Economics‎ > ‎Choice‎ > ‎Bans‎ > ‎Censorship‎ > ‎


Should we ban certain games?

What is a game?


A competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more entities who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Wider Definition

  • Is work a game?
  • Some people treat relationships like a game?

Types of games

  • Educational
  • Recreational
  • Adult

Ratings levels

  • Games are rated for 12-years and over if they include non-graphic violence to human or animal characters, a slightly higher threshold of violence to fantasy characters or significant nudity or bad language.
  • Games are rated 16-years and over if the depiction of violence or sexual activity looks the same as it would do in normal life. Drug and tobacco references also trigger the age limit.
  • Games are rated 18-years and over if there is a "gross" level of violence likely to make the viewer feel a sense of revulsion.


Games are a form of entertainment

The case for banning games?

I was so affected by years of playing Pac Man that I'm now terrified of ghosts and spend my nights wondering the streets eating anything that's put in front of me!

Whats wrong with games?


Games most often have winners and losers, but seldom victims. Unless the games contain illegal activity, involuntary participants, or cheating.

Games in themselves are neutral, just an activity, usually someone pointless and removed from reality. People know this, and probably wouldn't enter into many of them if they were real. Most people would hate to be on the losing end of monopoly, or risk.

Arguments against types of movies

  1. Some people complain about games that have violence in them
    But the violence is not real, and there are no real victims, the players know this but the complainers are the ones that confuse reality with fantasy.
  2. Some people complain that games make people violent
    If that was true, the billions of games out there would produce billions of violent people, so this argument follow.
    If there is any relationship it might be violent people desire violent games for a release.
  3. Some people complain about war games, but happy to see superheroes beat up villains.
    But punching someone who's trying to kill you seems far less questionable than punching someone with impunity because you've been appointed a "good guy".

The case against banning games?

Censorship is futile

  • Parents and kids ignore the ratings. Why bother?
  • Absolutely 100% unenforceable!
  • Waste of money. Surely everyone knows that this will be rightly circumnavigated by parents where they deem it appropriate. 
  • The danger is that it gives people a false sense of safety about the product being purchased.
  • A younger sibling may watch a game played by an older sibling.
Only two titles have ever been banned in the UK - Manhunt 2 and Carmageddon. Both were the result of rulings by the BBFC and both decisions were later overturned.

Your going to play the same games as your friends.


Whereas telling children about a man who was forced to wear a thorn bush on his head, nailed to a piece of wood which he as then forced to drag through a street, while being verbally abused, who had his feet nailed to a second piece of wood and then after several hours of agonising suffocation was eventually stabbed to death is totally has no affect on kids, but playing video games does?
Paint-ball sites minimum age restrictions of 12
Laser tag tends to be 8. 
So you can go out and actually shoot your friend at 12, but are supposed to wait 'til 18 to do it virtually.
A 16 year old is old enough to join the army and eligible to pay full UK tax, but does not have the freedom to play CoD or other military shooters.
The Sims 2/3 has a 12 rating because it features cartoon violence and the people can 'woo hoo' to make babies. 
Sex education starts before 12 in the UK and the violence is exceeded on many children's cartoons.

The age rating system is ridiculous. How can a war game be rated 18 yet you can actually join the army and go to war at the age of 16?

Why is pretend shooting o.k when we were kids, but pretend video game shooting is going to corrupt the mind?

Should we put violence warnings on the Bible, Qur'an, and Torah ? More have died from these than video games.

Fantasy & reality

There is difference between fantasy & reality. Violence in video games is ok, because it's not real; no-one suffered as a result from shooting that guy in the head, there were no tears shed over his death, no kids left without a father, he was a virtual character in a virtual world. Not real!


Who's responsibility is censoring 'bad' things?

The gov thinks there is no common sense left in this country.

Two kids of equal age may be completely different when it comes to responsibility. An age rating does not help this.

Why is it the shopkeepers responsibility what the consumer buys? Who pays them for this role.
What is not a good idea is the idea of sending shopkeepers to prison or paying a standing army of bureaucrats to chase shopkeepers. 


Not all killers, rapists, gangsters and thugs play games


If the Pac-Man video game had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music and we would be now terrified of ghosts and spend our nights wondering the streets eating anything that's put in front of us!

Chicken or egg

Just because some violent kids also play games, does the violent kid play violent games or do violent games make violent kids? 
Conversely not all killers, rapists, gangsters and thugs play games.

Knife and gun crimes existed way before video games.The point is?


It's a triumph of "common sense" over logic and observation that people can still ARGUE a product which millions of people consume MUST be the cause of isolated instances of violence

Why is it, in that case, that violent crime has been down across Western countries for the past 20 years at an appreciable level if games affect children adversely?

Producer level censoring

Parent or self censoring

These days its fashionable to blame video games as they are an easy target. We should blame:
  • bad parenting
  • poor education 
  • a lack of respect for our fellow man
  • Sticking a rating on a video game will make kids want it even more.


Does anyone believe if it wasn't for games then all teenagers would be perfect students with perfect grades and bright futures? 

Before games it was :
before that 
comic books
before that 
Rock n Roll..

Wrong level of control

The government should have no say on what media people choose to view or engage with. What a waste of legislation. 

Parents should be responsible for what their kids buy. Not the law!!!!  This is infantilising parents.
If you're too stupid to not be adversely affected by something you watch or play then there's no helping you.

video games = soft target for the government to be seen to be doing something.


How is it fair to have a video game banned because certain people don't like it, what about my choice?

Missed chance to learn


If the console is in the lounge parents can monitor games. Parents can then point out rights & wrong & how things are in real life. 
They have played most military games can increase their knowledge and interest in history if used as a learning aid. Also it can increase a healthy respect for our troops overseas.


Games are just one of many distractions in life that their parents should be guiding children through. Ultimately it's an excuse for lazy parents to shirk responsibility for vetting and/or monitoring the conduct of their children and then blame anyone else but themselves for bad influences their kids are exposed to.

Maybe, if they are responsible parents, they have raised their child to recognise the difference between fantasy & reality? Kids aren't as stupid as most people like to believe.


What next

Why stop at video games, why not ban all games where violence or sex is a part.
  • No more cops and robbers for kids and
  • No more sex games for adults.