How does SCOTUS define violence?

Will violent videos become the “new obscenity” under the First Amendment?

“What Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games”, Justice Alito said.

“No” Justice Scalia responded. “I want to know what James Madison thought about violence.”

This was but one exchange during recent oral argument in Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association. The case arose after California enacted a law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 (See Geoff Stone’s take here). California argued that since the Supreme Court permits states to restrict the sale of explicit sexual material to minors under the 1968 decision of Ginsburg vs. New York, states could restrict sales to minors of video games depicting extreme violence. Thus, state was asking the Court to expand the “obscenity exception” to this type of video. Under the act, parents could purchase these games.

During a lively argument a number of basic themes emerged. How is “violence” to be defined? What kind of violence would be “too much” violence. Justice Scalia asked, “What’s a deviant violent video game? As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?” Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy joined Justice Scalia in pointing out that many classic stories regularly read to children contain violence – such as Grimm’s fairytales. Justice Scalia also observed that nothing in the established law allows the government to ban depictions of violence, alluding to a recent decision which struck down a prohibition against showing acts of animal cruelty by a vote of 8 to 1.

Counsel for the Merchants Association, Paul Smith was aggressively questioned by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Breyer. Smith argued that existing solutions were capable of handling the situations. References were made to the system used to rate movies. The ultimate decision under these systems was left to the parents to decide what their child would see or not see. Those three justices did not seem to feel that that was an adequate solution.

So, where do you stand?

How should “violence” in a video game be defined?

How should “too much violence” be defined?

Should the Supreme Court expand what expressions are not protected by the First Amendment to include violence video games?

Should parents be responsible for deciding which video games their children play?

If not parents, then who?

Let us hear from you.




  1. Warren says

    My stand on the video game violence is that it is up to the parents if the kids are under the age of 18 on what video games they can and can not play just as with movies parents have the power to decide which movies they can and can’t watch it’s the same concept. Violence in video games is defined as how much death, fighting, shooting, blood and gore are in the gameplay. Too much violence can’t really be defined as anything because varies from person to person. To one person “too much” violence could be shooting someone in the head during the game as to someone else it would be an accomplishment. I don’t think that the Supreme Court should do anything about violent video games because video game designers know that there is a line you can’t pass because there will always be kids playing those games that are considered to contain “too much” violence without parent permission. Like I mentioned earlier that I do believe that parents should be the ones that decide what and what not the kids can play.

  2. keerthyj says

    I agree with Warren’s response that parents should take on the responsibility of determining what video games are appropriate for their children to play, because the idea of “too much” violence in video games is very vague and what one individual considers as very violent may be considered as being just slightly violent by another individual. As Justice Scalia implied from his questions, we can’t even distinguish between what is a “deviant violent video game” and what is a “normal violent video game.” Constantly playing and being exposed to violence in video games do have the potential to have harmful psychological effects on children and as many psychologists are stating, lack of empathy – a possible consequence of playing violent video games – may increase the possibility of children engaging in aggressive behavior. However, the truth is that no experiments or studies have determined a direct cause and effect link between playing violent video games and engaging in violent behavior and until that relationship is proved, I would say that banning the sale and distribution of video games to minors is unconstitutional. In order for the SCOTUS to implement this ban, it has to prove with clear supporting evidence – not just psychological hypotheses – that violent video games pose a public health threat and that they are a leading contributor to teen violence.

  3. Steve M says

    I agree that what Warren is saying is definitely true. His thought on how the parents should decide what kind of games the kids are aloud to play. I don’t believe it is fine that Supreme Court can take away these games from kids who understand the line of fantasy and reality. If parents are aloud to choose what movies there kids can watch, I believe that the parents can also choose what games there kids play. As of now you have to be 17 plus to buy M rated game. If you go to a store and have your parents buy you the game, if you are not of age, they will inform your parents what is in the game for example gore, violence, and other content that makes it M rated. So its not like your parents wouldn’t know about what happens in the game. So I believe that if the parents know what makes the game bad, then they should be able to pick whether the kid is mature enough to play or not. There is no need for Supreme Court to ban certain “bad” games just because there is a select few that can’t define the line of reality and fantasy. I believe that the parents are capable of knowing if there kid is mature or not and choosing to buy it or not.

