It’s Perverse, but It’s Also Pretend

[Commentary] The Supreme Court struck down, on First Amendment grounds, California’s law barring the sale or rental of violent video games to people under 18. On a practical level, the law was vague. It was never clear which games might fall under the law, or whose job it would be to decide. But more important, the state’s case was built on assumptions — that violent games cause children psychological or neurological harm and make them more aggressive and likely to harm other people — that are not supported by evidence.

In the end, the case serves only to highlight how little we know about this medium and its effects on our children. We need to reframe our view of video games. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred with the majority’s opinion, but with some reservations: “We should take into account the possibility that developing technology may have important societal implications that will become apparent only with time,” Justice Alito wrote. This is excellent advice, but only if we are willing to consider that video games may have potential benefits as well as potential risks.

[Olson is a public health researcher]