Welcome to Week Four.
We are taught at a young age in the U.S. that we have "free speech". This statement is both true and false.
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
This has subsequently been interpreted to mean freedom of spoken word, your own printed word, your expressed words (symbols, styles, fashions, etc). We will learn the particulars this year. But for our purposes this week, this basic overview will suffice.
So, then what are we talking about this week?
We also know that while we have freedom of speech, there are all sorts of limitations. You cannot incite violence, you cannot commit defamation/libel, you cannot commit sedition (remember that guy Schenck in the 1920s who spoke out against the U.S.?)..... and you can not be obscene.
Obscenity is tough. One Supreme Court justice wrote that "he cannot define it, but he knows it when he sees it!". OK, that may be true- but how does that help us define legal guidelines and punish offenders?
We established the Federal Communications Commission to help regulate obscenity on public radio/tv/newspapers, etc and in music, movies, and video games.
Today, please go to the FCC website and take a quick look around. This is the federal site. States can always place more restrictions on top of the FCC, just not less.
http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do
Then, look at what happened today.
Your United States Supreme Court announced their ruling that states cannot explicitly ban the sale of violent video games to children.
Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/28scotus.html?hp
So, what do you think? What should we limit? At what age? Is it the government's job to restrict? Or is this a private family manner? Are we saying anyone of any age can listen to, play, or watch whatever they want? Does this mean an 8-year-old can go watch Rated R or NC-17 films now?
..... where's the line? How do we know? What should it look like? Essentially, agree or disagree with the Supreme Court and explain why!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
93 comments:
I believe that the increasingly violent nature of media being marketed to younger and younger children is problematic and a definite challenge to education and social skills. That said, the cause of this shift to more corrupting media at young ages is not the fault of the government, but rather than of the disintegrating family.
To be clear I am not saying I agree with the actual practice of children (or really anyone for that matter) playing violent video games or watching disturbing media. All I am saying is that the government has no right to regulate this unhealthy behavior. It is not the government's job nor right to raise American children; if it were we would simply be churning out government robots. The government cannot tell a child that their clothes are mismatched, that they cannot touch the hot iron, that it is time to get up for school. That is the job of the parents. The decision whether or not a child can engage with certain media - that is also the job of the parents.
We cannot ask the government to regulate responsibility; that is not its purpose. If we are going to limit parents' decision making abilities when it comes to things that are potentially harmful to children, then no parent should be allowed to smoke, divorce, drink, fight, have financial difficulty or spoil their children. But the world does not work that way. Parents can and should have the right to raise their children in the way they best see fit. Will it create problems? Of course. But is it avoidable without severely limiting constitutional rights? Not at all. Media choice is up to the parents. It is personal choice and, like free speech, is subject to opinion and personality. We cannot limit or control it. It is a necessary evil. The responsibility to make good decisions is on the parents, as are the consequences of raising violent, problem-causing children. Either way, responsibility for a child is up to those who raise the child, not some impersonal government entity who "knows best". That is not the government's job.
John Gennaro
Violence and other obscenities are becoming very popular among the youth, and the media is feeding into this hunger. However much I don't agree with children playing video games where they watch realistic people shoot each other’s ligaments off or watching some gory movie like saw, I still believe that this decision whether or not a child can play or watch these entertainment products should be up to the parents. Basic right and wrong fundamentals are brought about from this parental guidance. Yes, there are parents who don't care and let their children do whatever they want, but most of the time a moral compass will be formed rather than a bad child. Allowing the Government to regulate would basically produce one set standard for what all children should do, and this would be contradicting the very nature of the United States in which it promotes diversity and freedom. An impersonal government that believes it knows best will only create drones of children. Allowing the decision of purchasing video games despite content not suited for children, by parents for their children will have some bad effects but mostly positive effects. I believe the other children and parents will learn and make wiser decisions because the negative effects occurred. Creating personal experience with these effects will allow for a more enforced moral compass for children to develop. It’s not the Government’s job, but actually the parent’s job. Therefore, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on ruling that states cannot explicitly ban the sale of violent video games to children.
RE: Laura
I agree with you when it comes to the state not having to act as the parent-figure for all children in the area. However, I don’t think it’s responsible of the state to leave this decision up to parents alone.
Having the government tell a child if their clothes are mismatched isn’t exactly the same thing as having them regulate who has access to violent video games. Video games should be regulated, kind of like how marijuana is: some people claim that marijuana is a way to express themsleves, but in some cases it produces an affect that alters their behavior and leads to violence, which is why it’s illegal. It’s a cause and effect thing, I guess is what I’m saying. Marijuana causes behavioral issues that can be dangerous, and so do video games. I think that if anything goes wrong, parents are just going to point fingers and not take the blame for the actions of their children. That, is why I think that state should have more of a say in at what age certain games should be/can be played.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, that it is unconstitutional to fine stores that sell violent video games to children. The legislators in this case obviously think that violent video games will harm young children. But what if the parents think it will not and approve of this video game? Like Laura and John said, it is not the government's job to regulate what children can and cannot see. That is the job of the parent. Nowadays, some parents allow their children to watch rated R movies with them, that contain content that most would deem very inappropriate for the eyes of children. However, whether a child sees that movie is up to the parent. In the same way, parents should be paying attention to what games their child is playing and make the call on whether they should be allowed to play a violent game. The government must allow parents the ability to be parents.
It would be interesting to point out, however, that when it comes to things like rated R movies, children under 17 are not allowed to go to a theater and watch that movie without being accompanied by an adult. This precisely shows that it is the parent's decision on whether their child should be exposed to that kind of material or not. Perhaps if legislators wished to have another go at regulating the sale of video games, they might try proposing a law that requires those under 17 to need a parent to accompany them to purchase games rated mature, similar to needing a parent or guardian's presence to get into a rated R movie.
I really have to agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this issue, and much of what Laura has stated above. The purchase of "Inappropriate" video games should be regulated by the child's parents, not the government. Parents regulate children about whether or not they view other materials, so why should the government jump in at video games? There is no solid proof that links video game violence to real violence. I actually believe there may be some fact in the claim that when children relieve aggression through violence in games, that it prevents them from doing so in real life. I know this cannot be true in all cases, but I have optimism that it is in some. If at some point, it is made clear to the player that randomly killing and raping people is NOT ok, then I see no harm in them playing it.
Theoretically, an 8-year-old cam already watch an R/NC-17 rated movie. The child could have the TV remote at his fingertips at any given time. His parents will obviously try to prevent it. Therefore, it is their choice as to what he does. There are countless R movies on HBO that an unattended child could happen upon watching. If the government were to say that children absolutely cannot see that, it could not be broadcast on television, no matter what.
As with movie theaters, the theater is at discretion to prevent underage children from attending these inappropriate movies. The movie theater has the right to deny ticket sales to people, so I don't think there is much of a problem.
Jacky Chen
Interesting stuff ha. Well basically I'm going to tag-along with the majority because they're right. How could the government ever hope to first, tell parent's how to discipline their own children and second, hope that it could be enforced? The problem is not freedom. Freedom is an awesome thing. It's the misuse of freedom. Ever since evolution the morality of our society has crumbled. The mass consumerism that has replaced religion is only leading us farther down a dark path. If parent's made the right choices we'd never have run into this problem.