  4. Molly Kmetz says

    I completely agree with Warren’s idea of children’s parents having control of the video games their kids can play. At a young age, parents should help their children make decisions and still influence a lot of what they will see and play when it comes to video games. The reason of the video games being “too violent” for young children is not strong enough and lacks evidence to pass the banning of the sale of video games to minors in the Supreme Court. When parents make the decision of allowing their child to play a violent video game they will know the information about the game and believe it is the right choice. In this case, the parents could be to blame for supplying violence in their lives. Most young children have the ability to differentiate between the real world and their fantasy game so the game violent games can not be a main cause for teen violence. I believe that the majority of the reason for teen violence is due to the environment they live in and how they are influenced by the behaviors witnessed around him.

  5. Pat A says

    I agree with Warren’s response in that it is up to the parents to make the decision for their children. When a parent purchases an M rated game they are told by the employees of the video game distributor what makes the video game rated mature. I believe that the parents know if their kid is mature enough to play the game, also, I support the decision that you have to be seventeen or older to buy an M rated game. I just don’t think that it is a crime to let minors play these games. Mature video games do not bring violence out in teens. If mature video games were one of the leading factors in bringing violence out in teens then I would consider the ban, but its not, so I’m not considering it. The leading factors in bringing violence out in teens are poverty, drugs, and their surroundings. I don’t think that the Supreme Court will be able to differentiate a “deviant” violent video game from a “normal” violent video game. I don’t think that the Supreme Court will have enough evidence to justify the case.

  6. Tim F says

    It is against the First Amendment, addressing freedom of expression, to block the sale of video games. As Warren and the others have stated, the sale and distribution of video games should be controlled by retailers and parents. Parents should not let their children play for excessive hours and should stop their children if they see any dangerous effects. Also, parents and schools should educate the children about the dangers and effects of video games just as they do about alcohol, drugs and other dangerous things.

  7. Jimmy J1 says

    I agree that the responsibility of deciding which video games a child can play should lie with the parents. No two children are the same; what one child is mature enough to handle is not necessarily true for every other child of the same age. In these cases the parents are the most accurate judges of maturity because they pay attention to and take care of only their own children. The Supreme Court doing anything about this would be a big generalization because they’re ruling a decision for all children as a whole when there is great diversity in what individual children can handle at that age. I don’t believe the government has a right to take control over an something like this nor do I believe that violent video games prove to be a danger to society.

  8. DaveMack says

    Warren holds a good argument and I agree with it completely. I would like to add that it is an unconstitutional action to ban these video games because of how vague the parameters are. There are almost no concrete dividing lines in our society that seperates what is appropriate and what is not, and the lines that exist are slowly going away, such as profanities on T.V. There are no defined lines that seperate what is too violent and what is not. This is a problem because if there is ban on video games where would that banning stop? And could it spread to other medias? The penalties of selling to minors is also vague. No one can issue this ban without concrete guidelines because it would not function properly and there would be many disputes on it. Discretion should be left for guardians at home and not the government.

  9. Danielle L. says

    I think most people can agree that there are many video games today that are violent; however, “too much violence” is an extremely subjective idea. What is too violent for one person is not necessarily seen the same way by another. Since the statement varies from person to person, it is really not reasonable to define “too much”. I do not think that the Supreme Court is in the position to make this determination. With the little evidence that is had for banning the games, I do think it would be unconstitutional to do so. If anyone knows what is “too violent” for a child, one would hope it would be that child’s parents. And because of this, I believe that it should be the parents’ responsibility to determine what their child should and should not play. While I believe this, I also believe that not all parents cover this responsibility when it comes to their children. Regardless, it is not the Supreme Court’s place to step in and ban the sale of violent games to minors.

  10. Eric L says

    If the supreme court rules in favor for certain video games to be banned then there will be a fault in their duties as the Supreme Court. This amendment would go against our first amendment right being freedom of speech. There are other ways to get around that though. If it does hold a clear and present danger to the lives of kids or others, MEANING, they hold a threat to the world, then yes we should have a ban! The only problem is that there are absolutely no tests that prove that playing a M rated game makes kids kill people or “desensitize” them thinking killing is an alright thing to do. It is to my belief that parents should have rules about their kids playing any kind of game. If the kids’ parents grant access to M rated games like Call of Duty or Halo, then let them play. It is fully up to the parents to make that call. Also to add that since the ESRB rating system has been in affect, games that are rated M in most major retailers and most small, M rated games must be purchased by someone of the age of 17 or higher with a ID that can prove their age and their identification. This isn’t a law,and most retailers do not need to follow this, but they follow it because they choose too, and they would probably get a law suite for selling to a minor. If the Supreme Court now draws a line that says that artists, artists who draw and design people in a video game, can’t draw things they love to draw. That is like saying that all art that has some sort of nudity is now banned from the National Art Museum and all other places whom displays art need to be put into a special room for people 18 years and older. To me that is just a rebellion waiting to happen. The government has no right to do that and it will cause a hole that only becomes deeper if they go through with this.

