?
• Why Hide and Attack A Monk?

Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:

If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team