Nearly three years ago at the age of sixteen I attended the wedding of my Uncle Edmure in mid January. I traveled to the wedding with my mother Catelyn, my brother Robb, and his wife Talisa, who was two months pregnant. My uncle was marrying a younger woman by the name of Roslin Frey, the daughter of Lord Walder Frey. My brother Robb was supposed to marry her but married Talisa for love instead. Begrudgingly, my mother's brother agreed to step in and marry the Frey girl. 

Roslin Frey was actually quite stunning, unlike most of the Freys. Afterward, the feast began and musicians played in lofts surrounding the great hall. Edmure and Roslin were lead away to their bedchamber. Robb kissed Talisa while putting his hand to her belly, my mother smiled. It was the first time I had seen her smile since my father's murder. 


However, her momentarily joy turned to suspicion as the door of the great hall was closed by one of Lord Walder's sons. The music changed to a solemn, horrible tune my mother knew from childhood. Before she could say anything Lord Walder called for our attention and we sat down. 

While he spoke my mother noticed the smirk on the man sitting next to her. Eyeing toward his arm my mother lifted his sleeve. She immediately noticed the chainmail beneath and her stomach dropped. Standing, she slapped him as hard as she could and screamed Robb's name, but too late. Another of Lord Walder's sons stood behind Talisa and pulled a dagger. He plunged the blade viciously into her abdomen with five quick thrusts. Talisa screamed and fell to the floor, dark red liquid pouring from her.


Before Robb could react an arrow pierced him in the shoulder, then another in the back, and the then another in the side till he fell to the floor as well. Where there had once been musicians in the lofts above there were now crossbowmen. All the while my mother looked on in horror till an arrow pierced her in the back and she fell the floor. The Freys slaughtered my brother's men. They cut their throats, decapitated them, plunged them full of arrows, or gutted them as they did to Talisa.


Weakly, my brother crawled toward Talisa and put his hand on her abdomen. Blood continued to ooze from her belly, clearly visible against the light grey fabric of her dress. A pool of red surrounded her now lifeless body and soaked her hair. Robb still held her, while he himself became covered in their blood.


My mother saw Robb slumped over and covered in blood. Hatred in her eyes she grabbed a knife that had fallen from a table. Noticing Lord Walder's wife hiding beneath his own table she grabbed her and held the knife to the girl's throat. 

She pleaded for my brother's life, but Lord Walder laughed and refused. Robb stumbled to his feet and said, "Mother". 

A man stepped forward and plunged a dagger into my brother's heart and twisted. My mother screamed bloody murder and sliced the throat of Lord Walder's wife spraying the room with blood. Tears in her eyes she just stood motionless. Finally, another man gripped my mother's shoulder and opened her throat from ear to ear.


The screen went black. I had just witnessed the infamous "Red Wedding" episode of HBO'S Game of Thrones.  To this day it was the most horrific fictional event I have ever seen occur on television. It was extremely surreal to watch the "good guys" not end up the winners. Watching so many characters I had known for several years viciously murdered altered my perspective of the world. The television I had always known was no longer a place of only happy endings and the hero winning. It caused me to keep an open mind and approach life more cautiously. But at the end of the day it was entertaining, and I'm glad I was able to see it how the writers wanted it to be seen. No censorship. Though it was emotionally horrifying it is an amazingly impactful creative piece.

It was because of this television episode this topic of media violence was so enticing. Throughout the recent years there have been news headlines of criminals blaming or crediting television shows or movies as the primary causes for their heinous actions. At first I was shocked, but took the time to ponder that assertion. I was altered by what I had seen from five minutes of television, so could it be possible for fictional television to drive people to extremes?   

However, the extreme violence I witnessed didn't provoke me to commit violence upon other human beings. Still, I am not so naive to think that violent television can't have any sort of effect on humans, primarily adolescents.  After reading countless articles on the effects of extensive exposure to television it was evident that aggressive behavior could be a result of over exposure to hours of violent media daily. The results of any study became difficult to read accurately because a lot had to do with the children tested.

