Violent images don't influence us?

[I, Brian]

The UK government is exploring the possbility of banning possession of images of violent sexual acts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm

What I personally find surprising the counter-claim that not only should such material not be legislated against, but also that it has no real impact on viewers:

However, Dr Chris Evans, founder of a group called Internet Freedom, told the Today programme that no material should be banned and people should be able to make their own minds.

"There is a recognition, even in the proposals, that 60 years of research into media effects shows no conclusive evidence that violent images cause violent acts, so I think that the very idea that we need to ban it doesn't hold water," he said.

"But I think the serious problem with it is the assumption that ordinary people cannot be trusted to make up their own minds about what they read, watch or see."

But Mr Goggins argued that they could "certainly point to cases" where viewing such images had an effect such as in the brutal murder of Jane Longhurst.

I don't know about anyone else, but I have long been aware of how easily influenced I am by what I view - not least that exporure to violence normalises it in a way that others may find unacceptable, even if I'm not necessarily carrying out those acts. Perhaps I'm simply lacking the relevant stress triggers.

The point is that even if it doesn;t directly affect my behaviour, I do appreciate that I feel quite influenced by my surroundings - and that means either I am very unusual, or else claims that violent imagery does not influence people is utter rubbish.

Thoughts?

[Faithfulservant]

Regarding what the media should be allowed to print to the public.. yes Im very much in agreement. The media showed the public the extreme of what went on and GI's came home to be spat upon and called baby killers... We get the same thing in Desert Storm and the Iraq war and suddenly a good part of America is anti-war and rallying against our troops.

WWII and WWI we did not have a problem like this.. we had staunch support for our troops from people at home.. Anytime there is a war situation terrible things happen and that shouldnt be posted on the news..

I think its horrible that people can view the execution of people by clicking on an internet link..

Those are my thoughts.

[Dor]

I agree where violent images may not make most people go out and commit the violence they see(of course there will be some who do). It delinately has an effect on society if it is only the dumbing down of the senses to where they have to get more and more violent to get a reaction to people cause they have become so used to seeing the normal(if you can call it that) acts of violence.

[lunamoth]

I go with utter rubbish. Viewing violence and the degradation of people (or animals or environment) in a casual or gratuitous way desensitizes us to such. I think it is spiritually damaging.

lunamoth

[bananabrain]

what a typical piece of headline-grabbing "crackdownism". it's clearly the "silly season".

i think they should ban reality TV while they're at it, as constant hyping of mediocre, barely literate, talentless peasants paraded constantly for our amusement (presumably) encourages the devaluing of the Divine Image. of course, that's not going to happen, but it is further sapping the morals of our already decadent society. violent pornography tarnishes the body as well as the soul but the "entertainment pollution" of reality TV is thrust in our faces in a far more overt and prevalent manner.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to buck the trend on this one and say I do not believe that watching violence on TV or the internet causes violence in real life.

To ban images of violent pornography is like finding a cancerous lump and treating it with an ice pack. It's just a symptom, you have to fight the underlying cause.

And when you get right down to it, where is the evidence linking viewing violence to commiting violence.

It is quite possible that for a child to see such things would cause that child to develop in negative ways since a child's mind is constantly learning and evolving, but I do not accept that for an adult to watch such things will cause him/her to become some sort of monster.

I do agree with banning reality TV though, not because it "encourages the devaluing of the Divine Image" or anything like that, it's just really poor television.

[lunamoth]

BB and Awaiting, I vote with you on reality TV. It is even more insidious than open violence.

[lunamoth]

Maybe it is a slow news season as there is also an article in the NY Times about violent video games and aggression. Conflicting studies are presented (of course). The negative:

But a separate study, also published this month, concluded that violent video games have no "long-term," or permanent, effects on aggressive behavior. The study, by a researcher at the University of Illinois, was among the first of its kind to follow two groups of people for a month, some randomly assigned to play violent video games and some not.

But I think you are right, Brian. It is not as much about immediate violent behaviour as it is about desensitizing ourselves to it, something that is much harder to measure. I was not impressed that the study quoted above monitored behavior for just two months.

lunamoth

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Awaiting_the_fifth

It's just a symptom, you have to fight the underlying cause.

Certainly I'd agree - but I'd also suggest that it's a self-perpetuating cause.

As for evidence - the problem isn't that images of violence makes us immediately what to commit violence - but I would argue that it can set us up in a greater state of tension, which creates a predilection for violence in combination of other factors.

I'm sure when I took psychology that we covered studies where children shown violence were more likely to act in a relatively more violent manner - the problem is that as a complex biological animal we take multiple stimuli into account of our actions - so it would require the right set of triggers to create an overt violent act.

The objection is, why set ourselves up as a species in that manner in the first place?

[Faithfulservant]

Just a thought I had.. its not just the fact that it can perpetuate violence.. how about depression.. Most would agree today that we live in a state of depression.. look at how many people are on anti-depressants or anti-psychotics.. its astronomical how much money is spent a year on these drugs..

[Bandit]

i think it does have an effect on people, especially young children.
i can recall some things as a kid that still bothers me a little even today.

my brother stopped my nephew from watching power rangers & shows like that. after it all he wanted to do is go around kicking & punching people. no violent or killing or stealing games... he is actually turning out ot be a good kid.

[bananabrain]

for me part of the issue is that people who think that kids seeing violence on TV is bad usually want to prevent them reading controversial books or listening to heavy metal and gangsta rap. and that i really don't agree with. unfortunately i can't think of a way to "protect the children" that doesn't infringe upon the rights of those who are not children while failing to deliver any real protection to children. for example, i enjoyed "kill bill" very, very much. i just wouldn't show it to a kid under the age of about 14 - and, frankly, i was reading james bond, conan the barbarian and dracula when i was about 10, with no ill effects (apart from a thick ear from asking my mother what an aureole was). similarly, i enjoy frank zappa, ice-T, pantera and the work of many other less than clean-cut authors, artists and auteurs. in short, i haven't gone out and cut peoples' heads off just because i've read, watched and heard more about it than most; however, it seems clear to me that less intelligent and cultured people than myself (of whom there is no shortage) don't seem to be able to draw this particular distinction. it therefore seems to me that the only way actually to ensure that i am not annoyed is to have a censor that agrees with me 100%. or have "adult entertainment licences" as well as driver's licences. which probably means i should rule the world. go me!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Satanist]

Well people influence pictures too.

And really "influence" means nothing.

It's a good thing to be influenced.
It means you are intelligent.

What is the influence?
That is up to the individual.

Why would it be a "negative" influence from violent pictures?


My take is that we need violence.
We need to feel danger and to see people crush,bleed and scream to appreaciate life and to cailm down.
We are built that way and it helps us care and understand to se others suffer.

It is also important to learn to allow other people to be injured.

And then we have the agressive need. To act out feelings we already have.

Also. Is it wrong to fight? In real life?

Not anybody is capable of fighting in real life and it is not like the movies in the first place.
And it hurts like hell.

There is difference between fighting and killing.

Many friends beat eatch other up with all thinds of things but would never kill them.
Compare it to skateboarding,tunneling or any other activity that leads to lots of pain.
Remember that there are lots of sources of pain in many other hobbies.

And occasionally you meet a rare person that you actually wants to die becouse you hate him so much.

shouldn't you take some real life issues into account here?