But since they have, I'll just propose a solution for you to express an opinion on. The government should keep parents up to date on modern mass communication methods and any other form of corruption or general badness that their children may be exposed to. With knowledge of all the "variety of video games," they can at least make a decision from an educated view. (I propose this because many children are more tech-savvy then their parents nowadays.) Then to take it to a greater level, the government should impose a conduct/character class into our education system during primary education. The class may be argued against by extreme parents but in reality it's not about religion anymore, it's about being human. This way, even if the parent's make mistakes, the children may prevail.
Sorry about going off topic but the original question is a callous, shallow cover for a deeper problem. Of course free speech is good, that's what makes us unique. Now how about we just take our freedom and not act like snotty name-calling bullies or uncontrollable trolls. Just behave haha.
I hadn't looked to deep in the article before I posted but I agree that it is ok for children to be banned from buying the violent video games themselves. Otherwise, they could buy it and their parent's would never know. Also, I may be mistaken but I thought they already had something like that (at Walmart at least).
Re Jacky:
I believe they do have rules that keep them from selling Mature rated games minors, but I was under the impression that the fines would be more like fining a bar that sold alcohol to someone underage. Just my speculation.
Scott Suddarth
I rather like our Supreme Sourt. I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, and the size of the majority in the decision is further proof that a law regulating the sale of video games is both messy and irrational. Violent video games, the subject under fire from parents with nothing better to worry about, cheap magazines and the media, is nothing but this generation's incarnation of entertainment (and yes, the entertainment has always been violent or bloody). In ancient Rome, arenas; the theater in renaissance England was also blamed for an increase in violence; then came the t.v., the radio, and now, video games. And through the thousands of years of this violent portrayal of violence, there has not been any uprising or revolt of the youth due to their blood lust. Thus, their grounds to restrict, regulate, ban, or withhold the sale of games is null and void. just like my first 2 marriages.
Profanity should and is kept out of social images, for the most part, and that is good. Its just trashy and kids don't need to see it. citizens under 17 can't see r-rated movies(at the movies), either, which I believe is a little outdated. society is more open than when it was in the 60's (when movies began to be rated) if we gave those laws a second look, i think we'd be okay, but 8 year olds watching nc17s are a bit over the edge. (think about it, we all remember being awesome watching r rated movies when we were, what, 10?)
Besides, the government is already restricting. I remember a tofu loving nature fanatic vegan whose Prius's license plate was "iluvtofu" because, she loved tofu. however, someone complained, seeing the license plate as "i luv to f u" and she had to get rid of it, because *some* people wouldn't like it. A completely innocent gesture shut down because
a. the government has nothing better to do
b. it has so many people to please, it doesn't mind being ridiculous now and then.
This is a single example of how governmental censorship can go overboard.
Ultimately, however, the line lays with the parents. They know their kids best, and can make decisions for them MUCH better than any governmental body could.
Violent video games are a family matter. It is not the government's job to decide what is appropriate for kids to be doing in their spare time, unless these violent games do in fact have a direct relation to a rise in crime or violence among youth. I think we can all agree that a game designed so children can "actually feel the splatting blood from the blown-off head" is twisted and inappropriate, but we cannot give the government the power to decide that for us. Allowing the government to restrict the games kids play with is a dangerous decision in which the country basically decides that the government "knows best". I don't think our founding fathers ever intended for the government to have anywhere near that much power.
The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to regulate obscenity, but I think parents should limit the obscenity that their child is exposed to. This is a tough topic. While I believe parents are responsible for placing restrictions on their kids' video games, I think it is a good idea to have age limits and ratings on movies. I also think it is a good idea to label some songs as "explicit" and suggest parent permission. These rules don't totally decide what's right for children, but they let parents know that the movie/song may contain obscenity and then allows it to be the parents' decision.
In this violent video game case, I'd have to agree with the Supreme Court's decision: it is unconstitutional to fine stores that sell violent video games to children. A simple rating or warning to parents would do.
Government, I believe has its place to ensure that we will not become self-destructive and prance around the streets committing murder. One could say that there is a fine line between anarchy and structured society. But they would pretty much be completely wrong. We have officials, judges, the FCC, and countless other groups that define exactly what we can and can not do. After reading a few articles on the effects "violent video games" have on aggression I am confident in saying that I believe in some restrictions on the matter. It would be impossible to conduct a conclusive study on the matter without observing the lifelong effects and because violence in games has just started developing all studies can be rendered opinionated. Although this is true, they may come to be right. With that said, limitations should be set. For the same reason we have age restrictions on cigarettes; kids can not be trusted to make decisions for themselves. But do whatever you want, there is no correct opinion and there never will be. All I know is I'm going to be a responsible parent to my child regardless of your silly laws.
I do agree with most of the recent posts that explain that the target range for ever increasing violence in video games and movies is being directed towards younger audiences. How this affects their behavior after the fact is still being observed and cannot be definitively linked to increased violence or obscenity. Therefore, I believe that the younger one observes this behavior, that individual may become desensitized to violence, but this won't make them become a violent person. Their overall intelligence to determine right from wrong as well as other important values and behavior taught to them by their family is what steers a young adult down the path of violent and criminal behavior or down the path of a productive and contributing member of society. I believe that the Supreme Court made the correct decision in not allowing states to ban the sale of games deemed as violent to minors. The term "ban" is too strong in that it encompasses too much power in the beholder. What I mean is that, which individual or set of individuals has the right to absolutely govern how the masses shall live, what shows and movies they should watch, and what games their children play? Is anyone banning minors from playing Poker and betting money using a deck of cards in their homes? It's illegal for a minor to gamble in a casino but should they take away our decks of cards too? Does this extend to Paintball guns, Airsoft guns and Supersoakers (water guns)? Maybe in a dictatorship this logic would make sense but not in America where Freedom is the cornerstone of the governance for the rest of the nation. I believe Family values and parental discretion and decisions should govern what children watch and what games they play.
Last post by AJ Solomon
Austin Kopas:
I'm not sure which articles you read on how violent games breed violent people, but I assure you that isn't true.
There was a study a while back that concluded that children that abused or hurt little animals grew up into murderers and criminals.
The kids didn't abuse the kittens and puppies because they were bored, its because, for some reason, they liked it.
Same with violent video games. You don't see a kid in the ghetto playing little big planet on their stolen PlayStation, you wont see a kid playing kinectimals on their Xbox, you'll see them playing grand theft auto, dead space and the likes. That's because thats what their into.
In other words, the games don't make the criminal; its just a medium used by their younger selves to access the blood and terror their younger-than-age-of-consent denies them.
I fully agree with the Supreme Court's decision. If they they had upheld the bill, it would have been a major infringement upon First Amendment rights. It would have severely restricted people trying to make the games that they want to make. The government would also have done something parents should do. Parents should decide what games their children can or can't play. With this bill, the government was in effect trying to decide for the whole country what games kids can play, when it should be a family decision. That is not to say that I am for young kids playing violent video games. I think parents should know both their kids and decide what games are suitable for them.
