Violent video game legislation as pseudo-agenda

The Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut brought renewed attention to school violence and school shooters in particular. Politicians, the media, and public interest groups blamed violent video games for such unthinkable violence. This paper focuses on the way politicians describe the perceived violent video game problem and subsequent regulation policies. Seeing violent video game legislation as pseudo-agenda, a dramaturgical narrative analysis is conducted to interpret the post-Newtown narrative of the violent video game problem (and regulation prescriptions). This proposed legislative narrative (federal and state) is compared to the legislative narrative told prior to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. This Supreme Court decision established precedent on violent video game regulation efforts and related free speech concerns and found violent video games do not cause minors to be aggressive, nor can violent video games be regulated. As such, agenda items raised post-Newtown that mirror those ruled upon in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association constitute pseudo-agenda. Using Goffman’s dramaturgical analysis, the violent video game pseudo-agenda is seen as frontstage, while governmental economic interest in video game software companies is seen as backstage.