  11. Terry K says

    I feel that the Supreme Court shouldn’t ban violent video games. First of all, like Warren said, there is no way to determine the level of violence that is acceptable for everyone, when every person is different and has different standards of what they consider to be “too violent.” Secondly, the argument that video games increase violence in children is minimal when compared to the affect of a child’s environment. There is noticeably a lot more violence in city’s rather than in suburban areas. Lastly, I feel that before a child becomes 18, a legal adult, it is up to the parents what their child can and cannot do.

  12. Steve O1 says

    I would have to agree with Warren’s response a hundred percent. The parameters of this law are not clearly defined, where would the Supreme Court drawl the line on violence? Video games are not the only way minors are being exposed different kinds of violence. There are others forms of media that expose children to violence T.V., movies, internet, music and books explicate violence on some level or another. I believe that the deciding factor should be left up to a parent. The law is unconstitutional, if the law can govern parents on what their children can and can’t do then what else can the government enforce upon us? There are too many unknown variables in the argument, there is no definite way to say one game is “too violent” while another is just “violent”. Making the argument that video games are a threat to national security is a great exaggeration. I believe that a child’s environment is way more influential than any video game a child could play. Overall, the government has no authority to ban video games because of their violence, it should be up to the parents on how they want to raise their own children and not the government.

  13. Nicole M1 says

    In my opinion, the Supreme Court should not allow the ban of violent video games because there is not strong enough evidence to label them a public health threat. Studies which blame mature video games for youth violence often use weak connections and faulty experiments as evidence. They confuse aggressive thoughts with aggressive actions. Many can hypothesize about the effects of mature video games on minors, but there are a variety of other factors involved. Minors are impressionable, but it is improbable to determine what is too violent for such a large age span. What is appropriate for a seventeen year old is likely to be different from what is appropriate for a four year old. Most minors who play video games are not doing it with the intention of reenacting them. We should focus on the many other causes of violence which have an undeniable connection to crime. It is unrealistic to say that someone could learn to hijack a car or shoot a gun just by hitting a sequence of buttons on a controller. Video games are a form of recreation, and a majority of kids say they use violent games as a way to take out frustration and unwind. I do not believe that mature games deserve to be categorized as obscenities. Ultimately the parents, not the state, should be responsible for regulating what is appropriate and what is not. If states can ban mature video games what else can they ban? If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the ban, how many other exceptions to freedom of speech and expression will pass as a result of this precedent?

  14. lalicd says

    I agree with what Warren is saying because parents have responsibility over their children and it should be their responsibility to monitor what their children are doing. It is not the Supreme Courts right to say what is explicit for minors because their parents should have that decision. Video games do not cause violence but are rather a fantasy world where pushing a button may result in a violent act on the screen, but that does not mean that these children will go out and act as the fictional characters do. The main issue is who is responsible of deciding what is too violent. Does killing a monster mean the same as killing a human, or even in children games where you have to defeat the evil characters is that too violent? The sales of video games in the past years has gone up dramatically and the teen crime rates have gone down so the connection between the two is not there. The parents, not the state should be responsible for their children and what is appropriate for their age group.

  15. Michellebarry says

    I agree with Warrens position on the violence in video games issue. When our class focused on this issue I was completely against the idea of banning violent video games, however I was unsure about the age limit of buying M rated video games. After taking more time to think about it, it is definitely up to the parents to decided wither or not the video game can be purchased for a minor, just like seeing an R rated movie. Also the game should have excessive warnings on the labels that specifically say there is extreme violence. Moreover, I agree that it is going against the first amendment. This to me shows that the Supreme Court would be going against our rights to the constitution, and if the banned follows through, we are going to see negative effects and right now our country needs to see less negative effects in order to run properly.

