Supreme Court on Videogame Violence: It's Not Just a Free-Speech Problem, It's a Bad-Research Problem
Disputes about evidence in social science can drag on for decades. I bet many a researcher has fantasized about the day when a world-famous panel of judges looks at the evidence and then announces that my side is right and the other guy's claims are hokum. Which weirdly enough is just what happened today in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision (pdf) to overturn California's ban sales of violent video games to minors. Three justices wanted to confine the issue to freedom of speech. But the rest waded into researchers' debates about about whether these games are unusually bad for kids. And a majority decided that the answer is no.
Sounding like the increasingly vocal skeptics in academia, Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority said the state's evidence for harm from games "is not compelling." (This passage begins on page 14 of the opinion.) Explaining why, it beat up psychology's leading advocate of this position. "California relies primarily on the research of the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children," Scalia writes. "These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They do not prove that violent videogames cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, he quotes from another decision, " '[n]early all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology.' "That's pretty much the opinion of Christopher J. Ferguson, a psychologist at Texas A&M, who has long criticized the "games are poison" school in the journals. (His amicus brief in the case (pdf) is here.)
Work by Anderson and like-minded researchers, Scalia decided, "at best" finds "minuscule real-world effects," like kids' making louder noises after violent game-playing than after non-violent play. In the dispute among psychologists, the absence of a causal chain and the smallness of the effects are epistemological problems, suggesting that the findings might not hold up or mean much. But for a judge, Scalia points out, there is another issue. Those aspects of the research mean that the aftermath of videogame play hasn't been distinguished from what happens to kids after they watch a TV show or a movie, or hear a violent fairy tale. Which means a law that singles out games as peculiarly harmful is a law that is manifestly unfair.
One of the two dissenters (arch-conservative Clarence Thomas and liberal Stephen Breyer, which shows you that this case scrambled the usual ideological expectations) also left the confines of the free-speech question to debate the merits of the social-science research itself. Breyer's dissent (look at page 12 and after), is a precis of the games-are-harmful case, followed by an argument from authority. Being a mere judge and not a researcher, he writes, he can't decide who is right, so he defers to the official stance of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association. Thomas, meanwhile, kept to freedom-of-speech questions, but came out on the other side than the majority view.
Did five Supreme Court justices need to affirm that Ferguson and his scholarly allies are right, while Anderson and his side are wrong? Did another need to defend Anderson and his allies? They didn't. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts also voted against California, but they, like Thomas, confined themselves to the free-speech issue. Alito's opinion (which Roberts joined) simply says the California law is too vague to satisfy First Amendment requirements. Then Alito goes on to chastise his colleagues for picking sides in the research. So games are no different than movies? "The Court is sure of this," he writes. "I am not."
That was the kind of First-Amendment-only opinion that many observers were expecting. But six justices seem to have decided that the time for leaving scholars to argue about methodology and correlations is over. As a result, five of them have dealt the conventional wisdom on videogames a stunning blow.
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
It's up to us humans to re-humanize our world. An economy that prioritizes growth and profits over humanity has led to digital platforms that "strip the topsoil" of human behavior, whole industries, and the planet, giving less and less back. And only we can save us.
- It's an all-hands-on-deck moment in the arc of civilization.
- Everyone has a choice: Do you want to try to earn enough money to insulate yourself from the world you're creating— or do you want to make the world a place you don't have to insulate yourself from?
A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.
- Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
- The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
- According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
Our attention is more than just a resource. It is an experience.
'We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom.' Those were the words of the American biologist E O Wilson at the turn of the century. Fastforward to the smartphone era, and it's easy to believe that our mental lives are now more fragmentary and scattered than ever. The 'attention economy' is a phrase that's often used to make sense of what's going on: it puts our attention as a limited resource at the centre of the informational ecosystem, with our various alerts and notifications locked in a constant battle to capture it.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.