Also, I don't think this law would have done as much good as the legislators who wrote it thought it would do. As others have said, there is no clear link between playing violent video games and actually acting violently. There are probably a myriad different factors that lend to this, and this law would only target one possible source. It also wouldn't completely stop kids from playing violent video games. First of all, kids who already own violent games would continue to play those games whether or not the law was passed. Also, I am sure kids would continue to find ways to get violent games. They would probably get someone older to buy these kinds of games or get some sort of pirated copy. In the end, I am glad that the Court struck down this pointless and unconstitutional law
Of course a parent can let their kid play rated M games or watch rated R movies if they feel there kid is mature enough to do so. However, it should not be the child's choice to play such games. In my opinion the government should set standards on what is appropriate for young children. The duty of the government is to protect its citizens and to set a guideline for what is appropriate and innapropriate for children. Children aren't allowed to buy tickets to R rated movies, purchase alcholol or ciggaretes and this is all because the government deemed it unsafe for children to do so. Why should it be any different for video games? because its virtual and no direct effects can come from them? The rated M video games we are talking about display violence, foul language and in some cases sexual content. Now the government restricts kids from viewing this type of behavior from t.v shows on cable and movies. There should be no different ruling when it comes to these games. The Supreme Court made a mistake in my opinion, ruling that kids can be able to purchase rated M video games. The government has made it their job to make sure its children are not being exposed to inappropriate material. They have made the adult age 18, then one can decide what is right and wrong for themself. If the parents believe the children are ready, that is fine and it is not illegal, but parents should feel comfortable in knowing that their children can not purchase these games without their apporoval.
I agree with the Supreme Court. Although many video games are violent and sometimes offensive, it is the parent's decision to allow their child to play the game not the government's. Violent video games also have rating to suggest the ages that seem appropriate for the particular game, but whether or not the person acknowledges the rating is up to them. I think the choice of letting kids buy and play violent video games is up to household. What one family may think is acceptable another may think is horrible, it all depends on the parent's background and morals. We've all been allowed to do something a friend was not able to and told no to doing something a friend was able to do. Our parents have different values and standards, which makes us individual and have different opinions about what is right and wrong than the opinions of those around us. I do think that if a parent allows their child to play a video game they should talk to the kid about what is and isn't acceptable in the real world so they do not become violent outside of the video game world.
Leaving parenting up to the government also seems like a bad idea, which is essentially what banning kids to buy games would do. They would no longer be able to make decisions about what is okay for their particular child, who may be more mature than other kids that age, but the government does not know every child like their parents do. It would also decrease the diversity of children and their morals. Overall I think parents should control the video games their child can play, just as they control what movies they are allowed to watch and what music they can listen to.
I approve of the Court's decision on this freedom of expression case. No matter what we should always act to defend our freedoms. Even with government restrictions on video games, I think that children would find a way to get their hands on what they want.
The decision to restrict a child or keep a child away from certain materials is up to a parent. They are the caregivers and guiders in our lives so it it their responsibility to choose what is best for us until we reach legal age. This is how it is with all forms of expression, not just for video games.
For hundreds of years already there have been books with graphic material that could possibly teach harmful ideas to children. Yet in most cases we don't place restrictions on these books. There's no mature rating that keeps someone from buying a book because they are too young. Video games are just another form of entertainment such as movies, books, etc. I believe we should treat them as such and allow the individual, be it a parent or an of age consumer, decide what is best. I don't think we should allow the government to dictate what our children will learn. This could just lead to a sort of brainwashing that would make our people even more sheep-like.
As long as we teach our children what is right and what is wrong, I don't think the government should censor video games. Common sense will tell that a game with rape, murder, and violence should not be given to a child. But with the way people are today, I'm almost afraid that we should not trust that people will have common sense. Maybe I'm just being way too cynical. Trust the government or trust the people? It's hard to do either.
RE: Mark
Just because there is no federal law about the sale of video games to minors, doesn't mean that kids can easily get them. Most stores, like Wal-Mart and Target, require photo-ID to prove that one is old enough to buy M-rated games (I'm not sure if the law about buying R-rated movies is from the government or not, though). The difference between video games and drugs/alcohol is that we know for a fact that drugs and alcohol cause horrible damage mentally and physically, but we are unsure about the effects of video games.
Movies, games, music, and television, have all become increasingly violent, contain profanity, and have extremely inapporptriate content. Children have began to play, listen, and watch this disturbing content at a very young age and more often. No seven year old should witness a human being mutilated or listen to a song with the f word in it twenty times. To grow up with that sort of entertainment makes a child believe that it is ok for those things to be said or done. I think that the ratings on movies and games and the warnings on music is important and let parents choose whether or not they want their child to witness or listen to it. The government isn't completely controling what a child sees or plays, they are just giving a warning. A parent can still take their child to an R-rated movie or buy them an M-rated game. Ultimately the decision rests with the parents. The government isn't asking each parent if they're going to take this M-rated game home and give it to their child, because they don't care what they do with it as long as they are the proper age to be able to purchase it. No, I don't think that any child should be able to play Gears of War or should be able to watch Paranormal Activity, but thats not my place to tell parents that they can't take their kid to those sort of movies or purchase thpse kinds of games. Putting restrictions on video games and movies keeps a child from sneaking away from his parents and buying the video game, but gives their parents the ability to purchase it if they are fine with their child playing it. The government isn't telling people how to raise their children but aren't allowing young children to purchase innappropriate content. Some of the games out there are truly nasty and no child should ever see that and with video games the child is actually doing the nasty actions which is even worse. We already have restrictions on games and movies and most parents are smart enough to not allow their children to witness the violence so I agree with what the Supreme Court decided. The government is giving guidelines in which parents can choose to follow or not. Ultimately, the choice of what children can watch, listen to, or play, resides in the parents hands.
Re: Laura
I think that by regulating violent video games, the government is helping. I know as Americans we all feel that we shouldn't be controlled at all but to regulate violent video games for our youth, I think is doing us a big favor. Parents still have the choice of letting their children witness some of the violent games and movies. The government isn't telling parents how to raise their children just giving warnings on what is usually deamed innappropriate for children. And the government isn't taking away parents ability to raise their children their own way, but giving the parents an easier way to control what their child witnesses.
RE: John
I completely agree with your argument about how it is important for the people to see the negative effects of certain media products and having the personal exerience. Parents can see the bad effects of certain video games and keep their children away from that. Its like watching an alcoholic and staying away from alcohol because you know how it can ruin a life. People learn best from experience and even though some parents make the idiotic mistake of purchasing mature games for their children, others will see what becomes of them and their morals will grow stronger. Its the parents job to keep their children away from innapropriate content.
Scott Suddarth,
The article I read was a published CNN article that I have a link at the bottom of this post. These studies are not simply fabricated, they have tangible evidence that is supported by psychologists. I also think that your comparison between playing video games and killing innocent animals in cold blood is kind of a bold assumption. The two are almost completely different, one may be true, but that is not at all grounds to say video games don't have any negative effects on behavior. I'm not at all saying that this can't be true, but the studies are simply not there.
The Supreme Court ruled that states can’t openly ban the sale of violent video games to children… Are you serious? States should be allowed to censor what their residents have access to. Not the kind of censorship that China, and Egypt have used/are using, but a restriction in regards to age limit in accord with content, is that too much to ask? Apparently.
