- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday about the federal court's decision to throw out California's ban on violent games, marking the first time a case involving the interactive medium itself has gone before the Supreme Court. It's another sign that the $20 billion-a-year industry, long considered to be just child's play, is now all grown up.
Surely little Jimmy can't tell the difference between fake and real, if we let him play Mortal Kombat he might shoot fireballs out of his hands and tear someones head off, bringing the spinal cord with it.
Ahhh the good ol' Cocoon Mother lobby, the folks who think children MUST be protected at all costs from swear words, violence, and boobs, until they turn 18. Because if little jimmy hears the word ****, his poor little brain will just explode for some reason. Also, boobs will scar him for life. Somehow. Violence? Surely little Jimmy can't tell the difference between fake and real, if we let him play Mortal Kombat he might shoot fireballs out of his hands and tear someones head off, bringing the spinal cord with it.
Speaking of Jon Stewart's call for sanity and reasonableness...
C'mon man, are you really saying that you think it's insane that some people don't want to let little kids check out M-rated video games? We already have a near-identical system in place for movies, yet nobody really bitches about that.
Unless you firmly believe that 8 year olds should be able to walk in and see/purchase anything they want from porn to gore-fetish videos, then you presumably think we should draw a line somewhere. These people think the same thing. Rather than acting like they're lunatics, why not explain why your preferred line is better than theirs?
Given the costs of video games compared to movies it is unlikely a child will be able to buy video games on their own without the support of their parents. Also most parents will see said video game in their house. Which will allow any parent who does not lile said video games to prevent their child from buying it or at least playing it if the child somehow bought it.
Unlike movies which are cheap enough that childern can go see on on their alllowance, and they can do so without thier parents knowing what movie they went to see.
Overall a parent who shows even a little amount of parenting can prevent their child from playing "mature " games, it would require a fair bit more to control what movies the kid went to see.
Basically their is no need for a ban on the sale of mature video games. They already have ratings on them, any parent can see the rating and determine if they want their childern to play it or not
DVD's cost $20, video games cost $40-60. I really don't see how kids would be able to afford one but not the other, or how kids would be able to sneak one around but not the other.
The point is that this is in no way some heavy handed authoritarian policy limiting free speech.
DVD's cost $20, video games cost $40-60. I really don't see how kids would be able to afford one but not the other, or how kids would be able to sneak one around but not the other.
The point is that this is in no way some heavy handed authoritarian policy limiting free speech.
Further, this also includes video game rentals, which is a much lower cost. Also, you guys are assuming new and current. I can get some video games for as low as 5 bucks that are not current, but can include M rating.
And the kid will have to take the game home where the parent could see what game the kid is playing correct?
Not necessarily.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support the law, and am fundamentally divided on whether it is a good idea or not, but I can see the arguments for it.
I see the arguements for it as well.
But assuming the parent/s do any sort of parenting this should not be an issue, they should know what games their childern are playing in their own home. They can not control what their childern do outside of the home, but certainly can inside it
Which means the law should be useless, and I dont like additional useless laws
The bolded part contradicts your last sentence.
Not really
Most video games that are mature in nature need to be played on consoles and a tv. The kids may be able to buy the game, but taking it home and playing it is another story.
Going to a movie at the theater you dont take the movie home to watch it on the big screen tv in the rec room, where mommy can walk in and see what you are watching and take it away. A parent should not have a difficult time knowing what games their childern are playing at home or what movies they watch at home, they will have a difficult time knowing what movie they saw at the theater
Not really
Most video games that are mature in nature need to be played on consoles and a tv. The kids may be able to buy the game, but taking it home and playing it is another story.
Going to a movie at the theater you dont take the movie home to watch it on the big screen tv in the rec room, where mommy can walk in and see what you are watching and take it away. A parent should not have a difficult time knowing what games their childern are playing at home or what movies they watch at home, they will have a difficult time knowing what movie they saw at the theater
Ahhh the good ol' Cocoon Mother lobby, the folks who think children MUST be protected at all costs from swear words, violence, and boobs, until they turn 18. Because if little jimmy hears the word ****, his poor little brain will just explode for some reason. Also, boobs will scar him for life. Somehow. Violence? Surely little Jimmy can't tell the difference between fake and real, if we let him play Mortal Kombat he might shoot fireballs out of his hands and tear someones head off, bringing the spinal cord with it.
Children are impressionable. They are wired at birth to be impressionable. That is how they are able to assimilate information and learn. This literal open mindedness is an important part of our genetic makeup. If you give a gun to a child and have some father figure tell them that they are supposed to kill someone, they will do it without any sense of regret.
Some people never are able to grow up and learn to differentiate between reality and fiction. However, we arbitrarily decide that 18 is going to be the magic age of majority (although you still presumed not to be able to handle alcohol -- go figure).
I don't see that kids will be harmed by being prevented from buying violent games, especially one that reward gratuitous violence. It isn't really a violation of their rights because they don't have the same rights as adults -- never have had them, probably never will have them. The rights of children are defined by what harms them not by what they want to do.
It is already accepted that it is OK to prevent kids from going to an R-rated movie without their parents or to an X-rated movie at all. It is OK to prevent them from buying pornographic material. They will not be harmed by not being able to buy it.
I personally find a lot of stuff that has gratuitous violence to be more obscene than any T&A that I've seen.
I hope that my view that this is not something that children are equipped to decide on their own is not a reflection of my personal biases.
I just don't think that this really plays out the way you're describing it. Most kids play video games on the same TV they would watch a movie on. If the parents are going to catch them doing one, they can catch them doing the other. Moreover, if the game in question is a video game, the kid will probably be playing it on the computer, which is equally easy to keep from the parents.
Given the costs of video games compared to movies it is unlikely a child will be able to buy video games on their own without the support of their parents. Also most parents will see said video game in their house. Which will allow any parent who does not lile said video games to prevent their child from buying it or at least playing it if the child somehow bought it.
Unlike movies which are cheap enough that childern can go see on on their alllowance, and they can do so without thier parents knowing what movie they went to see.
Overall a parent who shows even a little amount of parenting can prevent their child from playing "mature " games, it would require a fair bit more to control what movies the kid went to see.
Basically their is no need for a ban on the sale of mature video games. They already have ratings on them, any parent can see the rating and determine if they want their childern to play it or not
OkUnless you firmly believe that 8 year olds should be able to walk in and see/purchase anything they want from porn to gore-fetish videos, then you presumably think we should draw a line somewhere. These people think the same thing. Rather than acting like they're lunatics, why not explain why your preferred line is better than theirs?
Just to be clear Dan, the law bans the sale or rental of M(mature) rated video games from children. It's not an overall ban. I am a video game fan, and I am split on this. I can see both sides of this.
Edit: OMG, I just agreed with a conservative...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?