Video Gaming Celebrates a Supreme Court Victory

[admin]

A California regulation that would ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors met final defeat at the Supreme Court on Monday. The highest court in the land ruled that any level of government that would restrict the sale of violent video games to children would be in violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The law was first struck down by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento, and the decision to keep it that way was upheld by the Supreme Court in a resounding 7-2 vote.

Discuss "Video Gaming Celebrates a Supreme Court Victory" here. Read the article.

 

[lsiberian]

I find it funny that violent crime is 1/3rd the rates of the 90s. Yeah video games make us so bad.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Totally agree Is-man.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I find it funny that violent crime is 1/3rd the rates of the 90s. Yeah video games make us so bad.

Of course you realize that it's possible that crime rates could be further reduced with the restriction of violent video games. Or, there may be no correlation between the two. Who knows? I certainly don't...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does your statement imply that you don't mind kids playing violent video games? How do you feel about them being exposed to sexually explicit media? Are you against that? (I apologise if it looks like I'm putting words in your mouth - I'm not trying too.) I would imagine that there are parents out there who would take the opposite stance, given a choice between "the two evils". For the record, I don't want my child exposed to either, at her age.

The ruling is essentially saying that it's fine to expose our kids to images of people being brutally killed, while it's morally repugnant to expose them to the portrayal of a couple engaged in a sexual act. I have a problem with "the man" making that decision, instead of parents. The court is imposing its own morality (or the US constitution is, if you want to look at it that way). I think it's hypocritical.

In essence, exposing kids to the image of assault and murder would be deemed legal, while the act is not. On the other hand, as it pertains to kids, seeing the image of a sexual act appears to be illegal, while the physical act itself, is not*.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that kinda ironic?

*Between consenting adults, etc, etc...

 

[its phillip]

It's still in control of the parents. It's not like the stores are handing out the games for free. Who brings the children to the stores? Who is buying the games? The parents.

However, if a kid is old enough to work and earn money and drive a 3500 lb piece of metal, then he's old enough to buy whatever video games he wants.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It's still in control of the parents. It's not like the stores are handing out the games for free. Who brings the children to the stores? Who is buying the games? The parents.

However, if a kid is old enough to work and earn money and drive a 3500 lb piece of metal, then he's old enough to buy whatever video games he wants.

Don't get me wrong - I'm under no illusion that the law has much practical impact. As for control being in the hands of parents, that could be debated. Many kids access so much content without the knowledge, never mind permission, of the parents.

 

[Fenix]

I'm glad this got knocked down. Not because I want kids to be exposed to violence (I don't beleive that they should be at a young age), but because it's leaving the responsibility in parents hands. Too many parents these days are expecting the government to teach their children everything. When in reality it is the parents job to be teaching their children every minute of every day (your kids are always watching what their parents are doing and end up picking up a lot of the parents habits), and parents are getting too focused on themselves and what they want to do that they are allowing the TV and Video games to become the babysiters of their children and not really caring what they see or play as long as the kids are not bugging them. Now, I did not say all parents, but many parents are like this and it's only getting worse.

I agree that once a child is old enough to earn a wage and drive a car then they can buy whatever they want with the money that they earn. However, as long as they are living under their parents roof and not paying any rent, then the parents have the final say on what they will allow the child to bring into their house. Once the child has their own place then they can get whatever they want.

 

[majorloser]

Yeah video games make us so bad.

Nah, just the porn

 

[Rickster71]

.....The ruling is essentially saying that it's fine to expose our kids to images of people being brutally killed, while it's morally repugnant to expose them to the portrayal of a couple engaged in a sexual act. I have a problem with "the man" making that decision, instead of parents. The court is imposing its own morality (or the US constitution is, if you want to look at it that way). I think it's hypocritical....

Well said.
The "man" being a group a do nothing politicians trying to win the hearts and minds of a very big voting block of soccer moms.
Basically they're saying, "Let us raise your kids, so you don't have to."

 

[Nihsnek]

I don't want the govt. telling me what I can and what I can't watch or subject my kids do (within reason). Glad this crap got shot down.

 

[Wayde Robson]

There is another piece to violent video game access - the industry itself.

I favor a self-regulatory industry that simply won't sell GTA IV to minors. The industry has already self-regulated with a ratings system that everyone understands and is emblazoned on the cover of every game.

The local EB or Future Shop should know enough not to sell the game to an 8-year-old. Sure, it gets grey when kids are a bit older and might be 16 and the person at the counter might sell it to them.

In those cases - I think the last thing we need is a system of fines and police involvement.

I wouldn't let my 8-year-old boy play GTA IV. I hope he can't buy it, but I'm not in favor of a state-regulation system.

 

[GranteedEV]

In essence, exposing kids to the image of assault and murder would be deemed legal, while the act is not. On the other hand, as it pertains to kids, seeing the image of a sexual act appears to be illegal, while the physical act itself, is not*.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that kinda ironic?

No doubt, but it's essentially set in stone.

I doubt there's one of us here who hadn't seen a porno or slasher flick or mortal kombat by the time we were 14 to 16, and I don't think any of us were particularly disturbed by it. Yet it's our nature to hypocritically say that when it's the time of our children (especially daughters - don't deny it) to go through it, we wouldn't expose them to any of that, and for the rules/laws that are already in place, none of us would propose or vote to take them away. The day a politician makes a "motion to make porn legally accessible to anyone 12 or over"and wins public support, of course ain't coming, because of the hypocritical social construct of North America.

Regarding violent video games, i don't see it as problematic, same with R rated movies. I'd be more concerned about the actual quality of what my children are watching than what society has deemed appropriate. Are they watching "The Godfather" or "Scream Five"? Are they watching "Monster's Ball" or "American Pie"? Critical thinking is what's truly been lost today. And that applies to video games. They're essentially mindless; and that's a problem. The violence is not the underlying issue, but the lack of substance beyond that. The "xbox generation" seems to be unable to play a video game based on its merits "if it doesn't appeal to an adult crowd" - the 12 year olds of today would rather play 4 hours of mind-numbing Call of Suty killing sprees than some Super Mario Galaxy or Picross or something - and that to me is the real issue because the latter too are far more creative and thought provoking.

It seems quality games have lost the ability to draw in the younger crowds without resorting to cheap violence and lifelike graphics. The creativity is what's gone - in essense there's a belief that children will inherently have short attention spans and limited comprehension skills until they're 18. If you treat children like this - of course they're going to be the same people making it into universities without being able to perform eighth-grade grammar and no interest in voting in elections - they're trained to think "life doesn't start until you're 18". When I was a teen, I don't think I was unable to make informed decisions, but apparently, the law said I was.

I would rather my children grow up on a "Silence of the Lambs" than subject them only to "Transformers 3" and expect them to grow up as thoughtful individuals. The violence isn't the issue. It's the rest. The goal is for our children to be able to know when violence is AN issue and superior media actually portrays that. When violence/sex is a joke, the media is normally a joke too.

Context is everything, and that's why I'm not only against the idea of governments regulating violence or sex. I do think there needs to be limitations on anything where these things are "gratitiuous" but not on they themselves but rather their context.

If the above was a biased, egotistical self-absorbed elitist rant, sorry. And yes, Alex, you were disturbed when you were a kid, so i shouldn't have said none of us; sorry.