  16. NicoleD says

    I agree completely with Warren’s opinion on the ban of violent video game sales. It should be the parents decision to supervise what video games they allow their child to play. A parent should have this right to determine what “violent” video games they allow their child to play because who is to measure “too much” violence. One parent may consider shooting a gun to be very violent and demoralizing to their child while another parent may just see it as fun and games. Researchers are stating that playing “deviant violent video games” are causing children to have harmful psychological effects but we have yet to see a test or study showing the correlation between playing violent games and causing aggressive behavior in a child. There is no reason to ban the sale of violent video games because there are not proven facts to rely on and it is obvious that a parent supervising a minor should have the responsibility to decide what their child can and cannot play because they are responsible for their child’s health and future. We also have to acknowledge the negative affects the possible ban will have on society, such as the economy. In 2008, video game sales were up to 21 billion dollars, now the possible ban will eliminate many frequent minor consumers and lower the sales immensely which would definitely hurt our already hurting economy.

  17. DYLAN Q says

    I agree with Warren that the Supreme Court really shouldn’t have any say in trying to control violent video games. I definitely think that it should be up to the parents to decide if their children should be playing certain video games. They should be responsible for knowing what games their kids are playing and decide if it is appropriate for them. I think Warren made a good point that everyone has a different view point for what “too much violence” is. I think if children are reacting to violent video games by acting out with violence it should be the parents responsibility to take care of that problem and then stop their kids from playing. I believe that violent video games aren’t even a significant cause of violence among children at all. I think that there are certainly other factors which lead to violence that the Supreme Court and the public should be more focused on fixing.

  18. Paulx says

    Violence in video games can be defined. Any act of physical harm against another computer controlled or player controlled character is violence. However, “too much violence” can not be defined. Like Warren said, what is too much violence for one person may be not very violent at all for a different person. Everyone has different levels of tolerance for violence, and every child can accept different levels of violence without being affected. That is why the government of a state can not simply put a blanket ban of a certain level of violence for all people under 18. It may be at the right level for some minors, but it could be at too low of a level for some minors, making it useless, or too high of a level for other minors, making it overkill. Violent video games can not be added to the freedom of expressions not protected by the First Amendment because even if the games themselves are not expressing anything, which I would say is not true, the players playing them can express themselves while playing. To deny minors the right to expression is totally against what the First Amendment is about. The reason I say that games are expressing what their makers want is because all games have a story mode, which may or may not include violence, and because of that, they are just like interactive novels, and because of that reason, they can not be banned from minors. The parents of the children, who know their children better than the government of a state knows all the children in the state, are ultimately responsible for the health of their children. Parents do have the right to ban “violent” video games from their children, because they know the level of violence their child can handle without becoming a public health hazard or any of the other things that would allow an exception to the First Amendment. The government isn’t responsible for raising children, the parents are.

  19. Joe J says

    In my opinion, the term “violence” in video games refers to, or can be measured by, the amount of exerted injurious physical force depicted by characters or events in the game. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to define exactly what is considered “too much violence” because, as Warren stated before, the opinions will vary greatly from person to person based on many factors. These factors (individual experience, environmental circumstances, etc.) would influence the individual’s unique view of what he/she may view as “too violent” because they serve as frames of reference, for relativity purposes. The more important question however, is do violent video games pose a significant health threat to the public? Although a highly debated controversial topic with statistics pointing in both directions, I lean heavily on the side that they do not pose a significant threat to the public. I trust that they are not harmful because there is no proven causal relationship between video game violence, and certain statics actually point to an inverse correlation (video game sales increasing, while teen violence is decreasing). I think people may be oversimplifying problems, trying to hard to compartmentalize acts of violence in the real world into anything easily worth attacking and hence creating scape-goats like video game violence. People are unknowingly falling bias to the availability heuristic (in psychology, the phenomenon in which people can predict the frequency of an event based on how readily available it is in memory), that is people see crimes and acts of aggression on the news constantly with the occasional pointing of the finger at video games; pairing that could skew rational thinking. It may seem a bit ironic for me to blame other media for hyping up video game violence, but I digress. Video games should be protected by our First Amendment right, our freedom of expression and the parents should have the ultimate responsibility for regulating these “violent” forms of entertainment in their households, not the government.

