The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:

“As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

When taking into account the evidence provided, it is clear that the line of reasoning used to construct the argument is extremely weak. The claim that violence in movies increases crime is predicated on the assumption that violent movies draw people to their violent acts. This assumption is questionable at best, as studies have shown that violent media does not lead people to commit violent acts. The relationship between violent media and aggression is more complex than most people realize. Psychologists have observed that people who view violent media tend to score higher on measures of aggression than those who do not watch violent media. However, this does not prove that viewing violent media causes aggressive behavior. It could be that individuals who are predisposed towards violence are drawn to violent media, and that viewing violent media merely increases the likelihood they will act on their aggression. Equally plausible is the argument that people who watch violent media are desensitized to violence, which renders them unable to respond with appropriate feelings of anger and sadness. Many studies have also indicated that violent media does not increase aggression in individuals who do not already score high on this measure. Thus, the claim that violent media causes people to act out violently is not supported by data

A second questionable assumption in the argument concerns the motives behind legislators’ failure to act. The legislators are accused of not being concerned since they are opposed to censorship. However, this is not necessarily the case. Politicians are motivated by many factors, but censorship is not one of them. Politicians may fear a backlash from voters if they pass a law that restricts certain content, although evidence for this is lacking. Alternatively, some may believe that restricting certain content would reduce revenue. Politicians may also believe that restricting content violates the First Amendment, and argue that this type of government intrusion into private lives is unwarranted. In general, politicians try to avoid actions that will alienate their constituents

The argument’s conclusion is also flawed. The fact that a bill calling for censorship failed to receive a majority vote does not prove that legislators are not concerned about this issue. The proponents of the bill may have misjudged the level of support the bill would receive, or the bill may have been amended in such a way that it was rejected. For example, the bill may have been amended to include provisions that would have caused it to violate the First Amendment. It is also possible that the bill’s opponents were successful in convincing enough legislators to vote against the bill. It is also possible that the bill was not given enough attention by the media, so very few people knew about it. The chances of the bill passing were slim, although the supporters may have mistakenly thought that the bill had a better chance of passing

This argument also raises a number of concerns. First, since violent media does not lead to aggressive behavior, the advocates of censorship are misguided if they believe that restricting violent content will reduce violent crime. If the average viewer who watched a violent movie is less likely to commit a violent act, then restricting violent content will have little impact on violent crime. Second, restricting access to violent content will limit the freedom of expression. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, ‘All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’ The First Amendment of the Constitution protects this right. However, this protection does not extend to anything that someone finds offensive, and it does not require the government to restrict access to content that does not incite violence. Third, not all violent action can be prevented. If an individual is already predisposed towards violence, restricting access to violent content will do little to prevent him or her from acting out violently. Finally, restricting violent content will result in increased censorship. If the bill is amended so that it no longer includes provisions that would restrict violent content, but includes provisions that would infringe on the First Amendment rights of citizens, then it will receive less support. If the amendments are made so that the bill completely prohibits access to violent content, it is likely that it will receive a majority vote. Thus, it is more likely that the bill will be struck down if it is more restrictive than it needs to be

The claim that violent movies lead to increased crime is not supported by data. The assumption that violent media draws people to violent acts is questionable, and the claim that legislators are not concerned about this issue is flawed.

Total
0
Shares
Total
0
Share