NOTE- THIS IS A WALL OF TEXT
This is a school project I did as an "ethical case study" that I thought you guys might be interested in. It is about John Decamp, the lawyer for the family of David Sanders, who was killed in the Columbine High School massacre. Incase my teacher sees this and thinks I plagarized it (as this apparently shows up on the first page of google), I will say this: Hi Connie, I didn't plagarize this. I can log into this website and show it to you if you doubt me.
Art Does Not Kill
Art can come in many forms. Whether it is a book that creates a highly detailed fictional world that challenges the reader with insightful themes and metaphors, a movie that shows the viewer images taken directly from the maker's mind in an entertaining or informative manner, or a video game that immerses the player into an imaginative interactive environment where he or she lives out the story planned by the maker, or creates his or her own story. Regardless of the medium, all art is precious. Not all books, movies, or games are artful, of course, but they all serve a purpose in their own right. They express the views of their makers, may teach helpful lessons, or could just be made simply to entertain their audiences. But not all people understand the value of these different forms of expression.
Over the course of mankind, many different individuals and groups of people have taken exception to the new ideas presented in art. They feel as if these ideas are somehow so dangerous that they should not even be spoken of, and seek to destroy or censor the artworks. Whether it is cases of book burning, blackmail, or mass censorship, attempts to stop authors and the makers of other forms of media from spreading their views are quite common in recorded human history, such as when the Nazis burned books opposing their viewpoints in World War II. Often these attacks are taken out upon newer forms of media, as they are less grounded in culture and therefore more susceptible to attack. More recently people have focused their angers upon video games, feeling as if they contribute nothing of worth to society and may influence dangerous acts. The question, therefore, is whether it is ethical to ban, sue, or otherwise blame video games for possibly influencing acts of violence.
Such cases have already been presented to the courts. On April 19, 2001, John Decamp, the lawyer for the family of David Sanders, a teacher who was slain during the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, filed a suit seeking $5 billion dollars in punitive damages from 25 different media companies. The lawsuit claimed that "Absent the combination of extremely violent video games and these boys [Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who carried out the Columbine massacre] incredibly deep involvement, use of and addiction to these games and the boys' basic personalities, these murders and this massacre would not have occurred" ("Federal Suit").
While this lawsuit was later thrown out and its appeal has not received any major attention from the media, it is a prime example of society's tendency to censor what it does not understand ("Columbine Lawsuit"). However much he felt that the media companies were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre, it was pure irresponsibility for John Decamp to waste the time of the United States legal system with such a case. Suing the maker's of these "extremely violent video games" would be an attempt to deny those makers of their free speech, a right that is protected by federal law. More important is the impact this lawsuit would have had on art and entertainment if Decamp had won. It would have been disastrous to free speech, and therefore free thought, had these games been censored. It was clearly unethical for John Decamp to blame video games for the Columbine High School massacre.
Decamp might respond by saying that without video games such as Doom or Quake, the Columbine shootings never would have happened. At the time when this lawsuit was filed, he felt as if the games influenced Harris and Klebold to carry out the massacre. He argued that the violence depicted in these games incited violence from these two young boys, and gave them the idea to attack the students and faculty of their school. He even went far enough to claim that these games "taught Harris and Klebold how to point and shoot guns without teaching them the responsibility or consequences of using weapons" ("Columbine Lawsuit").
Such an argument is fatally flawed. While the games may have mildly influenced Harris and Klebold to commit acts of violence, that influence would have been the result of misinterpretation of said games by Harris and Klebold. Therefore, the people who should be held responsible for any distasteful actions that resulted from this interpretation should be Harris and Klebold. Though the games may have depicted violence, it does not mean that they told these two boys that they should kill. Doom and Quake are "target-shooting games" which tries to replicate an action movie atmosphere by having the player shoot at inhuman monsters in a war situation, and never does it emphasize that the murder of innocent people is okay ("Columbine Lawsuit"). If people sued everything that incited violence as a result of misinterpretation, The Holy Bible and the Qur'an would fall out of print, as every company that makes them would be facing more lawsuits than they could ever hope to pay for. Harris and Klebold should be held responsible for their actions- not the game companies. If they had not committed suicide when they finished their shooting, they would be the ones facing trial, not Doom and Quake.