  20. DanL says

    The fact that this case is even being debated by the Supreme Court is ridiculous. For starters, what is California’s motive for suddenly bringing this before the Supreme Court? I feel that video games by themselves don’t contribute directly to violence in children. More prominent issues, like poverty, family/social issues, and gang activity are more of a factor in violence in young ones than any video game could be. I feel that this case is and attempt to create a “Beast” for people to rally against in combating a serious problem in California instead of addressing more relevant, stronger factors in violence in children. As JoeJ and others have said, it is impossible to quantify violence for the majority because everyone has different views on what is “too much violence”. With this in mind, the case itself would require violence in video games to be quantified, which the Justices on the Supreme Court need clarification on to make an accurate ruling. Seeing as there is no way to quantify a varying opinion, not everyone will agree on what the cutoff point between simply violent and “too much” violence. And even then, how will they calculate this point between games? There are different types of violence in video games, and again, varying opinions on what is too much and what isn’t. In addition, much of the violence in games can’t be imitated. On top of that, whose fault is it that the children think that anything they see in video games is acceptable to do or imitate? Either the parents or guardians aren’t doing their job at all, or the child has preexisting problems mentally and should a.) not be given these games, and b.) be put on medication or in special programs meant to deal with this. The viable solution is to allow the parents to decide what is and isn’t suitable for their children. That way, each parent or guardian, with their opinion on what a suitable level of violence for their child is, can make the decision. I don’t see many eight year olds having the money or means to go and buy violent video games, so it is another person’s decision ultimately.

  21. nikitac3 says

    I agree with Warren as to who has the right to decides if children can play violent video games. Parents are there to raise their children. If they choose not to allow their children to play violent video games it’s their decision. But I do not think there is a way to define violence. Everyone’s definitions vary from one another. The idea of how much violence can actually influence a child to behave violently is vague, as nothing has proved to show this kind of behavior even exists. For California to claim that “too much” of violent video games can result in violence is simply unjustifiable. Since there can be no true definition of violence, how can a law be created that has no limit? Some can think “too much” violence is shooting someone in the head, like Warren said, while others could think that is a reward.

  22. NicolletteG says

    When Warren says he thinks it is appropriate for the parents to make a decision about their children playing video games, I could not agree more. When he says violence varies from one person to the next, I think he is completely right. To one person violence could be a slap in the face, while to others violence could mean killing someone. In my opinion, violent video games act as an alternative to real violence. While researching this issue in class, I came up with many statistics to back up my theory of it being an alternative to real violence. In a study, 45% of boys said they played video games to “get their anger out”, and 62% said they play because it “helps them relax.” I think these games are a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings. If all of these games are taken off the market to kids under the age of 18, the sale of video games will start to decrease. Children under the age of 18 usually are the ones with a lot of free time to play these video games. 18 year old adults and older, are mostly in college fighting to get a college degree, they really aren’t given that much time to worry about video games. The sales will go down, which is one less thing feeding back to our economy. I do agree with Warren that parents should be able to make the call if their children are allowed to play these games or not.

  23. AlyciaB says

    I think that it is up to parents to decide on if the children should be allowed to play the video games. Its the parents place to raise children, and if the parents see fit to allow their children to play violent video games, its their choice. How are violent video games any different then past children playing Soldier or Cops and Robbers. These children are actively playing the part of a Soldier or a bank robber. Yet the government didn’t have a problem with these types of games. But where do the children get the ideas to play the games? Do they get them from the television, do they get them from violent movies, or from a simple fairy tale, as Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy pointed out. If violent video games are banned will it really stop children from playing “violent” games, or seeing violence in the everyday world? A world where wars are brought in to the living room by the nightly news, or where they have a chance (no matter how small) of being hurt walking out side their home. Personally I think that the question isn’t should violent video games be banned, I think the question is how do we protect our children from the violence of the real world? And that’s what the government should be working on, and leave the choice of buying violent video games up to parents.

  24. DevonC says

    Where I stand on this subject is that violent video games do affect excessive players, now whether it is a good affect or a bad affect I am unsure. I like the statement from this reading saying, “How is “violence” to be defined? What kind of violence would be “too much” violence.” I believe that there is no real way to tell how much is too much and what violence is too violent. I think that the Supreme Court has the right to do whatever they decide that they want to do whether it is to expand the protection over miner against violence or to allow them to purchase these games. I think that parents should not be responsible for deciding which video games their children can play, because parents may think they know what is best but they are human beings and can be wrong. No parent thinks that their children are psychopaths, and may not know they are enhancing their child’s likely hood of harmful acts. Opposed to parents I think the state should be in charge or the Supreme Court.

