Freedom has its limits
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 I am reasonably liberal but not, I suspect, a true libertarian. Everyone has limits (even anarchists) but my limits (possibly as a result of being a parent) are definitely more conservative than some.
Take, for example, the video games that Andrew Ian Dodge writes about on The Free Society blog today. Andrew objects to games such as Manhunt II (which I had never heard of until I read his piece) being banned. Give them a rating, he argues, and let adults decide whether they wish to buy them.
I would like to agree - but where do we draw the line? Looking for an image to illustrate Andrew's article, I found some stills of Manhunt and one in particular made me feel distinctly queasy. (It featured a man about to bludgeon another man, cowering in terror on the floor, with what I think was an axe.)
I seriously question the minds of adults who want to play games like this and the thought of my children seeing some of these images, let alone playing the game (should they get their hands on it at a friend's house, for example), disturbs me.
I have always said that liberals/libertarians should stick together and fight one another's corner because, one day, politicians will target something that you value. But what are the limits? Where do we draw the line?
Personally, I think there is a case for banning some things. Who can seriously argue otherwise? The important thing, before government steps in, is that there should be serious debate and people, including politicians, should make decisions based on hard facts, not intuition, anecdotes or half-baked junk science.
Unfortunately we live in a world dominated by spin doctors and lobby groups and everyone - including politicians - is so busy we simply don't have time to consider each issue properly. And so we get knee-jerk responses and legislation introduced by well-meaning or publicity-hungry politicians
If I am sympathetic to the banning of Manhunt it's not because I think it will encourage people to become serial killers but because - like "No Smoking" signs on every shop door - it adds to what David Hockney subjectively calls the "uglification" of society.
Does that make me illiberal and intolerant? Or just a grumpy old man out of touch with the video gaming generation? I think I should be told.
Reader Comments (5)
I think you are being illiberal, especially if you haven't actually played the game. The game may not actually be as bad as the box depicts ... I'm thinking about a well-known phrase involving books and covers here.
"Or just a grumpy old man out of touch with the video gaming generation?"
Maybe! Apply the same thought process to Bret Easton Ellis' American Psycho. Admittedly less youngsters are likely to 'opt-in' for a book but the content and mental imagery are arguably worse in that book than anything you'll see in manhunt. (I haven't played Manhunt2, but have played and completed the original.)
I'm not sure I see how you can make the distinction between your view on a game and anyone else's views on movies, books, plays, activities, etc. Under what circumstances would you support banning a book? There is no (proven) causal link between game activity and real world activity - until there is I think I'd have to stick with the view that your aesthetic/moral opinions should not take priority over any other adults.
The issue with minors getting their hands on the game is slightly different, games are clearly marked with their age ratings, shops shouldn't be selling them to youngsters and if parents are buying them on a child's behalf then the responsiblity rests with them to ensure that they are happy with the content and their child's reaction to it. That there is leakage is a given, but it's as true of everything else and I don't believe blanket bans are the answer.
As a final thought there is the, equally controversial, counter argument that games allow people to 'get things out of their system'. Frustrated and angry? Much better to shoot/beat/kill an enemy on screen by smacking buttons than to go and punch your neighbour/spouse/sibling in the face, or worse. Arguably the more visceral the experience provided by games, the better.
I've only given this a minute's thought, but that thought went like this:
1) I don't like violent games either
2) Does that mean I support the banning of things that encourage violence?
3) Hmmm... perhaps I do... I really hate violence in society and anything that encourages it...
4) Hang on a minute - how do you define 'things that encourage violence'? What else could be deemed to encourage violence?
5) Alcohol! Football!
There you go Simon... that's what happens as soon as you say you have to draw a line somewhere. Lines get drawn in places you might not have anticipated.
I don't have any answers right now, but hope that's food for thought.
Exactly! where do you draw the line? maybe its a good idea not to draw one at all...I can empathize with the parental viewpoint. Although I believe if I have confidence in my parenting skills then all will be fine and dandy. How can I censor the entire world? There are many unpleasant things out there. Exposure to some of these is what makes us balanced individuals. We can find images distasteful or grotesque but how can we ever know true freedom if the government persist with high level intervention? I'm not saying for one minute, let your children run riot and expose them to violent images. But have faith in your children's judgement.
I don't think it makes you illiberal or intolerant at all. There are always going to be some things that need banning. Like murder. Or child pornography. Or ...