Dr. Beresin, a firm supporter of censorship of violent media with years of experience and numerous studies under his belt on the issue, agreed that children need to have all their pre-diagnosed conditions on record before accurate results can be recorded (Beresin). Children with autism, ADHD, or mentally disabled are more prone to aggressive behavior when it comes to watching violent television (Beresin). Dr. Beresin asserts that parents are the ones who should first give censorship, while others believe it is the responsibility of the government from the start (Fei.). My belief in the parent's right to censorship over the government stems from the freedom of speech and expression in the Constitution of the United States (US Const. amen. I). 

My preconception about violence correlating to real crime was solidified through my research. A person whose primary goal is to commit violence is going to commit violence whether or not they watch a television show or movie. Fictional media violence doesn't directly cause acts of violence and any censorship of media should be left up to the parents of young children, not the government. 

Understanding the view that believed violent media did have drastic effects on society is an important thought to pursue. Dr. Beresin claimed that children witness over 200,000 acts of violence by the time they are eighteen (Beresin). One of his key explanations linking aggression to violent media in young children is that many children, particular under the age of four can't tell the difference when in comes to TV and real life. They mistake fantasy for reality and will try to imitate the actions with their relatives or other young friends (Beresin). Their brains are simply not at a level of development that can help them easily distinguish the difference between fact and fiction.

Fortunately, limited exposure to even extreme acts of violence on a television leaves minimal effects on healthy children (Bushman and Rowell). However, hours of viewing vehement scenes daily can lead to long-term effects of aggression.  For instance even seeing a weapon, whether it's real or fake can instinctively cause aggressive thoughts and behavior if previously seen used in a violent television sequence (Bushman and Rowell). If a child has sees or hears in anything in public linked to a violent scene it can cause an increase in blood pressure and a more hostile arousal. 

A problem with this, experts argue, is that if a child is aggressive during one of these instances the memories linked to what they viewed on television only get worse and more aggressive (Bushman and Rowell).  Once this cycle is set in motion it is almost impossible to reverse and it will only get worse as time progresses. 

One way to combat this aggressive cycle from starting is the involvement of the parents. Parents are recommended to limit young children to one to two hours of television and monitor what they watch. Beresin recommends involving physicians in educating children and parents on the effects of excessive amounts of violent television (Beresin).  Beresin does believe if more children reach a dangerous level of unstable emotion drastic steps may have to be taken by getting politicians involved.  Whether if that means by installing chips to block certain programs or requiring warnings at the beginning of programs, he believes it to be a necessary inconvenience (Beresin).

For some, a simple warning at the beginning of a program isn't enough.  They want to remove the program as a viewing option altogether. In China, the government has complete and total control over what their citizens are able to view. Those who agree with the Chinese Government and their strict enforcement laws believe "Viewers who see too many instances of violence on TV may exaggerate the frequency of violence in the real world, fear becoming a victim, have feelings of vulnerability, and even have a strong expectation that others will behave aggressively" (Fei).  Even if these beliefs are a reality for a percentage of people, strict censorship supporters believe the prevention needs to be applied to the entire population. 

Desensitization is another factory many fear. With more exposure to violence some argue that people will become numb to what they see and have less moral conflict in committing an atrocious act themselves (Fei).  While many in China see entertainment as purely that, entertainment, the Chinese Government weighed the pros and cons and chose to eliminate the risk of violent media altogether. The Chinese regime also uses their corrupt laws to try and prevent independent thought. As strong independent thought is threatening, not admirable, to an establishment like the Chinese government. 

Many experts claim that specific movies and television shows have been linked to be the direct influence of real life crimes. A young teenage boy strangled his younger brother and said the television show Dexter was his primary influence (WatchMojo). I understand the show's entire premise is about murdering people, but influencing a person is different than forcing them to action. Another case in 1998 involved 2 cousins murdering one of their own mothers to claim insurance money to fund a killing spree like the one in the movie Scream (WatchMojo). While the crime is nearly identical to certain aspects of the film it calls into question the mental stability of those committing the crime. Even if they hadn't seen the movie wouldn't they still commit an act of violence? Whose fault is it exactly? Should the writers and directors be arrested? Of course not.