Video games, time after time, have been associated with aggressive behavior in America’s youth. Studies have been performed with recurring outcomes; Dr. Paul Lynch, for example, was involved in a study that tested the effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Here are just a few examples, taken from the study:
1) “Adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school.”
2) (We all know that video games are designed to be challenging, entertaining, and educational in some cases, but most contain violent content.) “Analyses of video games show that as many as 89% of games contain some violent content, and that about half of the games include serious violent content towards other game characters.”
Video games are not appropriate for all kids, especially if the level and content of violence is continuously climbing as the years pass. I mean, the argument is that the government would be interfering with the First Amendment’s right of freedom of speech to restrict video games to certain age groups. Personally, I think that the content of these games manipulate the underlying message in our right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was set in place so that Americans could exercise certain inalienable rights, with some restrictions (this being one of them), and also, because technically, freedom of thought was a key aspect in building a democracy. By protecting the “First Amendment right” that applies to allowing heavy violence in gaming, that’s taking into consideration just the free speech and free expression parts. So, in regards to government regulation of this issue, I find that states should have the power to ban violent games to underage kids, if the state populace so chooses.
Oh, and it’s funny, because Justice Scalia compared these harsh video games to “protected books, plays and movies” that communicate ideas and social messages; therefore, they too deserve to be protected by the First Amendment. Well, as Justice Alito said, when the video games of today contain the objectives of, in one game, “to rape a mother and her daughters… and in another, to attempt to fire a rifle shot through the head of President Kennedy as his motorcade passes by the Texas School Depository,” do those too communicate healthy ideas and social messages? Ha, no. Though, disgust, as Justice Scalia wrote, “is not a valid basis for restricting expression,” the ideas behind the violence in video games should be. Besides, what if some parents in a state monitor what their kids have access to, and others could care less? The violence promoted by games can be taken to a physical level, and when that happens, people just point fingers, and in the end, the parents would probably blame the state for not having some sort of censorship.
It is the responsibility of a parent to decide whether or not a child should be exposed to violent video games. In accordance with Laura, I believe the government doesn't have the right to regulate this behavior. The Supreme Court made the right decision to strike down this law, because it is a parent’s job to raise and guide their children. Allowing a child to be immersed in a world of violence, carnage, and rape is ultimately up to the parents. The government has done its part already through rating the video games based on levels of violence and maturity. It is then a parent’s job to decide if their child should or should not be allowed to play these violent games. Some may argue about the uninvolved parents that ignore these mature ratings, and buy their young children violent video games anyway. Not all parents can be trusted and counted on to raise their children in a positive and successful way. However, turning to the government to protect these children isn’t the answer. We can only hope that these children have good judgment, and possibly have other good role models in their life that they can look up to.
RE: Mark
I think we’re the only ones who disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision. Anyway, state guidelines for younger kids; yes. Also, good point about the limitations that are already set in place with parental controls and other things of the sort. I mean … It’s a safety precaution to monitor what kids can have access to, so if the government is supposed to help protect the nation’s youth, why did the Supreme Court say that states can’t openly set limitations. I don’t get it.
Ryan Batchelder
Well, it looks like just about everyone else here has already expressed similar views. I wholeheartedly agree with the Supreme Court here and after reading through the original California bill, it seems that the writer had never heard of the ESRB. Any game that falls under the premises defined will have an "M" rating guaranteed, and would certainly be a candidate for an AO (Adult Only, equivalent to NC-17). The ESRB actually rates games far harder than this California bill attempted. Take a game like Halo:Reach for example: rated "M" (defined as 17+ by the ESRB) yet the game's violence is comic, where the player sees little blood shooting goofy aliens. In no manner is it "cruel" or overly graphic. While I don't feel that this should have got a lesser rating, I used this example to provide something to compare California Bill 1179 to.
So why listen to the ESRB? Many retailers will refuse to sell these games to underage buyers without photo-ID. When a rating of AO is given, developers will generally return to the game and tone down those aspects which gave them that rating, as the three major console manufacturers refuse to allow AO rated games on their console. This happened with Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
I won't comment on the idea of violet games and their impression on children, as I believe that is beyond the scope of this post.
Ryan Batchelder
Something I missed adding in my last post:
Game developers are calling the same issue. Vice President of the second largest developer in the world, Activision-Blizzard said this in response to those who spoke for Ab 1179:
"It makes no sense for California to put in place a costly state bureaucracy to replace a privately funded system that is working. The industry's ratings partnership has been thoroughly tested and praised by the Federal Trade Commission as thorough and effective.".
After making his point in relation to the film industry, George Rose continued to cite other courts where the issue had been looked at in their decisions regarding research for violent games affecting children as "profoundly flawed research".
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
As the majority said in their responses, the government should have no control over what children watch and what video games they play. This matter is up to the parents, because it varies widely from family to family. Some families do not believe their children should watch certain movies or play certain games until they are of certain age, but other families (like mine) do not tend to regulate what the children see. If responsibility was regulated by the government, then everyone would be raised in close to the same manner. We live in the "land of the free" for a reason, and that does not mean "government regulation." What children see and do is up to the parents who are raising them, and not the government's job. With all that being said I completly agree with the Supreme Court's decision that this is unconstitutional.
Re: Mark
I understand where your ideas are coming from, but just because the government says the adult age is "18" doesn't mean it is always the case. Some people end up becoming emancipated through the court system, and the are deemed as an adult, but with the government regulation they are still not "old enough" to watch violence. Obviously when a person is granted emancipation, they have proven that they are mature enough to be on their own like an adult. So by having a regulation on certain things, (movies video games etc.,) this holds them back from being able to make their own decisions on what they deem as appropriate. Just a thought.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Although obscenity and violence should not be promoted in children, it is not the government's place to interfere. Parents have responsibility of their child's upbringing and should therefore make the final decision. Anyway, what 8 year old has the $50 to go buy a violent video game? Usually that money comes from the parent. Another example is that you can not buy a ticket to an R-movie until 17, but your parents can take you to see it. I think the restrictions currently in place are working fine and that we should not alter them. The system works as it is, and if one believes otherwise, they should look to see how parents are raising their children. This is a social matter, and not one for the government to control.
I agree with the Supreme Court in this case. It's not up to the federal government to decide at what age violent video games become acceptable, because, frankly, maturity varies from child to child. The responsibility of filtering content rests on the shoulders of our nation's parents.
Sure, some people argue that when parents fail, it's the government's job to step in. If the parents are failing to provide basic necessities to their children, then yes, there should be some interference from the big wigs on Capitol Hill, but regulating video games isn't something they should seek to control.
The government should only step in when it comes to issues that directly endanger children. Parents are in charge of the general raising and restricting of inappropriate films or video games.
This is the point where we turn to the free market to help regulate what information our youth can access. Tools that allow parents to control what sites their kids can access, for instance.
The FCC pledges to support "the nation’s economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the unfolding of the communications revolution". That's as far as the government should go. Restriction and censorship should be in the hands of the parents, not lawmakers.
