From the prohibition of killer games

The discussion of so-called killer games stops for years, for months, she operated more or less regularly. Since it is not surprising that many of eternal Hick hacks are tired and ask only for the position of the respective author. Is he for or against killer games and are thus the “new” arguments for or against a ban of the games, for or against a strengthening of the protection of minors, for or against the principal debt of PC games at acts of violence? The politicians anyway, so the view the player operate stereotypical populism. Ignorant, not interesting, outrageous! The computer players, however, come just cracks the policy according to, requiring only an event, to implement the virtual training in real crime. Children, killer, rioters!

None of the views is especially differentiated. It is enough in this discussion quite simply not the own opinion as well founded and that the other side as unfounded set the record straight. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. But where?

The fact is that the Federal Government at the end of last year a draft of the Federal Family Minister adopted, its most serious impact the prohibition of “violence beherrschter” (instead of as usual “violent or war violent“) games should be. This year, Bundestag and Bundesrat should agree to the changes and thus adopt the amendment to the text. In addition are not dented attempts of the Bavarian State Government in the Federal Council to introduce an own Bill – only well a week ago, the “draft of law to improve the protection of minors” on the agenda, which aims at strengthening of the Criminal Code also stood here once again. Reason enough so to initiate countermeasures?

Also, the fact is that there are really no facts in this discussion. There are almost infinitely many analyses, research, surveys and studies on the subject, but not a common outcome. Not even with the help of meta-analyses clear trends can be find out – the results of different studies diverge greatly. Or else: for every opinion, there is a study on why also the collection of the different results can be omitted here.

The real question is therefore: laws without basis can be decided? Or vice versa: is it morally justifiable, not to do it just because no one can show a positive correlation between aggressive behavior and game use? And what causes a change in law at all?

It comes to federal family Minister Ursula von der Leyen, so will be decided this year, automatically ban also violent beherrschte apart from violent games. Concrete – or not – it involves games “involving particularly realistic, cruel and lurid depictions of violence and acts of killing, selbstzweckhaft dominating the media action”. The phrase itself is criticized as too vague – it creates legal uncertainty because the interpretation in doubt would be the Court. Elsewhere, the changes of infringing on the other hand as not profound be rebuffed enough – you should rather seek an extension of the criminal code according to Bavarian design and take a production and distribution ban in the eye.

It is clear: in both cases, the number of games, which are prohibited without a review by the ESRB or BPjM is expected to rise. That is, that will be prohibited not only children and young people, these games to purchase; Access to this software also adult persons is prohibited. And – when all contradiction of those studies that examine the impact of video games – the purchaser of the computer and console games are pretty clearly known: they are mainly adults and not to a great extent young people, as one might assume. So, a study of the society for consumer research (gfk) comes to the conclusion that only about 25 to 30 percent of the video game buyers are under 19 years of age. On the other hand the 30 have exceeded more than half of all buyers of PC and video games already at the age.

Protection of minors so, which is wrong (adults)? “No”, proponents of the ban argue, after all related youth violence triefende games via adult friends or relatives, which in this way you could get all the same. Can be kept “Yes”, however, that especially the would have to accept restrictions which previously legally could buy annotated title without youth share, which are banned under new law, however.

But where are the guardian considered? All discussion, it seems too often to be assumed that there seems to be no institution more between the quite worthy young people and the sometimes violent computer games. A ban could grab course helping the guardian under the arms, providing they would not be faced with the question, whether a product is so harmful to young people, that it should – be banned because it will after the adoption of the law. The question is whether this patronizing guardian is an enlightened society, or whether here is trying by all means, must indulge to go just this information out of the way and set by doctrine, who what kind of culture.

Ultimately, can, and you should see that how you want. At this point, however interested PC gamers to be pointed out that it is made an initiative supported by the PC games business, actively involve as many consumers in the current political debate and to influence the decision-making process of the Government this year in this way.

Personal comment

The cultural value of violent is quite doubtful, on the impact on young people, one can also argue and many product simply has no place in children’s hands! Which to understand – and implement – you must ban but not necessarily each, to buy certain software. Extremely violent containing title be indexed anyway (so not publicly accessible), or released only for adult buyers. These mechanisms do not, grab something like wrong walk; It justifies adopted prohibitions, whose Wirksamkeit is already doubtful but certainly not by vague definition.

The dilemma that opening up here, which actually is not. Their solution is already in the definition of the problem: If currently is feared and to fear in the future is that young people anyway illegal paths overturn the protection of minors, as will suddenly lead to improvements new laws? Should you, figuratively speaking, build new barriers or not would rather tighten border controls to the existing? A least function is simply to increase controls in the store and to raise awareness – parents in particular – to take young people as adults not possibilities, but to give new. Not for the purchase of PC and video games, but for alternative leisure.

In short: Who wants to have a gewaltfreiere future, should provide a corresponding future young people.