Model Argumentative Essay

Ok - this is really rather long - I don't expect you to come up with anything this long for your essay in class. I think it is a little weak on hard evidence (I would like you to do better than me in this area) and some of the links are a little loose. I think I've made a reasonable (and I hope innovative use of TEEL) - you be the judge! Have a look and feel free to comment and critique.

Topic - Stricter censorship is NOT needed.

Our modern society is awash with information, much of it presented to us in the form of new media. The internet generally, online gaming specifically and the massively growing console and computer games industry all mean that we are flooded with material - material that is very difficult to regulate. There have always been people who have wanted to control what they couldn't understand or what seemed new and threatening - but censorship is not the way to deal with the new media. Censorship advocates are knee-jerk, often not understanding the media they are trying to control. On top of this there is no concrete evidence that any of the new media under fire actually cause measurable harm in our society. Finally there is the more general point that censorship of any kind attacks basic rights to freedom of expression and information.

The problem with so many of the people advocating censorship is that they simply do not understand the material they are so desperate to regulate. A case in point is the recent shootings at Virginia Tech. Almost as soon as the news had broken, Jack Thompson, prominent anti-games campaigner was out declaring that it was one more reason games need to be censored. Of course the problem with his argument was that the young man involved in the shootings was not an obsessive gamer - rather he had some serious psychological issues. Censorship advocates wanted recently released game "Bully" censored or banned, without even playing it - they were unaware that it is actually a game where the protagonist stands up to playground bullies rather than is one himself. These are but two examples among many of censorship advocates speaking (or acting!) first without fully understanding the material or its wider implications.

Its not just their lac of understanding which stops censorship advocates making sense; its the fact that they simply do not have the hard evidence for their claims. In fact evidence directly to the contrary exists. An influential study from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has shown that there are no robust links between even some of the most extreme violent video games and real-world aggressive behaviour. These results should come as no surprise, especially when compared to research into youth crime which all statistics indicate has in fact been progressively dropping over the last twenty years. It seems that not just are the kids not becoming more aggressive from playing first person shooters, they are in fact too busy playing them to be out on the streets getting into trouble! But there are higher ideals about freedom that are also at stake in the censorship battle.

Censorship of any kind cuts across some of the most basic rights to freedom of expression and freedom to access information. 18th century conservatives wanted to ban novels (then called romances) because they would poison the delicate minds of women. 1940's conservatives wanted to ban comic books, lest they damage the minds of the young. But the censorship net is thrown much wider. So many governments, in today's heightened atmosphere of political paranoia, want to ban anything that they disagree with - the use of anti-terror legislation is just one example. Censorship of new media is the thin edge of the wedge; if we allow our freedom to choose what we will view or read or interact with be diminished by even the slightest degree, we open the door to total control of our lives.

Of course there are many who argue that scientific studies like those from the University of Illinois are artificial constructs and that the results can't necessarily be translated to the real world. Jack Thompson for example, is certain there is a link between Grand Theft Auto: Vice City and the 2003 murder of two police officers and a civilian police worker in Fayette, Alabama. While its true that for every study pro game or neutral on the issue, there is another one that is anti, what we have to look at is indeed the real world. millions of people around the world play games on consoles, computers and online. millions more access all manner of violent and sexually explicit material from the internet. But we do not have an epidemic of crime and generalised violence. On the contrary youth crime rates are dropping. The real world is the real test and in the real world it is not gamers who are committing horrendous crimes but the same psychologivally disturbed and dangerous people who always have.

One of the other central arguments regarding censorship of new media is the idea that we must protect particularly young people from material that is very difficult to regualate in any other way. What this argument misses is the fact that the games industry already self-censors and that particularly in countries like Australia very strict classification procedures already exist. Besides, just as with violent or sexually explicit material on film or television, surely it is the obligation of parents to act as final arbiters about what is and isn't appropriate for their children. For adults, surely we can make up our own minds?

The debate about censorship, particularly of the new, will continue to rage. What is clear is that so many of those advocating stricter censorship do not fully understand the material they wish to ban or the connections between it and the real world. In fact there is strong scientific and anecdotal evidence to suggest that such links simply do not exist. Finally, we have an obligation to defend all our rights and freedoms, particularly those to freedom of expression and access to information, from any incursion. A free society is one that is not afraid of the new, but rather embraces it.