Re: Jillian
I completely agree with your statement, "The government has done its part already through rating the video games based on levels of violence and maturity." There's a reason the rating system has been developed, and that's to give parents a way to determine what content is acceptable for their kids.
Re: Cassie
I agree with your statement "Marijuana causes behavioral issues that can be dangerous, and so do video games. I think that if anything goes wrong, parents are just going to point fingers and not take the blame for the actions of their children....state should have more of a say in at what age certain games should be/can be played" but at what point can you draw the line between not enough regulation and too much?
And what's to say that state action will change anything? Kids that want to play violent video games can still go to an older friend's house to play the games, and the law can't stop that. In the end, it's the parents to monitor their kids and play an active role in steering them in the right direction.
Like prohibition, strict laws on violent video games will only increase their appeal to the younger generations because of the fact that they are 'forbidden'. The state can't- and shouldn't- try and control everything.
Re:Amy
On your comment to Cassie you asked "at what point can you draw the line between not enough regulation and too much?" in reference to violent videogames. Well this has already been done through the rating system these games have. Just like movies are rated all the way from G to R or even MA. The point is that there has been a distinct line drawn to what games are violent, gorey and sexually inappropriate. WHat is the differnece between a violent videogame and violent movie? All i'm saying is our sociey and government have drawn a line to what is inappropriate for children and they should stick with that line when it comes to videogames.
Another point you made when responding to Cassie is that kids can go to an older friends house to play video games. That same point is true when it comes to drugs and alcohol. I agree its the parents job to be responsible for their children, but how can they watch over them if they have no control of what games they can purchase?
Re: Molliek
THe legal age for emancipation in California is 18.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_emancipation
You can purchase R-rated movie tickets and MA games when you are 17 years old. Emancipation wouldn't help with either of those two things.
A point you made in your post, like most others, was that parents should be responsible for their child's actions and what they watch or play. I agree completely with that idea, but it seems that everyone is overlooking the fact that parents won't have control over their kids if they can purchase the games without their approval. Parents don't have to worry about their kids buying R-rated movie tickets. Why do you think it should be different for these games? (this is a question to everyone)
Re Amy: on the comparison to alcohol.
I really have to agree on your statement. Children do seem to become attracted to the forbidden. It's the same way with so many aspects in life. People want what they can't have. I do believe that good children will still respect the rules. As you have said, the children with a certain disregard for the rules will find a way to play violent video games if they want to, despite any laws. It is very much the same as alcohol in that respect. Many minors still participate in the consumption of alcohol. I am curious as
to what would happen if it were legal at a younger age. I don't believe the number of users would drop.
Re: Caitlyn
Hi Cait! I agree with you and I liked your comparison of violent video games to books that contain obscenity. When I first read this blog, I had trouble seeing how all of this related to the first amendment. What you said makes sense, these video games are forms of expression and have the same effect on a child that a violent book or movie could. At the end you asked if it was better to trust the government or the people. I don't think any of us could answer that question! I want to say trust the people; they deserve their freedoms and have the right to make their own decisions. But will everyone make the right decision? Do we even know exactly what the right decision is? But I would never say trust the government, the last thing I want to do is give the government the power to tell us what the right decision is.
Re: Austin
You're right, we have officials, judges, the FCC, and other people/groups that tell us what is ok for us to do and not to do. Personally, I don't like that the country is moving more and more in that direction. We need to stop giving the government to make decisions for us. Where do they stop? Which decisions are ok for us to make by ourselves? Because apparently we aren't trusted to buy appropriate video games without the government keeping the "bad" games away from us. If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled what they did, we would have seen future cases limiting our freedoms and questioning our judgement.
So yes, we do live in a society where our leaders tell us what is right and wrong, but we should not use that as justification for government power to be extended!
I agree with the Supreme Courts decision to strike down the proposed California law barring the sale of violent video games to children. There are already systems in place that rate materials in games and movies. These ratings provide adequate knowledge to consumers about the various materials present in movies, music and video games. Already in place are barriers for young children so they are not able to gain access to these violent games, since I know most game stores as well as places like Wal-mart ask to see Id before allowing you to purchase Mature rated games. The fact is if an eight year old has access to a mature content game its most likely the parents that are supplying that. The government really can not take any action because even if there is a slight population that want to see a change in the video game distribution, a larger majority will attack the governments attempt to help, citing it as infringing on the parents choice to expose their children to what they see fit. It cannot be the governments job to regulate all the violent material a child sees and if this had passed a new precedent would be set only making it more easy for other bills to regulate what television we can see or music we can listen too. We all have to learn to make our own decisions, and stop expecting the government to just give us answers about what’s right and wrong. Morally violence is bad, but my morals and others morals could differ and who am I to infringe on that. The video games violent images only have as much power over a persons mind as that person is willing to give it. So from observations the system in place seems to work just fine so people just need to relax and California is truly the last state that should be passing a bill that will only put it in a position to use up more money since last time I checked they were not doing so hot financially.
RE: Amy
To your question of "at what point can you draw the line between not enough regulation and too much," I would have to say that something is better than nothing. Some regulations, any really, would be a far more suitable and comfortable result that having the Supreme Court leave this up to parents alone. I mean, some parents are... Well, not good at their job as a positive influence in their child's life. For that reason alone, the state could at least make a regulation where kids have to go with their parents to buy a game that is above the suggested age limit. That way, both parties are involved, and parents can still monitor what their child is playing.
(Re: Cassie)
I understand what you're saying, but still I don't think it's an appropriate system. It overlooks the fact that not all children are the same, and thus cannot be treated the same way by some fixed assumption of maturity. What one child might be able to understand at 9 it might take another child until 13 to understand. The government cannot know a child like the parent does. They may believe that some media may be appropriate for children over 8, but it may be disturbing to a specific child of 10 because of their individual rate of development. The parents would know this; the government cannot. And even if they could, that is not the government's function. Regardless of their doubtlessly noble intentions, the government was not created to regulate our lives, personal choices, or the way we raise children: certain powers were enumerated to the government in our constitution, and media control is not one of them. There is no legal basis for the action.
I would like to reiterate some of what John and others have touched on: I don't think any of us APPROVE of letting young children shut themselves in a game console to simulate blowing people up. It is a destructive and unhealthy practice. But the great thing about America is that everyone has the right to be an idiot. To those that disagree with the decision, we are not saying at all that we WANT children to be playing these games or interacting with this media. We are simply saying that the solution in this case is worse than the problem because it undermines our fundamental rights. :)
Jacky Chen
Actually after looking at the situation again, I'm going to go against the judges' decisions. Yes, parent's should totally be there to decide for their children. But that's just the problem, they won't be there. The children will go to the store by a rate M video game and go home and play it without their parents' consent. In a household where the parents are often at work, the child could make these ignorant decisions all by themselves. It's ridiculous how they attach this to the first amendment. Basically "we don't want to keep free speech in video games from getting to children so we'll allow them to buy the inappropriate games." The law isn't stopping the children from being witness to your "free speech", it's just allowing the parents to decide if they want to show your infinitely valuable "free speech" to their kids. You can still express your content to the kids who are (17?) and older, just stay away from little kids. The gaming companies are upset because they can't take money directly from the 10 year olds that can be more easily persuaded to buy their game then their parents. This is barely a free speech dilemma, if at all. Everything is about money nowadays. How easy would it be to pay off judges with billions of dollars in video game revenue?