Decamp's argument that Doom and other video games similar to it are faulty because they teach players how to use a gun without teaching them the consequences of such actions is also unfounded. Logic would dictate that moving a mouse and clicking a button would not teach anybody the complex actions associated with wielding and maintaining guns. Such actions might give players increased accuracy when aiming at things, as well as a heightened sense of observance, but those actions alone are not capable of teaching people gun maintenance, and are highly beneficial in other areas, such as driving.
Indeed, Decamp seems to forget that banning video games would deprive society of their benefits. Aside from the interactive atmosphere and high amount of immersion that allow artistic game designers to express their views to the public, video games have quite a few benefits to offer to those who play them. A European Union report concluded on February 11, 2009 that video games often encourage creativity and cooperation, and have no definitive link to violent behavior. Toine Manders, the Dutch lawmaker who drafted the report, said "Video games are in most cases not dangerous and can even contribute to the development of important skills," and that "[They stimulate] learning of facts and skills such as strategic reflection, creativity, cooperation and a sense of innovation." While Decamp believes that Doom's possibility to stimulate violence overshadows all of these other benefits, it is shaky as to whether it could actually cause violence. Even if it could, Manders argues that "some books and movies are targeted for an older audience," meaning that if other forms of media are allowed to include violence, then so should video games. Decamp might respond by saying that playing video games is a children's hobby, but statistics show that the average age of the European gamer is 33 (Luehrs).
Though Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were certainly not as old as 33, they were at an age where many factors influence a person besides what media he or she enjoys. Not only were they at an age where most people go through puberty, but also they were obviously mentally unstable. Perhaps it is not Doom that influenced the boys to shoot their school, but rather they played Doom because they enjoyed violence. It seems simple to argue that the more violent a person is, the more violent the media he or she enjoys will be. If this were the case, which it most likely is, then the blame would not lie with violent video games, but with Harris and Klebold. If Decamp were to get his way and sue violent video games out of existence, then he would be curing a symptom and claiming to be curing the cause. People like Harris and Klebold would still be violent, and would still commit acts of violence. One of the most well known murderers of all time, Adolf Hitler, committed vast acts of genocide long before video games were invented. That is because he was a mentally unstable man who was prompted into violence by something unknown to us. Even if violent video games did influence Harris and Klebold to shoot their school, it is not the fault of the games that they were the first things to trigger the latent violence hiding inside these two boys. If they had not played these games, they would have been set off by something else. Depriving the public of games, and denying it of its free speech by doing so, is not worth an untrustworthy fix to youth violence that will only delay treating the true cause as to why some teenagers are violent.
Denying the public of its free speech is a dastardly thing. The framers of the United States Constitution knew this, and so they gave the people the first amendment. Many people, such as John Decamp, would argue that games should not be protected by the first amendment, as they are violent products that should be held responsible by law. Unfortunately for those people, The United States has not yet banned a single game. This is because all forms of speech should receive the same protection. In suing over 25 entertainment companies, many of which have only made games that cannot even be remotely linked to the Columbine High School massacre (such as Square Enix, which is most famous for games containing turn-based fantasy combat that rarely depicts guns), Decamp has stated that he believes that games are not valuable as a form of speech and cannot be considered art. This could not be farther from the truth. Though games are a relatively new art form, many games that could easily be classified as art have been released over the years. Capcom's action/adventure game Okami is a beautiful game that gives the player the opportunity to have an interactive experience with traditional Japanese art, even giving him or her a paintbrush that is used to complete various in-game tasks (VanOrd). Portal, developed by Valve Software, takes the player through a hilarious monologue of dark humor stated by an abandoned computer system used to perform laboratory experiments (Watters). Games can even be based on the themes of books, such as with 2K's Bioshock, a game that places the player in a fictional city-state named Rapture, which has fallen into chaos due to the fanatic belief of its citizens in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. One of the main antagonists of the game is modeled after Ayn Rand herself, right down to his name, Andrew Ryan (Gerstmann).
