from Yahoo:
I'm a strong advocate of freedom of speech, but selling children Grand Theft Auto isn't speech, it's an assault on the child's psyche. If a parent wants his child to play the game, he can buy the kid the game. The kid shouldn't be allowed to buy it. We have all kinds of appropriate regulations on what can be sold to children-- cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Why can't we ban glorification of murder and rape?
Speech protected by the Constitution is speech that expresses an opinion (politics, religion, commerce, etc). "I wanna shoot the f*ck*ng b*tch" isn't an opinion, and shouldn't be sold to children.
The irony is this: the sale of a video game glorifing rape and murder is protected by the Constitution, but a prayer thanking God at a high school graduation is prohibited by a federal judge as a violation of the Constitution.
Can you think of a better example of 'satanic'?
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children.
The high court agreed Monday with a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors' rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.Why is it that environmental pollution is regulated to the hilt, but cultural pollution is a Constitutional right?
The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.
The court on a 7-2 vote said the law was unconstitutional.
I'm a strong advocate of freedom of speech, but selling children Grand Theft Auto isn't speech, it's an assault on the child's psyche. If a parent wants his child to play the game, he can buy the kid the game. The kid shouldn't be allowed to buy it. We have all kinds of appropriate regulations on what can be sold to children-- cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Why can't we ban glorification of murder and rape?
Speech protected by the Constitution is speech that expresses an opinion (politics, religion, commerce, etc). "I wanna shoot the f*ck*ng b*tch" isn't an opinion, and shouldn't be sold to children.
The irony is this: the sale of a video game glorifing rape and murder is protected by the Constitution, but a prayer thanking God at a high school graduation is prohibited by a federal judge as a violation of the Constitution.
Can you think of a better example of 'satanic'?
First off: I have played every game in the GTA franchise, and I don't remember any rape, much less glorification of rape.
ReplyDeleteSecondly: This should be a matter of parental resopsibility rather than legislation. It is not the government's responsibility to control whether or not kids buy violent games, nor is it the retailer's. This is the parent's job. All store-bought video games are marked with an ESRB rating to aid parents in knowing which games are appropriate for what ages groups. It is part of a parent's resposibility to PAY ATTENTION to what their kids are doing.
"Why is it that environmental pollution is regulated to the hilt, but cultural pollution is a Constitutional right?"
ReplyDeletePerhaps because one has no choice about enduring the former.
I suppose the violence, rape, murder, infanticide, genocide, subjugation of women, graphic torture and endorsement of slavery in the Bible is okay though. That's moral violence, right?
ReplyDeleteIf I could play a game based on the bible containing the above, would that be okay for children?
As the previous commenter noted, it is all about personal and parental responsibility. But you would have had to read the actual rulings to know that. Which I doubt you have.
Cultural pollution? What on earth is that?
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteHere in Ontario it is against the law to sell M rated games to those under the limit.
If the rating is M14 or M17, that's how old you have to be to buy it...or the parents must buy it.
It is not an offence that results in prison, but can result in very heavy fines and loss of license.
Similar, if not as severe, as the alcohol and tobacco laws.
A good analogy is wine. Children are not permitted to buy wine, but if their parents see fit they can be allowed to enjoy a glass with dinner (usually Christmas, Easter etc) in their homes or place of worship. In Quebec that is extended to cafes and restaurants.
I think the problem stems from people trying to be 'friends' with their children, rather than acting like parents.
The California ruling? As I have read it (media) it sounds NUTS to me.
The only people I could see objecting to enforcing age codes/limits on violent and sexual games are the brats themselves...well, them and the above rsponders (same?).
One further thought:
ReplyDeleteDoes prohibiting children from the purchase of pornography violate their Constitutional rights?
Could this be precedent for further 'actions' by the California courts?
Just saying...
I feel that it's the parent's job to enforce what's acceptable in the home. I dont like to see government as a moral enforcer. I'd hate to see the federal government become some kind of taliban.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I'd dislike it if my children were to play GTA4 I think I would be more worried if big-government got into the content regulation business.
The laws prohibiting violent games to minors are bordering on useless. Most games are sold online. Kids trade games in the playground. There's really no way to stop kids from encountering unsuitable content in the absence of parental control.
I disagree with any big-government conservatives who think that government knows better than parents.
Salim wrote:
ReplyDeleteI feel that it's the parent's job to enforce what's acceptable in the home. I dont like to see government as a moral enforcer. I'd hate to see the federal government become some kind of taliban.
Me too! I actually fought them for over 4 years. I am a veteran of the Afghan conflict.
I have seen what Theocracy/Communism and total control over the moral lives of everyday people does. We must 'render unto Caesar what is his' and ONLY what is his.
As much as I'd dislike it if my children were to play GTA4 I think I would be more worried if big-government got into the content regulation business.
Nice to talk about these things with someone old enough to have children. There is hope for you yet Salim!
But to your point:
What about R rated films and pornography? Why does that get a pass? There would have been no legal impediment to PARENTS allowing/buying children these games... so why not give them the tools to prevent them from getting them 'on the sly'. A playboy and an FPS may not harm the teenager, but should the availability of those be up to the parent and not simply market economics? I ask these questions sincerely, Salim.
The laws prohibiting violent games to minors are bordering on useless. Most games are sold online. Kids trade games in the playground. There's really no way to stop kids from encountering unsuitable content in the absence of parental control.
I agree. The same can be said of cigarettes, booze, and pornography; even illicit drugs.
The point you make regarding the online purchases could be remedied by not allowing the child access to credit cards and online funds and by punitive measures against companies that market said cyber smut/snuff to children.
Think: 'Joe Camel'.