Nguyen 1

Andrew Nguyen
Groza
RWS 280 Section 8
29 September 2016
Articulating the Argument
On October 7, 2005, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill
1179 into law. The bill required violent video games to be labeled as specified and would
prohibit the sale or rental of those violent video games, as defined, to minors (California). Ten
days later, The Video Software Dealers Association and Entertainment Software Association
filed a complaint against the law in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment and that the defendants
did not offer sufficient proof that violent video games correlate to violent behavior (Brown v.
Entertainment Merchants Association). The State of California then filed its appeal of the
injunction to the 9th Circuit of Appeals but the court upheld the ruling that the law is
unconstitutional. Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown were granted
certiorari by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of the 9th Circuits ruling. The Supreme Court
heard an oral argument on November 2, 2010.
In their article, Science Shows No Link between Games and Violence, published in the
San Diego Union-Tribune on December 19, 2010, sociologist Karen Sternheimer and
Entertainment Software Association president and CEO Michael D. Gallagher argue that there is
no reliable scientific proof to verify that violence in video games causes children to be violent in
the real world. They point to a study conducted by Texas A&M University professors and
additional support from Harvard Medical School professors, Lawrence Kutner and Cheryl K.

Nguyen 2
Olson, which show no strong connection between violence in video games and subsequent
violence in real life. Sternheimer and Gallagher look to federal crime statistics from the last 15
years and find that the rate of violent youth crime decreased as video game popularity increased,
the exact opposite of what would occur if a meaningful causal link existed (2). They claim
that the banning of video games is not the first time new forms of entertainment were blamed for
the cause of societal issues, noting that rock-and-roll, comic books, and movies have all been
blamed for causing these issues. Sternheimer and Gallagher argue that California should devise
laws that address the real causes of violence, like substance abuse, family violence and
neighborhood instability (2) instead of using flawed assumptions (2). The article ends on a
hopeful note; Sternheimer and Gallagher hope that their path of reasoning will be shared by the
U.S. Supreme Court and result in the law being declared unconstitutional.
The purpose of Sternheimer and Gallaghers article is to illustrate and explain the reasons
why the bill banning sales of violent video games to minors contains logical flaws and to stir up
support in opposition of the bill. The intended audience of Sternheimer and Gallaghers article
ranges from concerned parents, who may or may not allow their child to buy violent video
games, to others who are simply concerned with violence in general. The article simply aims to
dispel the claim that violence within video games leads children to behave violently in real life.
Sternheimer and Gallagher use logical appeal, logos, in their article when they cite
federal crime statistics. They found that as video game popularity soared in this country, the
rate of violent youth crime decreased dramatically (2). By inserting a factual statistic in favor
of their claim, Sternheimer and Gallagher are able to evoke a cognitive and rational response
from the reader. The reader follows the authors logic and can come to the same, reasonable
conclusion.

Nguyen 3
To construct their credibility and authority, ethos, the authors use multiple reputable
sources to support their claim. Sternheimer and Gallagher first look to a study conducted by
professors at Texas A&M University to show the lack of a correlational link between violent
forms of media and aggression. The authors then use findings from the previously mentioned
federal crime statistics. Using a source such as the government gives the reader a sense of trust
because the information is likely factual and accurate. Once credibility has been established, the
authors can move forward with their reasoning.
Sternheimer and Gallagher do not simply rely on credibility and facts alone to argue their
claim; they also write with emotion, pathos, to appeal to the reader. The authors look at past
examples where [m]ovies, comic books and rock-and-roll served as scapegoats for complex
social issues (2). By providing the reader with a relatable comparison, the authors let the reader
take over and use his or her own judgment to come to a conclusion. Tapping into the readers
emotion produces attraction to the authors claim and creates a connection between the authors,
topic, and reader.
The argument in Science Shows No Link between Games and Violence is highly
effective. Sternheimer and Gallagher are able to craft an article which incorporates three types
of appeal: logos, ethos, and pathos. Overall, the article remains light while discussing a matter as
serious as violence. It is informative and opinionated, but not overbearing. The article gently
takes the readers hand and guides him or her through the authors logical reasoning. It does not
tell the reader what he or she should believe, but rather, it lays out the facts and findings of
reputable sources and allows the reader to come to his or her own conclusion.

Nguyen 4
Works Cited
"Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association." Mediacoalition.org. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
California. Assembly. Violent Video Games: Sales to Minors. 2005-2006 reg. sess. AB 1179.
Sacramento: OSP, 2005. Web. 25 Sep. 2016.
Sternheimer, Karen, and Michael Gallagher D. "Science Shows No Link between Games and
Violence." Sandiegouniontribune.com. The San Diego Union-Tribune, 19 Dec. 2010.
Web. 26 Sept. 2016.