Ultimately, Decamp's lawsuit against video games is unethical because it is a form of censorship. Censorship, in almost all cases, has led to disorder, such as when certain states refused to teach evolution. Censorship is the enemy of progress. It seeks to destroy thought that is deemed too extreme for people to consider. The problem with this is that thought cannot be deemed extreme or improper until it has been considered. All thoughts, therefore, should be open to consideration, so that people may form their own opinions and gain knowledge, as thought also leads to knowledge. These thoughts are expressed by speech, which must be free, as it is needed to distribute thoughts. Though video games may be a new form of media, they contain thought nonetheless. While many games can often be billed as only being entertainment, they too carry thoughts and have themes, specifically an encouragement to have fun. Other games, though, are quite artistic, and have many themes to express. Simply because of their medium of expression, these games are no less valuable than books and movies, and should not be persecuted in ways that books and movies are now excused from. Decamp fails to understand this, and in so doing, bends his ethics by stifling a growing art form.
Word Count: 2000
Bibliography
"Columbine Lawsuit Against Makers Of Video Games, Movies Thrown Out." The
Associated Press. 12 Feb. 2009.
"Federal Suit Blames Video-Game Makers for Columbine Shooting." The Associated
Press. 19 Feb. 2009.
Gerstmann, Jeff. "BioShock Review." GameSpot. 21 Aug. 2007. CBS Interactive Inc. 3
Mar. 2009 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/bioshock/review.html.
Luehrs, Sarah. "EU Report: Video Games Can Be Good For Kids." 11 Feb. 2009.
Microsoft. 12 Feb. 2009 http://www.msnbc.com/id/29147581/.
VanOrd, Kevin. "Okami Review ." GameSpot. 15 Apr. 2008. CBS Interactive Inc. 3 Mar.
2009 http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/okami/review.html.
Watters, Chris. "Portal Review." GameSpot. 9 Oct. 2007. CBS Interactive Inc. 3 Mar.
2009 http://www.gamestop.com/pc/action/portal/review.html?om_act=convert&o
m_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review.
This is a school project I did as an "ethical case study" that I thought you guys might be interested in. It is about John Decamp, the lawyer for the family of David Sanders, who was killed in the Columbine High School massacre. Incase my teacher sees this and thinks I plagarized it (as this apparently shows up on the first page of google), I will say this: Hi Connie, I didn't plagarize this. I can log into this website and show it to you if you doubt me.
Art Does Not Kill
Art can come in many forms. Whether it is a book that creates a highly detailed fictional world that challenges the reader with insightful themes and metaphors, a movie that shows the viewer images taken directly from the maker's mind in an entertaining or informative manner, or a video game that immerses the player into an imaginative interactive environment where he or she lives out the story planned by the maker, or creates his or her own story. Regardless of the medium, all art is precious. Not all books, movies, or games are artful, of course, but they all serve a purpose in their own right. They express the views of their makers, may teach helpful lessons, or could just be made simply to entertain their audiences. But not all people understand the value of these different forms of expression.
Over the course of mankind, many different individuals and groups of people have taken exception to the new ideas presented in art. They feel as if these ideas are somehow so dangerous that they should not even be spoken of, and seek to destroy or censor the artworks. Whether it is cases of book burning, blackmail, or mass censorship, attempts to stop authors and the makers of other forms of media from spreading their views are quite common in recorded human history, such as when the Nazis burned books opposing their viewpoints in World War II. Often these attacks are taken out upon newer forms of media, as they are less grounded in culture and therefore more susceptible to attack. More recently people have focused their angers upon video games, feeling as if they contribute nothing of worth to society and may influence dangerous acts. The question, therefore, is whether it is ethical to ban, sue, or otherwise blame video games for possibly influencing acts of violence.
Such cases have already been presented to the courts. On April 19, 2001, John Decamp, the lawyer for the family of David Sanders, a teacher who was slain during the Columbine High School massacre on April 20, 1999, filed a suit seeking $5 billion dollars in punitive damages from 25 different media companies. The lawsuit claimed that "Absent the combination of extremely violent video games and these boys [Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who carried out the Columbine massacre] incredibly deep involvement, use of and addiction to these games and the boys' basic personalities, these murders and this massacre would not have occurred" ("Federal Suit").