Video games keep your filthy rich hands off of the pure, innocent children. Have the decency to wait till they're 17 or 18 (whichever one it is).
Re: Laura
Haha I persuaded Jackie. Anyway Laura i agree that kids mature at different ages but that shouldn't have anything to do with the courts decision. You said that "We are simply saying that the solution in this case is worse than the problem because it undermines our fundamental rights." What fundamental rights are you talking about? THe court has set restrictions on many innapropriate things that children can not access and i dont know why there should be an exception when it comes to these games.
In response to Scott's comment about violent video games just being a medium for disturbed children, I somewhat disagree. Children are not born with the idea that they should go around hitting people with cars, and raping women and children for points, but video games put that idea into their heads. They reward children for doing something inhumane and completely wrong. So while there may not be any proof that video games have a negative effect on children, it can be seen logically how they very well could.
While I agree with the supreme court's desicion, I also think that the government should provide guidelines and suggestions to help parents decide what to allow their kids to play. Kids themselves can really go anyehere to purchase what they want, they can even go over to their friends's house to play games that they normally wouldn't be allowed to play. So, to me, there really isn't much of a point of restricting the sale games to kids unless they are something like nc17. These generally aren't products like fireworks or medicine that could be potentially harmful in the wrong hands. Ultimately, the restrictive responsibilities should stay with parents and business owners.
The Supreme Court's decision on rejecting bans on video games for children is understandable. Making the 1st Amendment as its foundation for ruling this case is fair enough. Many authors, directors, and artists all have the right to freedom of speech, so why should the creators of video games differ? Although violent games have impacted many children negatively, I think it is crucial that government plays a strong role. Many parents of these video gamers do not have the knowledge, or idea of what games do to their children. It is statistically shown that video games, especially violent video games influence their children greatly. Because of such shocking statistics, I think it is important that government takes an active role. However, because everyone has the right to 'freedom of speech', the government has to take this into account and make a decision. In the case of banning video games to children, I think the decision made by the supreme court is justified and fair. There is no crime in selling games that is meant for the people's entertainment. All the games that are sold in the U.S. have a ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) rating, that shows the appropriate age group and content that is suggested to consumers. Just like movies have their own ratings such as rated R, PG-13 etc. It is up to the parents to decide if they should allow their children to play such games.
Ultimately, I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. I believe that the decision made by the Justices is fair and understandable. Creators of video games should have the right to 'freedom of speech', just as much as any authors of books, movies, and even singers. It is important to note that it is up to the people, and their responsibility to decide if these games are suitable for their children.
Re: Sarah
I'm a bit curious by a statement you made in your post.
"It is statistically shown that video games, especially violent video games influence their children greatly."
While I understand what you're getting at, I'd like to ask for some clarification as to HOW video games affect children. I assume you're suggesting a negative manner, am I correct? I'm not disputing anything, just curious as to in what areas these statistics have pointed to increased influence?
Re: Jacky
How is the government suppossed to impose a conduct/character class when their is not a clear definition of what behavior is acceptable in society? There are many varying viewpoints on conduct/character, such as whether or not cursing is acceptable in normal behavior. And, who says the government should tell us the right way to behave? Also, how would the government fund such a project?
Re: Mark
Alcohol and cigarettes can not be related to this subject since the use of these are not proteced by the First Amendment. I agree that we should not condone violent video games, and that is where ratings come in and stores can choose whether or not to sell M rated games to children. (Walmart). However, the limits on alcohol and cigarettes for minors can not be used in this case since these do not lie under the First Amendment.
Ok... my original post just disappeared. It was there, then I made a new post, then it was gone. Anyone have any ideas why or how this happened?
RE: Jacky
Exactly- some parents suck at being just that: parents. And, attaching this issue to the First Amendment just doesn't really make sense. Oh, and I like your closing statement haha
RE: Laura Hatley
I agree that the government should not be responsible for media choose within families. If the government regulates such things then it takes away the right to view things that express what we like or believe. I think that parents have the right to choose the right media for the family. Yet, i don't think that the government should not have any part in this matter. The government can take a back seat role in helping its citizens in making the right choose. In the end it could be a "Necessary Evil" only if people are clueless to what the media countains or if they themselves choose to view the more violent of media.
RE: Taylor
Although an exact guide on "how to be human" isn't out there. I'm pretty sure that everyone recognizes the cursing is not good behavior. Kids don't usually get rewarded for coming home and cussing at their parents. People in general look down upon cheating spouses. Things like that can compiled into direction for children. Also the six pillars of character somewhat fills that space. I think most would agree that trustworthiness, care, respect... are all good conduct not for just one society or culture but almost everybody. You're almost saying that we don't know how to be human anymore. Just because we are individuals doesn't mean that we do not have an instinct to abide by a common goodness naturally inside of us. Inside we feel bad for bad things that we do. It's called a conscience. And for the problem of funding, it wouldn't have to be a whole class by itself but could be implemented into a history class or, at even earlier ages, naptime.
I'm saying the government should tell us how to behave, not enforce it upon us. If you haven't noticed our nation is sinking in a pool of immorality and improper conduct with nothing to save it. Divorce rates are through the roof. Crime rates have skyrocketed in the last 50 years. The most catastrophic wars the world's ever seen occurred in the last 100 years.
Yes the founding fathers granted us free speech when creating this "great society" but they also knew that a democratic republic would be based upon the integrity of the people. What integrity? haha
And thanks Cassie and Mark ha
Re: Sarah
(Helping out Scott)
Yes, kids aren't born with that in their heads but what kind of kid would pick up and play a video game that portrays those horrid actions. If it was a kid who was completely good and non-violent, he or she would've have rejected the game from a mere glance at it's cover or possibly after a few minutes of game play. On the other hand, I violent child would play the game and enjoy it. Yes, ideas would be planted in his head but he was already violent to start out with. That's why the problem isn't the games, it's the people.
Btw, how many kids do you know would play a game where they're raping people and enjoy it? Even an ignorant child would have the conscience to drop the game. The kids who are playing this are seriously messed up.
RE:Allie
I like that you pointed out the danger that lies in the government being given too much power over what video games we are allowed to show kids because it will only lead to them having an easier time controlling areas like movies, books, music,and other forms we have now taken as self expression as well as making us all the same and limiting diversity.
RE:Caitlyn
I totally agree about us having to protect our freedoms despite that fact that violent video games could cause future damage is unproven so how can we possibly validate giving the government the power to chose what is right or wrong for children. The fact is there is more evidence to support that violence reported on news programs causes more psychological damage to children than these games yet no one is considering banning them?
If anyone wants to know more about that news report study just look for the op-ed by Cheryl k. Olson in Tuesday's New York times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/opinion/28olson.html?_r=1&ref=contributors
Re: Cooper Lewis
I agree with your statement that the law wouldn't have done as much good as they expected. Kids would still be able to get access to violent video games through their friends, older siblings, or some other creative way I'm sure they could think of. I also think that this law would be as effective as kids not being able to see R rated movies. It will keep the honest kids from getting into the theater, but many kids would find a way in.
