I know a lot of people who would double up in laughter just from reading that question. I totally understand. Who said that either thing is â€œbadâ€ in the first place? Of course, it really depends on where youâ€™re coming from and how you think.
Anyhow, I came across this question in the Christian Science Monitor web site. (Yeah I know, what was I doing there? I like reading different points of view.) The article presented the case of the Entertainment Software Association, which sued the Chicago Transit Authority for banning advertisements about video game releases with mature content.
The supporting argument of the ESA is that while laws have been continuously implemented that target video games â€“ especially those that are labeled mature and violent â€“ movies and books (and other media) that have the same kind of content have remained untouched. The organization feels that the government is being selective in implementing bans and similar action.
David Horowitz, the executive director of Media Coalition, an organization which is backing ESAâ€™s case, says that â€œEx-[Illinois] Governor Blagojevich spent hundreds of thousands of dollars unsuccessfully to defend a law that barred minors from buy or renting similar video games before it was struck down as unconstitutional. The Chicago Transit Authority should repeal this ill-conceived ordinance rather than using scarce resources to fight this in court and get the same result.â€
I would have to agree with him.
So going back to my original question: which is the lesser of two evils, assuming that they are both evil? Would you rather have your children exposed to mature video games or to rated R movies?