While this lawsuit was later thrown out and its appeal has not received any major attention from the media, it is a prime example of society's tendency to censor what it does not understand ("Columbine Lawsuit"). However much he felt that the media companies were responsible for the Columbine High School massacre, it was pure irresponsibility for John Decamp to waste the time of the United States legal system with such a case. Suing the maker's of these "extremely violent video games" would be an attempt to deny those makers of their free speech, a right that is protected by federal law. More important is the impact this lawsuit would have had on art and entertainment if Decamp had won. It would have been disastrous to free speech, and therefore free thought, had these games been censored. It was clearly unethical for John Decamp to blame video games for the Columbine High School massacre.
Decamp might respond by saying that without video games such as Doom or Quake, the Columbine shootings never would have happened. At the time when this lawsuit was filed, he felt as if the games influenced Harris and Klebold to carry out the massacre. He argued that the violence depicted in these games incited violence from these two young boys, and gave them the idea to attack the students and faculty of their school. He even went far enough to claim that these games "taught Harris and Klebold how to point and shoot guns without teaching them the responsibility or consequences of using weapons" ("Columbine Lawsuit").
Such an argument is fatally flawed. While the games may have mildly influenced Harris and Klebold to commit acts of violence, that influence would have been the result of misinterpretation of said games by Harris and Klebold. Therefore, the people who should be held responsible for any distasteful actions that resulted from this interpretation should be Harris and Klebold. Though the games may have depicted violence, it does not mean that they told these two boys that they should kill. Doom and Quake are "target-shooting games" which tries to replicate an action movie atmosphere by having the player shoot at inhuman monsters in a war situation, and never does it emphasize that the murder of innocent people is okay ("Columbine Lawsuit"). If people sued everything that incited violence as a result of misinterpretation, The Holy Bible and the Qur'an would fall out of print, as every company that makes them would be facing more lawsuits than they could ever hope to pay for. Harris and Klebold should be held responsible for their actions- not the game companies. If they had not committed suicide when they finished their shooting, they would be the ones facing trial, not Doom and Quake.
Decamp's argument that Doom and other video games similar to it are faulty because they teach players how to use a gun without teaching them the consequences of such actions is also unfounded. Logic would dictate that moving a mouse and clicking a button would not teach anybody the complex actions associated with wielding and maintaining guns. Such actions might give players increased accuracy when aiming at things, as well as a heightened sense of observance, but those actions alone are not capable of teaching people gun maintenance, and are highly beneficial in other areas, such as driving.
Indeed, Decamp seems to forget that banning video games would deprive society of their benefits. Aside from the interactive atmosphere and high amount of immersion that allow artistic game designers to express their views to the public, video games have quite a few benefits to offer to those who play them. A European Union report concluded on February 11, 2009 that video games often encourage creativity and cooperation, and have no definitive link to violent behavior. Toine Manders, the Dutch lawmaker who drafted the report, said "Video games are in most cases not dangerous and can even contribute to the development of important skills," and that "[They stimulate] learning of facts and skills such as strategic reflection, creativity, cooperation and a sense of innovation." While Decamp believes that Doom's possibility to stimulate violence overshadows all of these other benefits, it is shaky as to whether it could actually cause violence. Even if it could, Manders argues that "some books and movies are targeted for an older audience," meaning that if other forms of media are allowed to include violence, then so should video games. Decamp might respond by saying that playing video games is a children's hobby, but statistics show that the average age of the European gamer is 33 (Luehrs).