Re Caitlyn Burns
I agree that kids would still be able to find a way to get violent video games, as many people find ways around just about every law. I think the government isn't giving enough credit to children in terms of their responisbility. Many kids know the difference between what is right and wrong and as long as parents enforce rules and show that there is a difference in behaviors in video games and in real life. I also agree that decisions about a child are up to the parent. Nobody knows a child better than their parent so they know what is and isn't appropriate for their kid. Every kid is different in maturity level and interests. Some will act differently than others when exposed to graphic materials. Parents will be able to identify if violent video games are affecting their child in any way and be able to stop them from playing the game anymore. As long as parents are aware of how their child acts as a result from the games, I don't see why the government needs to restrict kids from playing violent video games because parents will have control and do what is best for their child.
I feel like people (myself included) should read all the comments before reposting the same ideas because this is going nowhere.
I think Jacky just stated the best idea mentioned here yet.
Re: Janeen
What exactly do you mean by "guidelines and suggesstions"? I want to know how much you think the government should do.
Re: Jacky
I agree that we should embrace integrity and people, in general, really are good, but I do not think the government should step in. No one is perfect, and it might give the government too much power. I think the system we have in elementary schools where we learn about the six pilars is good. These are state or district standards though and not the central government. I just don't think the central government should have that much power over the people.
RE: Jacky
Honestly, I don't think the Court's decision had much to do with the discussion about how much the government should tell people how to act. The Court decided that video games are a form of art, and are therefore protected by the right of expression that protect stuff like movies, literature, and art. If there are no government regulations on those things, why should there be on video games? (Keep in mind that current restrictions of sale to minors of certain video games/movies are NOT government regulated).
Re: Courtney(newcombe)
I agree with your response to Austin. We shouldn't have to be told by the government what games are appropriate for us. Why is it that they are more able to tell right from wrong then we are? We are just as human as them and therefore just as capable? Allowing the law to be passed would just set a precedent through which the government could continue to extend their power to limit our freedom of speech.
Re: Jackie
I would have to disagree with you in saying that this is not a freedom of speech issue. Buying a product that has been made readily available to you is a right that we should all have. Why can we not express which games we want to play. That would be like the government saying only certain aged people can download a certain song because the content is explicit. That not only violates the consumers freedom of speech but it also violates the artists freedom to say what they feel in the song. Just like a video game designer shouldn't have a limited amount of people to market to because of the content he puts in the game.
John Gennaro
RE: Mark
I agree with you on how the sale of inappropriate games to children is immoral. However, I believe that this is a necessary evil because the government should not have a say in what personal choices a family makes on this form of art. Video games are still debated about in causing any mental or physical harm. Since there are no hard facts on the alleged harmful effects of video games on children, than the opinion of stopping the sale of video games to minors on these grounds is just an opinion. Since everyone has their own opinion than others might think differently, and this is allowed in the United States. People who disagree don’t have to let their children buy explicit video games, and people that do agree with their children being exposed to inappropriate material can go ahead and allow their children to buy these games.
John Gennaro
RE: AJ
I agree with AJ, on the grounds that video games cannot be definitely linked to increased violence or obscenity. The moral compass of a child is developed over time from parenting, and this is what leads a child towards violence or astray from violence. Video games most likely have some contribution towards a more violent nature, but also as AJ said so do a lot of other products available to children nowadays. So why ban video games when there isn’t any hard evidence stating that video games are bad for minors?
RE: Lauryn Rasimas
I do agree with your argument that this is in fact an issue regarding the public’s freedom of speech. Having the government deem what is appropriate for the masses is another attempt to make the country more Communistic. There should be no blanket rule that meets the needs of every individual. Everyone is different regarding maturity level and intelligence so why is does the government try and treat everyone as such? I also agree with your statement that the artists’ scope of available buyers should not be restricted due to these laws. Everyone has their own freedom to say whether or not certain video games are appropriate for them or maybe even their children. The government trying to regulate guidelines on this issue is a direct infringement on this right.
RE: John Gennaro
Thank you for agreeing with my statements regarding on how multiple activities could change the personal behaviors of a child and not just video games. I do agree that the government in its attempts to create overall guidelines for everyone can only create negative results. All individuals that grow up in this environment will be duplicates and basically be “drones” as you said in your earlier posts. This country was founded on the rights that everyone could be their own living identity. The government taking away this freedom is immoral and again should not be carried out with the regulation of video games. Also, with your statement that the parents need to help create a moral compass for the child is a good idea instead of mass restrictions. Even though this is not always implanted in the real world it is a good scope to look at.
Made by AJ Solomon
Re: Taylor
If you're all for state standards then, this video game ban was also a state decision that was struck down by the Federal supreme court. And what "too much power" are you talking about? I'm only asking that they exercise free speech. They're giving us ideas not orders.
Re: Cooper
Yes, I recognize that this problem is not about government regulation over our lives and is rather an argument about protecting free speech for gaming companies. I was only theorizing a solution for the general immorality of our society.
You make a good point about how other forms of art and entertainment are not restricted but you also know that there are forms of restriction out there. Although the restrictions are not placed by the government, they should be. I think there's a general acceptance of the ban of selling M games at Walmart to minors (is there one for R movies too?). Well if the government created a law, it would make that restriction standard and provide the tools for parents to keep their own agenda of restrictions. Many parents just don't realize (or are too busy to realize) what their children are exposed to daily. With these bans, they can make the choices for themselves rather than allowing their children to decide.
Re: Lauryn
Sorry for being disrespectful but I think you should reread the article. It's not based on our own free speech and since when has personal free speech been synonymous with freedom of choice? I admit that you do have a great example though because the idea of asking for parental permission every time I downloaded a song is tiresome and annoying. But different forms of art can be treated differently. We can create a system that relates it to when children are generally exposed to things (ex. children are usually exposed to harsh language before being exposed to sex). An "artists freedom to say what they feel in the song" is not hurt by creating restrictions. The person can still say or sing whatever he or she wants, just don't say it to little kids (without their parent's permission haha). Video game makers shouldn't be stopped from showing their explicit content to little kids? That just sounds outrageous ha. Why not?
And as I said before it barely interferes with free speech if at all. They aren't allowed to sing their siren's song to little kids WITHOUT PARENTAL PERMISSION. So the government decides to stick wax into the children's ears to prevent them from jumping off the ship, it's the parents' decision as to whether it should be taken out.
Re: Janeen
I more or less agree with you on the point you make regarding the need for guidelines via the government. This much at least, agencies simply offering rating scales that allow a parent to judge the content of a media work, and do not restrict minors from actually using or viewing it, is a necessary evil.
The way I see it, is that even though government control is far from beneficial to society, minimal interference is normally for the better. The government is a tool of the people, the purpose of which is to protect said people who in turn created the government to do so in the first place.
Re: Everybody
Guess my original post disappeared. If I get time, I'll retype it up from memory as best I can.