  25. DavidMc says

    How should “violence” in a video game be defined?
    The definition of “violence” in video games should be no different than the definition of the word in any other usage. Any real question about *what* violence is only occurs when debating where a line should be drawn. The question to be asked is the second, “How should “too much violence” be defined?” Violence becomes excessive when it upsets the sensibilities of the people exposed to it. Unfortunately, that’s a completely subjective matter. A person could conceivably find a game about boxing to be “too violent”, whereas another person could be perfectly fine with a game such as Grand Theft Auto. I suppose that it’s possible to stick with a social norm and simply target what the majority deems to be too violent. If that’s the case though, what pool of people should be considered when making games? People that live in urban areas on the coasts generally have different sensibilities than those in the rural midwest. Besides, if people find a game to be too violent or immoral in any way, they’ll avoid purchasing it. The real question is about children, of course, but children don’t necessarily have the final say in what games they can get. As far as the Supreme Court goes, I don’t think that they should further restrict the First Amendment. There is simply no conclusive evidence that supports violent games harming children. If such evidence was to arise, then there would certainly be reason to restrict games. However, that hasn’t happened as of yet. I am 100% in favor of parents being responsible for deciding which video games their children play. There’s always the case of parents being “unable” to monitor what games their children play. That doesn’t make sense to me. If a parent is so concerned about their children playing a violent game that they’re willing to try to pass laws against said games, they’re perfectly capable of knowing what games there kids do and do not get. If they can’t handle simple parenting, then there’s a much greater problem than whatever video game the child decided to play.

  26. dano says

    When dealing with everything else there is certain regulations on who can play the games, the games have a rating system on it to show who the companies intended to be playing this game, if it has a mature rating it should be obvious that it is not appropriate for a nine year old to be playing this game. the same thing goes for movies, if it is rated R your not supposed to see it if you’re under 18, but overall the parents are the ones to decided if it is okay or not. I believe that the video games should fall under the same rules and regulations, the mature games should only be aloud to be sold to adults but if an adult buys the game for a child then it is obvious that they are okay with the kid playing the game. This would require the adults to take responsibility for their child’s actions. The only way you can regulate violent video game sales without ruining the video game economy is to make it so that the Mature games are purchased by Mature adults.

  27. tracye says

    I agree with Warren that the parents of a minor should be in charge of whether their children are exposed to violent video games. Parents have the responsibility to filter everything that their children encounter, they should also be responsible for determining what their child is mature enough to partake in. The tolerance of violence and “too much violence” cannot be determined. Violence is determined by the blood content, gun use, and the overall objective of the game. Whether a child is mature enough to separate reality from fantasy can only be determined by those who raised the child. The Supreme Court should not be responsible for banning violent video games. As Warren mentions, the video game designers know what is appropriate to put into the games. There is no direct link between violence in fantasy and reality. Whether a child becomes actively violent and aggressive may be based on the atmosphere he resides in, which a parents or guardian is also responsible for whether their child is exposed to violence in their neighborhood. The Supreme Court is only responsible for making these neighborhoods safer, which is not going to start with banning violent video games. When considering the current state of the economy, it wouldn’t be logical to limit the sales of a popular merchandise for a reason that has yet to be proven valid.

  28. Matt G. says

    I agree with the things Warren said. The banning of violent video games shouldn’t happen. Parents should be the ones to decide if their kids can play the games or not. There is no reason for the Supreme Court to get involved in this, they shouldn’t be able decide who can play video games and who can’t. If you can see an R rated movie when your 17yrs. Old why should you have to wait until your 18 to play a violent game. Also ever since video games have became so popular the teen crime rates have gone down. If young kids aren’t playing violent video games then they will most likely still engage in some kind of war behavior. I know when my brothers and I were little we used to play war outside with kids in the neighborhood. We would all have our own guns that made sound effects and we would actually run around acting like we would be killing each other The violent games aren’t a problem for kids, the real problem is the environment that the kids are growing up in. Also the court will have trouble deciding which games are “deviant” violent games and which are just normal violent games.