Though Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were certainly not as old as 33, they were at an age where many factors influence a person besides what media he or she enjoys. Not only were they at an age where most people go through puberty, but also they were obviously mentally unstable. Perhaps it is not Doom that influenced the boys to shoot their school, but rather they played Doom because they enjoyed violence. It seems simple to argue that the more violent a person is, the more violent the media he or she enjoys will be. If this were the case, which it most likely is, then the blame would not lie with violent video games, but with Harris and Klebold. If Decamp were to get his way and sue violent video games out of existence, then he would be curing a symptom and claiming to be curing the cause. People like Harris and Klebold would still be violent, and would still commit acts of violence. One of the most well known murderers of all time, Adolf Hitler, committed vast acts of genocide long before video games were invented. That is because he was a mentally unstable man who was prompted into violence by something unknown to us. Even if violent video games did influence Harris and Klebold to shoot their school, it is not the fault of the games that they were the first things to trigger the latent violence hiding inside these two boys. If they had not played these games, they would have been set off by something else. Depriving the public of games, and denying it of its free speech by doing so, is not worth an untrustworthy fix to youth violence that will only delay treating the true cause as to why some teenagers are violent.
Denying the public of its free speech is a dastardly thing. The framers of the United States Constitution knew this, and so they gave the people the first amendment. Many people, such as John Decamp, would argue that games should not be protected by the first amendment, as they are violent products that should be held responsible by law. Unfortunately for those people, The United States has not yet banned a single game. This is because all forms of speech should receive the same protection. In suing over 25 entertainment companies, many of which have only made games that cannot even be remotely linked to the Columbine High School massacre (such as Square Enix, which is most famous for games containing turn-based fantasy combat that rarely depicts guns), Decamp has stated that he believes that games are not valuable as a form of speech and cannot be considered art. This could not be farther from the truth. Though games are a relatively new art form, many games that could easily be classified as art have been released over the years. Capcom's action/adventure game Okami is a beautiful game that gives the player the opportunity to have an interactive experience with traditional Japanese art, even giving him or her a paintbrush that is used to complete various in-game tasks (VanOrd). Portal, developed by Valve Software, takes the player through a hilarious monologue of dark humor stated by an abandoned computer system used to perform laboratory experiments (Watters). Games can even be based on the themes of books, such as with 2K's Bioshock, a game that places the player in a fictional city-state named Rapture, which has fallen into chaos due to the fanatic belief of its citizens in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. One of the main antagonists of the game is modeled after Ayn Rand herself, right down to his name, Andrew Ryan (Gerstmann).
Ultimately, Decamp's lawsuit against video games is unethical because it is a form of censorship. Censorship, in almost all cases, has led to disorder, such as when certain states refused to teach evolution. Censorship is the enemy of progress. It seeks to destroy thought that is deemed too extreme for people to consider. The problem with this is that thought cannot be deemed extreme or improper until it has been considered. All thoughts, therefore, should be open to consideration, so that people may form their own opinions and gain knowledge, as thought also leads to knowledge. These thoughts are expressed by speech, which must be free, as it is needed to distribute thoughts. Though video games may be a new form of media, they contain thought nonetheless. While many games can often be billed as only being entertainment, they too carry thoughts and have themes, specifically an encouragement to have fun. Other games, though, are quite artistic, and have many themes to express. Simply because of their medium of expression, these games are no less valuable than books and movies, and should not be persecuted in ways that books and movies are now excused from. Decamp fails to understand this, and in so doing, bends his ethics by stifling a growing art form.
Word Count: 2000
Bibliography
"Columbine Lawsuit Against Makers Of Video Games, Movies Thrown Out." The
Associated Press. 12 Feb. 2009.
"Federal Suit Blames Video-Game Makers for Columbine Shooting." The Associated
Press. 19 Feb. 2009.
Gerstmann, Jeff. "BioShock Review." GameSpot. 21 Aug. 2007. CBS Interactive Inc. 3
Mar. 2009 http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/bioshock/review.html.
Luehrs, Sarah. "EU Report: Video Games Can Be Good For Kids." 11 Feb. 2009.
Microsoft. 12 Feb. 2009 http://www.msnbc.com/id/29147581/.
VanOrd, Kevin. "Okami Review ." GameSpot. 15 Apr. 2008. CBS Interactive Inc. 3 Mar.
2009 http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/okami/review.html.
Watters, Chris. "Portal Review." GameSpot. 9 Oct. 2007. CBS Interactive Inc. 3 Mar.
2009 http://www.gamestop.com/pc/action/portal/review.html?om_act=convert&o
m_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review.
