Of course these words seem ludicrous, especially to those of us who play games and have become enthralled in a story or been taken by a particularly interesting meaning. We only have to recall games like Black and White, Deus Ex, Abe’s Oddyssey, Majestic, State of Emergency, Medal of Honor, and a host of others to find examples of involving narratives conveying ideas and expressing emotion in addition to proliferating various worldviews and ideologies. To make his decision even more absurd, Judge Limbaugh cited his "survey" of four games, two of which he mistakenly refers to as "Mortal Combat" and "Resident of Evil Creek".

The report from FEPP takes into account a large number of studies and evaluates their methods, which are often questionable. Violent activity is sometimes equated with actions like popping balloons, and other "aggressive" elements such as "noise blasts" and "aggressive words" on-screen are cited as contributing to aggressive behaviors. In addition, there is a general error made when researchers fail to differentiate between "aggressive" reactions to playing games and excitement or enjoyment arising from difficulty or performance in a game.

It turns out that we’ve been down this road before. Comic books were scrutinized. Television has been scrutinized. Movies and music have been recently put under the microscope. In all of these cases, results have been inconclusive, but that has not stopped researchers and advocates from making generally unfounded claims about the relationship between violent media and violent behavior. In fact, similar results from similar studies have connected violent behavior to television shows like "Sesame Street" and "Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood". Certainly there is cause for some rational, distanced evaluation of these projects, as it seems unlikely that Daniel the Timid Tiger has ever pushed any child over the edge. However, that’s the common sense coming into play, and common sense seems to be a tricky thing in this subject area. As the FEPP report points out, the occasional positive results in any of these studies do not indicate a larger trend of media-inspired violence.

Rejecting the casual hypothesis that media violence inspires real-world violence is key to the FEPP argument. They advocate a more complex, nuanced approach to the issue. The more interesting view on the subject recognizes that individuals are affected in a variety of ways by all media, and how they are affected depends very much on their specific personalities, experiences, likes and dislikes. The report states, "MIT's Henry Jenkins summed up this approach when he wrote that many young people ‘move nomadically across the media landscape, cobbling together a personal mythology of symbols and stories, and investing those appropriated materials with various personal and subcultural meanings.’" It goes on to note that these appropriated and personalized mythologies are then used for various personal reasons. For example, psychologist Jeffrey Arnett, who has studied the connection between adolescent recklessness and preference for loud or "violent" music, writes that, "adolescents who like heavy metal music listen to it especially when they are angry and the music has the effect of calming them down and dissipating their anger." Furthermore, it is often ignored that the youth, especially teens, who enjoy violent videogames and media the most are often very opposed to violence in the real world and that young people just might be smart enough to tell the difference.

The exhaustive survey of studies on videogames and other media influences on youth is an enlightening and interesting read. The FEPP has created a major point of reference for anyone interested in the subject that is well-documented and well thought out. Their conclusion about censorship and videogames is solid: "Censorship laws based on bogus claims that science has proved harm from violent entertainment deflect attention from the real causes of violence and, given the positive uses of violent fantasy, may be counterproductive." We couldn’t agree more.

In spite of the fact that similar ordinances have been struck down, and that other US District Courts have recognized the right of videogames to protection under the First Ammendment, the St. Louis ordinance is still in place.