MAKE ONE RESPONSE OF AT LEAST 300 WORDS TO EACH OF THE ATTACHED POSTS.
Each reply must be at least 300 original words that respond to the initial threads. Each reply must incorporate citations in current APA format from the textbook, at least 2 scholarly sources, and 1 integrated Bible verse. Any sources cited must be peer-reviewed and have been published within the last five years. PLEASE DO NOT USE THE SAME SOURCES THAT ARE IN THE ORIGINAL POSTS
Acceptable sources include books, legal and business journals, legal cases, the law (cases, statutes, regulations, etc.), the Bible, biblical commentary, etc. Dictionaries and other web sources that lack scholarly support are not acceptable sources. Any sources cited must be current to the issue (e.g., Bible commentaries may by applicable from any age, but articles discussing current legal practices may no longer be relevant after 2 or 5 years).
Should the creators of violent media owe a duty of care to victims of crimes based on violent media?
This is a question that would certainly be considered a controversial issue in our culture today, and rightly so. Both sides of the given argument make very strong and persuasive points. The side believing that violent media should owe a duty of care to victims of crimes based on violent media argues that the media has a strong impact on an individual’s actions (Kippenhan, 2023). Looking at the issue from the side believing violent media shouldn’t owe a duty of care to victims based on violence, the argument is different. This side believes that violent media is and should be protected by the First Amendment right of free speech, and so the creators shouldn’t be held responsible for another’s actions (Kippenhan, 2023). Personally, I can see myself siding with both sides of the issue depending on the circumstances of the individual case. If I have to choose one side though, I would choose the side believing that creators should not be held responsible. I say this understanding that the influence of violent media could push individuals to commit acts of violence. I would like to believe however, that how someone reacts to something is the doing of the induvial and not that of the creator. Thinking about the situation as well though, it seems to me that it would be hard to directly link someone’s actions to just one influence in their life. If creators were held accountable, I am led to believe that some creators would end up owing a duty of care for something they had very little influence on. If a scenario arose where the violent acts of an individual could be traced directly back to one form of violent media, I would tend to believe that creator could be investigated but they are still not the ones committing the violent act.
To tie this scenario into a biblical worldview or perspective I think one could look at the situation and compare it to Romans 14 and the concept of weaker brother stronger brother (English Standard Version Bible, Romans 14). In this situation I tend to think of the stronger brother as the parental figure in the individual life. This figure should strive to keep the weaker brother (the child) from stumbling or doing things that would cause them to stumble. The parents may be able to expose themselves to forms of violent media and not feel compelled to perform violent acts or have violent thoughts. The child on the other hand might not respond the same way, and it’s the stronger brother’s job to discourage harmful activities from a perspective of love and not as a way to flaunt their own liberties.
Adding to the argument that violent media can be linked to violent actions, one study observed the release times of mature rated video games and mature rated blockbuster movies. The aim of the study was to see if a spike in crime and violent activity would happen as a result of release. The results found that after the releases an increase in crime could be seen, particularly among the under-17 population (Impink, 2021). This is interesting as mature rated games are explicitly labeled to not be suitable for younger populations. Again, this could point to the idea of stronger brother weaker brother. Parents of these children in my opinion should be held accountable to what their children are exposed to, not the creators of the violent content.
Another study studied the relationship between anger in association with online aggressive behavior while playing violent video games. The results were as some would expect. Subjects with higher levels of self-control exhibited less aggressive behavior, while subjects with low levels of self-control were much more aggressive (Zheng, 2021). These children were of similar age to the study mentioned above. Again, I would believe that it’s the parent’s duty in this situation to step in when they see their child blatantly becoming angry over something as silly as a video game. Some children are able to control themselves, and therefore aren’t impacted in a negative way when they play violent video games. This is an issue that should be dealt with on the parental level and shouldn’t involve violent media producers.
English Standard Version Bible. (2001). ESV Online. https://esv.literalworld.com/ Links to an external site.
Impink, J., Kielty, P., Stice, H., & White, R. (2021). Violent Video Games and Crime. Journal of Media Economics, 33(3-4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997764.2021.2008409 Links to an external site.
Kippenhan, N., Kabasek, N., Browne, N., & Herron, D. (2023). Biblical Worldview Edition of Dynamic Business Law (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education LLC.
Zheng, X., Chen, H., Wang, Z., Xie, F., & Bao, Z. (2021). Online violent video games and online aggressive behavior among Chinese college students: The role of anger rumination and self‐control. Aggressive Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21967 Links to an external site.
Should the creators of violent media owe a duty of care to victims of crimes based on violent media? If modified comparative fault existed in a situation like this, then absolutely. Let's dive into a few questions to add more "weight" to my response.
Does a business owe anything to its customers? Specifically does it owe "duty of care"? Here are a few nuggets from the text to consider. Kubasek says, "The courts generally hold that businesses have a duty of care to protect their customers against foreseeable risks about which the owner knew or reasonably should have known." (Kubasek, 2016, pg. 158) Also, the text states, "Businesses should warn customers about risks they may encounter on business property. Some risks, however, are obvious, and businesses need not warn customers about them." (Kubasek, 2016, pg. 158)
From my experience, businesses tend to exist or thrive based on supply and demand. Is there a demand for violent media? I tend to say, absolutely. Whether it is inner-cravings produced by seekers or just a "swipe and watch" because the post is so captivating, the creators of violent media are prepared to meet the need. But, where does this start?
"The impact of violence in the media on our society is undeniable. Recent statistics reveal that 97% of youths play violent video games, which can increase aggressive behavior by 60%. Surprisingly, less than 10% of parents use technology to restrict their children’s access to such content. Moreover, children are exposed to over 8,000 murders on television before graduating from elementary school." (Gitnux, 2023) What this tells me is that businesses, that produce violent media, are feeding society material that can potentially be the reason that many decide to imitate and live out the imagery "sold" to them. Also, from the article excerpt, children seem to be the target. This is where a large part of my issue lies. Are they not partly responsible? I believe they are partly responsible, but not ultimately. When parents allow such media to filter in their homes and support, by purchase, these products, there is acceptance of the "tarnishing-dusk" that comes with having this kind of media viewed. Scripture says, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (King James Version, 1769, Romans 12:2-3) From this passage, we know that to do good and to honor the will of God, one has to have their mind renewed. Renewed from what? Things that promote evil within the minds of "men".
So, are these businesses aiding in the promotion of violence, aggressive behavior, and the like? Jesus says, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (King James Version, Mark 7:20-23) I believe scripture would definitely place some ownership on businesses that provide this type of media, outside of those that are reporting news for awareness and protection purposes. The creators of violent media owe a duty of care to victims of crimes based on violent media.
Kubasek, N. K., Browne, M. N., Barkacs, L., Herron, D., & Dhooge, L. (2016). Biblical worldview edition of dynamic business law: The Essentials, 3e. N. J. Kippenhan (Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education
Gitnux. (2023, September 5). Violence in Media Statistics and Trends in 2023.
The Holy Bible, King James Version. Cambridge Edition: 1769; King James Bible Online, 2023. www.kingjamesbibleonline.org