Another issue some have with fictional television violence is that it can promote a vigilante persona in the everyday man or woman. Characters, good or evil, may inspire others to recreate what they saw them do on the big screen (Lachlan and Tamborini). Justified violence is something that is seen in nearly any movie involving retribution, heroes, or good versus evil; "When the level of violence contained in the act of reprisal falls within the latitude of moral sanction that results from the combination of message and audience inputs, viewers will appraise the reprisal as justified and enjoy the observed violence." (Lachlan and Tamborini). 

This notion actually isn't so surprising to me personally. One of the best parts of movies is when the bad guy gets what's coming to him or her. One reason the "Red Wedding" was shocking was because all the horrible violence was happening to those viewed as the good guys. Even now I feel the current order of sequences is unbalanced within the show. I almost yearn for violence to fall upon those who killed the characters that I loved. That is why I view this as the opposing sides strongest argument, because I myself can relate to it. 

I tried to put myself into a scenario like I've seen on TV. If a member of my family had a great injustice done against them I would want retribution. Part of me understands how it would feel to avenge them with violence because of what I've seen on television. This is probably the most negative effect I've experienced from violent media exposure. The fact that I, even in my imagination, might consider committing an act of what I believe to be justified violence is scary. Even though I know or at least hope I never would never actually commit a violent act against another human being the thought is still there. Strangely, I can't say for sure it would be there if I hadn't seen so much "justified violence" throughout my life. 

As stated earlier, there are many crimes that claim to be influenced from fiction, but there is no actual way to hold the fiction accountable for the crimes committed. This isn't saying that violent media has no affect on society. Nearly all studies show that there is a direct connection between the amount of belligerent television watched and destructive behavior that follows because of it (Psychology: Science in Action). Still, there is no way any form of media can be held directly responsible or even linked to a specific crime unless the media literally ordered those crimes to be committed which none of those in question have (Massachusetts General Hospital). 

A major concern with censorship is to whom the actual power of censoring is given too. The idea of having the system in place that is currently in China is terrifying. The First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to freedom of expression (Constitution, amen. I). No matter how much one trusts their government if one allows them to censor what one is able to view it gives them ultimate power in controlling expression (Fredrickson). "The government would have insurmountable difficulty defining what is "good" violence and "bad" violence. Even those who research this issue use inconsistent definitions of violence. If the researchers cannot concur on an objective definition, then will any regulations provide truly objective results?" (Fredrickson). Giving a government the power to interpret programs that are entirely subjective depending on the viewer is a dangerous system to set up that could ultimately infringe on expression. Several governments, like China, use censorship as a means to solidifying their hold on power (CPJ).

Many stand by the fact that ultimately the most reasonable and practical form of censorship has to fall on the parents of young children (Psychology: Science in Action). Violence exists. One way or another every human being is exposed to the ugliness of the world. It is the responsibility of the parents to determine how best their children receive this information, not a government official who has never met the child in question (Fredrickson). 

Overall, it is understandable to see where supporters of censorship are coming from, but it is important that society keep the government out of their homes as much as possible. The power must lie with the family, not the governing state (Thierer). This is a right that must be protected if creative freedom is to survive. To take away all violence from television is to paint a picture of a fake world. A world with no violence does not currently exist. To present an image such as that to youth would do more harm than good. However, not all censorship is bad. It is important for children to be eased into more mature content at the discretion of their parents (Sears).

Fiction does not commit atrocities. Fiction kills no one. Creativity is a characteristic each human possesses, strong or weak, but it belongs to him or her. Censoring creativity is censoring a human being from who they are. Parents know what is best for their children. Not every child is going to make the right choices throughout their youth or adult lives. However, a civilized society has to allow children to make their own choices and mature or their free will does not exist, which is a terribly unnatural life. 

