作者: wizardfizban (瘋法師) 看板: C_Chat
標題: Re: 只是遊戲：為何管制新媒體無法停止槍支暴力
時間: Tue Jun 25 12:44:53 2013

※ 引述《wizardfizban (瘋法師)》之銘言：
: 全文:
: http://mediacoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/OnlyAGame.pdf

全文很長，翻譯一下第一頁的重點整理好了。

Key Findings:
關鍵調查內容

1. Crime statistics do not support the theory that new media causes violence.
1. 犯罪統計沒有支持新媒體是導致暴力犯罪的原因

‧While media consumption has increased, violent crime rates in the U.S. have
dropped, according to the government's National Crime Victimization Survey.

在媒體消費不斷增加時，美國暴力犯罪的比例卻向下落。資料來自政府的全國犯罪受害調
查。

‧In national populations,including the U.S.,more video game sales
correlate with less crime, according to a 2012 Washington Post review of the 10
biggest video game markets around the world.

在國際人口中，包含美國。更多的電動發售和低犯罪是有關聯的。資料來自華盛頓郵報總
覽十個世界最大的遊戲巿場。


‧Profiles of mass shooters by the FBI and the Secret Service do not list an
attraction to violent video games as a contributing or significant factor.

FBI和特勤局的通緝要犯檔案中沒有列出暴力電動是顯著或有意義的吸引要素之一。

2. Research into the effects of video games on aggression is contested and
inconclusive. Much of it suffers from methodological deficiencies and provides
 insufficient data to prove a causal relationship.

2.電動導致侵略性的相關性在研究中是爭議和無定論的。大都有著方法學上的不足及無力提
供足夠的證據來支持。

‧Reviews by the governments of Australia, Great Britain and Sweden have
all studied the research claiming a link between violent video games and
aggressive behavior and concluded that it is flawed, flimsy and inconclusive.

根據澳洲、英國和瑞典政府的報告，全都指出認為暴力電玩和侵略性行為之間的有關連的
想法是有缺陷、脆弱和不能保證的。

‧In striking down a California law aimed at restricting the sale of violent
video games, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 noted that the scientific evidence
 the state relied upon had been rejected by nearly every court to consider it,
 and that“most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in
methodology.”

加洲以限制電動銷售的法條已被撤銷。美國最高法院在2011年指出其所依賴的科學證據均
已被絕大多數的法院拒絕列為證據。"這些研究都有顯著性上的問題及方法學上的缺陷"

‧Critics of these flawed studies have also noted a bias against publishing
studies that find what scientists call “null effects”—that is, the
experimental conditions they construct (e.g., “video games cause violent
behavior”) yield no measurable reactions, least of all those hypothesized at
the start.

針對這些有缺陷研究的批評者還指出一個研究上的偏見，被學者稱為"空泛效應"：這些研
究所建構的實驗條件 (如 電動導致爆力) 至少在一開始都是是沒有可量測的反應的。

3. Censorship is barred by the First Amendment, but industry self-regulation
works.

3.第一修正案禁止，但業者自律。

‧“Video games qualify for First Amendment protection,”wrote the Supreme
Court in the 2011 California case.“Like the protected books, plays, and movies
 that preceded them, video games communicate ideas.” The Court went on to find
 that violent content is protected in every medium, for adults and minors.

最高法院在2011年加州的爭議時寫下了："電動符合第一修正案的保護條件" 就像保護書
藉、戲劇和電影的情況一樣，電動交流了不同想法。最高法院認為為了成年人和未成年人
在不同媒介中的暴力內容都是需要被保護的

‧A Federal Trade Commission undercover shopping survey published in March 2013
showed that the Electronic Software Review Board's rating system works:
Retailers refused to sell M-rated video gamesto minors 87 percent of the time,
up from 80 percentin 2009.

一份在2013年3月由聯邦貿易委員會臥低調查電子軟件審查委員會的評級系統運作方式的
結果指出：遊戲零售商拒絕將M級電動賣給未成年人的比例由2009年的80%升到87%。

Conclusion: A majority of Americans may believe that fictional violence leads
to violence in real life. But common sense and objective research does not
show it.

結論：多數美國人認為虛構暴力會導致現實的暴力。但合理和客觀的研究都不支持這看法
。

--
「把已經倒下的人們的願望，還有未來的人們的希望，把這二種心情全都織入雙重螺旋
        之中，挖出通往明天的道路。那就是天元突破，那就是Gurren-Lagann，
                  我的鑽頭．．．．是用來開天闢地的鑽頭啊！！」
                      ── 西蒙　《天元突破　紅蓮之眼》

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 1.165.124.244
※ 編輯: wizardfizban    來自: 1.165.124.244        (06/25 12:47)
→ potionx:哪來這麼多阿呆 XDD
推 drice:美國很多阿呆呀～
推 superrockman:美國應該是 99.999%的阿呆 被0.001%的強者跟天才帶領
推 aulaulrul4:我覺得不管哪裡基本上都差不多情況....
推 blackone979:台灣也沒有比較少啊
推 superrockman:不 台灣要把天才跟強者代換成投機客跟蠢才 才對XD
→ ccode:不得不說反派的邏輯也有問題
→ KIWAMI:美國還生的出這文,笑美國阿呆的不照照鏡子ww
推 gp99000:得救了 美國爆力遊戲關一關 我就沒東西玩了