Regardless of whether you enjoy video games, it is intriguing when a video-game maker defends its integrity on grounds of artistic expression in the face of the United States military’s disapproval.  

In the upcoming war simulation game, “Medal of Honor” from Electronic Arts, the player is thrust into the current conflict in Afghanistan as either an American soldier or a member of the Taliban.  The ability to play as the latter party has many friends and family of those in the military in an uproar.  

In response, the Army and Airforce Exchange Service has banned “Medal of Honor” from 49 GameStop venders located on military bases in the U.S.  In addition to the hostility from the military, the Secretaries of Defense of New Zealand, Britain and Canada publicly oppose the game as well.

The president of EA games, Frank Gibeau, defended “Medal of Honor” by comparing the game to portrayals of war found in other media such as movies, books and music.  He claims video games are an art form. Here is where the heart of this conflict lies: a battle over definitions.

Those personally touched by the conflict view the game as turning sensitive, painful subjects into mindless entertainment. But they can’t help but be offended if they view video games as simple entertainment.   

If one defines video games as art, the content transcends personal qualms and sensitivities, serving instead as a portrayal of a historical situation, an expression of modernity, a snapshot of the brutalities of war.

Although the game may be painful be for those personally affected by the war,  the integrity of artistic expression takes precedence. The creators of “Medal of Honor” haven’t created the game with the intention of entertaining the masses at the expense of others.  Media such as “The Hurt Locker” and “The Red Badge of Courage” persisted in their own times without censorship, so why censor a different outlet?  

Perhaps the problem is the interactive aspect of the game: the ability to shoot at American soldiers.  But are novels not interactive? Is the reader not cast into the role of the protagonist, experiencing the horrors of war perhaps even more cruelly and vividly than in a video game?   After all, the imagination is capable of visions far worse than those one can manifest in reality.

What we should be worried about here are not the feelings of the offended but the censoring power of the military. The game does not breech any regulations of the Enterntainment Software Rating Board, the official video game authority.   The military’s actions amoutn to the censoring of art and human expression, perhaps one of the most overlooked crimes of government.   

Modern art seeks to spread new ideas, new interpretations and fresh perspectives.  We shouldn’t stand for the silencing of human creativity.  We shouldn’t stand for the stifling of thought.  And we certainly shouldn’t stand for the suppression of art.