They poison the mind and corrupt the morals of the young, who waste their time sitting on sofas immersed in dangerous fantasy worlds. That, at least, was the charge levelled against novels during the 18th century by critics worried about the impact of a new medium on young people. Today the idea that novels can harm people sounds daft. And that is surely how history will judge modern criticism of video games, which are accused of turning young people into violent criminals. This week European justice ministers met to discuss how best to restrict the sale of violent games to children. Some countries, such as Germany, believe the answer is to ban some games altogether. That is going too far.
　　Criticism of games is merely the latest example of a tendency to demonise new and unfamiliar forms of entertainment. In 1816 waltzing was condemned as a "fatal contagion" that encouraged promiscuity; in 1910 films were denounced as "an evil pure and simple, destructive of social interchange"; in the 1950s rock 'n' roll music was said to turn young people into "devil worshippers" and comic books were accused of turning children into drug addicts and criminals. In each case the pattern is the same: young people adopt a new form of entertainment, older people are spooked by its unfamiliarity and condemn it, but eventually the young grow up and the new medium becomes accepted-at which point another example appears and the cycle begins again.
　　The opposition to video games is founded on the mistaken belief that most gamers are children. In fact, two thirds of gamers are over 18 and the average gamer is around 30. But the assumption that gamers are mostly children leads to a double standard. Violent films are permitted and the notion that some films are unsuitable for children is generally understood. Yet different rules are applied to games.
　　Aren't games different because they are interactive? It is true that video games can make people feel excited or aggressive, but so do many sports. There is no evidence that video gaming causes long term aggression.
　　Games ought to be age rated, just as films are, and retailers should not sell adultrated games to children any more than they should sell them adultrated films. Ratings schemes are already in place, and in some countries restrictions on the sale of adultrated games to minors have the force of law.
　　Oddly enough, Hillary Clinton, one of the politicians who has led the criticism of the gaming industry in America, has recently come round to this view. Last month she emphasised the need for parents to pay more attention to game ratings and called on the industry, retailers and parents to work together. But this week some European politicians seemed to be moving in the other direction: the Netherlands may follow Germany, for example, in banning some games outright. Not all adults wish to play violent games, just as not all of them enjoy violent movies. But they should be free to do so if they wish.

　　它们毒害年轻人的心灵，腐化年轻人的灵魂。正是它们，让年轻人坐在沙发上虚度时光，沉浸于危险重重的幻想世界。18世纪的批评家们对于新媒体对年轻人的冲击感到忧心忡忡，他们向小说提出了如此的控诉。时至今日，小说害人的说法听起来已是如此的荒谬。对于当今时代那些控诉电视游戏使年轻人变成暴力罪犯的批评者们，历史最终也将对他们做出同样的审判。就在本周，欧洲司法部长举行会晤，讨论如何最有效地限制暴力游戏对孩子们的销售。有些国家，例如德国，相信最好的方法就是完全禁止某些游戏。这种做法太过火了。
　　有一种趋势，人们倾向于对新奇陌生的娱乐形式进行妖魔化。对游戏的批评也仅仅是其中的一个最新实例。在1816年，华尔兹被指责为鼓励滥交的致命传染病毒；在1910年，电影被批评为纯粹的邪恶，对社会交际的破坏；在1950年，摇滚音乐被批评诱使年轻人产生恶魔崇拜，漫画被指控为诱使儿童成长为瘾君子和罪犯。上述每一个实例都有着相同的模式：年轻人接受了一种新的娱乐形式，年长的人因陌生而受惊，于是对其批评指责。最终，年轻人长大成人，于是新媒体被社会承认--此时，另一种娱乐形式出现，循环模式再次开始。
　　调查发现，对于游戏的敌对，往往是由于一种错误的观念：大部分玩家都是儿童。实际上，三分之二的玩家超过18岁，而且玩家的平均年龄在30岁左右。就算是大部分玩家都是儿童，这里依然存在一个双重标准问题。暴力电影被允许，电影业中有些不适合儿童观看的作品，这个概念也被普遍理解。然而对于游戏业却采用了不同的规则。
　　难道游戏就应该特殊对待吗？只因为它们具有互动性？电视游戏的确可以让人激动兴奋争强好胜，别忘了相当多的运动也是如此。没有证据表明电视游戏导致长期的侵犯性。
　　游戏应该向电影一样实行年龄分级制度。零售商被禁止向孩子出售成人电影，对于游戏亦应当如此。分级制度已经付诸实践，而且在某些国家对于成人游戏的销售限制还具有法律效力。
　　非常奇怪的是，作为领导批判美国游戏产业的政客之一希拉里•克林顿，最近也开始接受这种观点。在上个月，她强调了父母关注游戏分级的重要性，并且号召产业、零售商、父母三方共同努力。不过本周在欧洲的某些政客似乎选择了另一个方向：比如说，新西兰可能会跟随德国的脚步，完全禁止某些特定游戏。正如不是所有的成年人都喜欢暴力电影一样，并不是所有的成年人都喜欢暴力游戏。不过如果他们喜欢的话，他们应该有选择的自由。