Lose the hierarchies. The issue is individual choice.

Whatever media you consume is your own fault. Any action you take is your responsibility.

Video games definitely would not cause as much violent behavior as violent film or television, but both are not the primary cause of violence itself. If media was not present, violence would still occur. (Cain and Abel anyone?) The correlation and "judgment" on media violence for creating violence is weak at best. This is especially true with video games.

Take the example of Grand Theft Auto. In my opinion, that is a horrible video game. I have only watched someone play it for five minutes before I thought it was pointless, but from reading about it and seeing it then, it really is essentially pointless. The objectives in the game to "gain" anything by completing missions for drug dealers and gangsters are not entertaining to me. I play plenty of video games, but I choose which ones I play. Even though Grand Theft Auto is a horrible game with tons of violence and sexual content, I have no problem with someone choosing to play it. That is their decision. If they want to take pipes to people's heads and shoot cops in a video game, that is their business. The argument that this causes violent behavior is ridiculous.

The issue isn't that video games cause violence. It is the potential addiction and isolation of the individual that causes their social behaviors to suffer, and in turn lead to irrational actions like violence. One cannot argue despite this chain I just laid out that video games cause violence because ANYTHING someone is addicted to can cause irrational social behaviors. Alcohol, sex, television, and drugs are some of many examples of potentially addictive behaviors. If someone plays a single player video game first person shooter in their basement in the dark and CHOOSES to do so, and then the player chooses to shoot someone in real life to solve one's problems, both of those, in my opinion, are two separate choices and not interrelated. Even though the player may draw on past experience [video game] in the decision to shoot someone in reality, one still has to choose whether or not to pull the trigger. To be cliche, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

In all of the articles arguing about media violence, the common thread is this black and white absolute of "keep them on the market as is" or "get rid of them permenantly". Both of these solutions make no sense. This, like many issues in reality and life, is not something that can be solved one way or the other.

In arguments like this, individuals feel they know the point of view of all the population involved. Dr. Anderson feels that video games are horrible things that cause violence, while the Economist is relatively ambivalent to video games. Like government structure, or any hierarchy, these individuals want to make the choice for us. It is not for these people to choose. Why should things be censored when one has the choice on whether to consume the media itself? (Keep in mind I am not talking about media in the public square, like a billboard. I am talking about media from the television, video games, and movie films, and internet as well) If someone wants to be a porn guru, that is their choice. I think that is a bad choice, personally, but who am I to tell someone not to download porn? Why should I be the one to tell someone else what one can and cannot choose? Wasn't America built on the idea that it's the civic responsibility for the individual to choose what is good for oneself?

There is a way to solve this argument. All the information and research should be put out there in the public square so anyone can access it. If someone doesn't want to research or think about this issue, that is their business. If someone does, that person will have the information one would need in order to make an informed decision. No hierarchy or censor board should inhibit any video game, or any media, since at the end of the day the controller is in your hands, not theirs.