RE: Amy
I completely agree with your statement: "The government should only step in when it comes to issues that directly endanger children". A child's immediate welfare is not at stake here. There is no substantial evidence to prove that a child exposed to violent games will become violent themselves. Violence is bred from an unstructured, unstable home environment, caused by parents who emotionally or physically abuse their children. The impact of living in this environment is an area in which the government already has the right to step in and act on behalf of the child. This agency is known as the Child Protection Services Agency (CPS). If there was a direct link between video games and violence, wouldn't more people commit heinous crimes? In cases where a child has both exhibited violence and played violent video games, there are usually other underlying factors that cause the violence. Eighty percent of male prisoners in California prisons were raised in single family homes, with no father figure present. Video games are simply entertainment and if the child is in a loving, caring home, exposure to this type of violence will not manifest itself in violent behavior. The government should only get involved when a child has no advocate. By default, parents are best advocate for a child, and they should oversee what their children can and cannot do.
Re: Jacky
You said that we don't have guidelines on how to be human, and you may be right about that, but the argument that things are either right or wrong is very narrow. The world is not black and white, its not right or wrong. Most people think of cursing as a negative action along with adultery, but that things will always be as bad. The FCC has greatly relaxed what is acceptable on tv and radio. Of course there is not solid right answer for this but what I am trying to say is that we are becoming more laid back on censorship and what we allow kids to do and I think it is for the better.
RE: Courtney
Hey Court! I think you're right about not trusting the government. It is a difficult decision to choose and obviously we can't. But perhaps that's what our founding fathers were considering when they drafted the Constitution. We cannot invest all trust in either government or people. So they created a form of government in which the people have a say and that can regulate the country accordingly. Our country's government, I have to say, is a happy medium. It is not totalitarian, we invested some power in the people, but it is not total anarchy. I suppose, even though it is not perfect, it is the best we can ever hope for. This was a sentiment shared by those who devised the Constitution.
I just want to emphasize on Cooper's response to Jacky in saying that the debate here lies not exactly in whether the government is telling people how to live their lives, but moreso that they are simply saying that regulating the video game industry with that law would be unconstitutional. Video games are a way for the developer to express what they wish and as a form of entertainment, under the First Amendment is protected. It is the parent's responsibility to keep track of whether their child is exposed to this or not.
In regards to Mark and Jacky's argument, this pertains more to enforcement of looking at the ratings of the games. The Court's decision was that the law fining shops that sold violent games to minors was unconstitutional. Whether they should create a new law having to do with being stricter on allowing children to purchase games rated M is a different matter.
RE: Courtney
I have to agree with your statement to Austin, that "If the Supreme Court hadn't ruled what they did, we would have seen future cases limiting our freedoms and questioning our judgement". The more the government controls what information we are exposed to, and our thoughts, the less our society will evolve. Each individual has the right to their personal freedoms and these should never be hindered by any governing organization. As Caitlyn said, our country is a "happy medium", which is currently our best case scenario. Allowing people to think freely and share their ideas is the only way we can make improvements and not fear retribution. Any form of censorship will impair our progress as a society.
Re: Allie
You described what I was trying to say perfectly! We can't really restrict what video games children play until we actually know that they adversely affect behavior. I don't know if there has been or is a study on this but if not there should definitely be one conducted.
Ryan Batchelder
This is the third time I've tried to post, but it looks like my posts aren't working. I had written a summary of how the rating system in the United States works right now for video games in a general response to those who felt that the California bill would prevent children from playing violent games.
First and foremost, with the current rating system we have in place, children cannot buy games that are rated M without photo-ID at all major retailers. But I believe part of the issue here also should be focused on how games are given the M rating compared to how games would have been given the "18+" rating under the California bill (since the ESRB is a private company not part of the government, it is to be assumed that the California rating would supersede any ESRB rating).
If you read the text of AB 1179 and then look at some games that are rated M today (I used Halo: Reach in my previous post) you will notice that the "18+" rating under AB 1179 requires a game's content to be far more "mature" than the ESRB's current M rating. The type of violence and light amounts of what is known as "comic gore" in games like the Halo series would not receive the 18+ rating as per 1179 specifications, thus making this type of game EASIER to purchase underage.
Just as the Motion Picture Association of America is a private company who rates movies, the ESRB or Entertainment Software Rating Board is also not controlled by the federal government. The government doesn't encroach on the power of the MPAA in enforcing film ratings and the age access to these films, why do we feel that the government needs to control the video game industry?
Summary of my original post:
I'm basically conflicted with the recent ruling. For one, I do agree with the Supreme Court that restrictions placed on video games, or anything for that matter, is and ought to be illegal. Government has no place meddling in personal affairs, and should have no control or say over how media is distributed to minors. That is, quite simply, up to parental consent and determination. Government's job is not to tell the public what they can and cannot do.
However, conversely though, as a tool of the people, it is the government's duty to protect the people who bestow it with power. In a sense, one could visualize the ban on sales to minors as a kind of safeguard protecting America's children. Then again though, that much doesn't really reach beyond the blackboard. Kind of a double-edged sword. Too much government interference is bad, whilst too little just creates chaos.
While I don't think government should have any say at all in how a person lives their life, aside from basic laws and rules of conduct, the truth of the fact is that governmnet help is necessary. Instead of controling how things run, as the FCC does now, it should instead offer guidelines detailing the content of games and other media whilst not directly blocking the sale to those who want to purchase the game. Parents will know what their child's seeing by glancing at the ESRB rating, and even if the child itself purchases something, the parent will still be able to find out what's in it.
Sorry again for my lost post.
Janeen Lantry
Re: Taylor
What I meant was that the government create a program where they evaluate games and other media, and provide a sufficient rating for it. There is no need to increase restrictions with this program, it is exactly as I said, "suggestions and guidelines".
Re: Ryne
While I agree with a lot of your points said, a thought has recently came to mind. What happens when parents fall short or simply do not check on what their children are exposed to? If a child becomes mentally scarred or otherwise negatively altered because of the parents' lack of observation, what do we do then? Do we sit back and say, "Oh, the person had bad parents, there's nothing we could've done about their issues". And what about the kids who grow used to doing things behind their parents' backs? This may be a little extreme, but maybe a little control may prevent problems in the future.
Re: Ryne
"It is statistically shown that video games, especially violent video games influence their children greatly."
I did not point out, but sometimes,there are news about children did something(raping,hitting,etc)because of a game they played.I've seen those kind of news awhile ago. Therefore, violent video games influence children.
Re: Mollie
Yes, i agree with you. The age of 18 doesn't mean it is always the case. Some people that are 18 aren't mature enough. In this case, you can't follow the exact rule. It really depends on the parent and the person himself/herself.
Re: sarahwong
Thank you. I think that the saying that at "18" you are an adult is outdated these days.
Re: MarkWebb
Why would the emancipation at 18 make any difference, if at 18 you are technically an adult? At 18 in any state you have the right to move out, own a home, etc. I was talking more along the lines of regular emancipation. When becoming an adult at 18, that is called emancipation, but when you are seeking the "adult" status before 18 you have the right to do so if you are elligible. This website will show you the guidelines for becoming emancipated. Just a heads up the age is 16, because I have a few friends and a cousin that are legally an adult, but are still under 18.http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/superiorcourt/self-servicecenter/forms/juvenilecases/jg_jg4.asp
Post a Comment