Violence and Movies

The following appeared in a newspaper editorial:

"As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote."

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument presented in the editorial is flawed on many counts.

The most basic flaw in the argument is that it attributes the increase in crime rates in the cities directly to the increase in violence in the movies. Such a comparison is ill-founded due to several reasons. Firstly, it is not clear that on what basis the editor has established such a correlation. Is it based on some survey undertaken by a neutral, unbiased agency of repute or is it simple, pure prejudice on the part of the editor? There is no way to know. Secondly, there can be many reasons behind increase in crime rate. It could be due to a low police-to-citizen ratio, powerful and organized local gangs, lack of strict laws to punish law offenders, high unemployment, abject poverty or state neglect. Blaming movies alone without any concrete basis seems to be too far-fetched and unreasonable.

Further, rating boards have been established in various countries and limits have been put on limiting admission to persons over a particular age  limit; there is nothing new about the suggestion. However, it is not clear why legislators rejected such a legislation. The rejection has been attributed to apathy, but the basis for this opinion is not stated. It again looks like a prejudiced opinion rather than any kind of reasoning. It is possible that the introduced bill encroached people's freedom to see the movies in an undesirable way. In that case it would be reasonable to expect its rejection due to concern and not apathy.

Finally, it seems that the editor sees legislation as the only way to curb crime rate (or stop people from seeing violent movies!). Other ways to achieve the same have not been explored. 

Concluding, the presented argument seems more opinionated than reasonable; the tone seems emotional, attacking and prejudiced. Until the editor clarifies the basis of attributing increase of crime rate to increase in violence in movies, presents alternative ways to achieve the same results and clearly states why, in his opinion, the reasons behind the rejection of the bill are pure apathy, the argument will remain weak and flawed.