|
Free speech versus kids and violent video games
Leviathan.Scorch
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 206
By Leviathan.Scorch 2010-04-26 20:58:56
Fenrir.Ktjrn said: I seriously think that parents need to take control and be parents, not a best friend to his/her child. Kids get away so much these days and the adults turn a blind eye, living in denial because they don't want to face the truth. I also believe that some people really have a hard time telling the difference between fiction and reality. Especially @ a young age, parents need to sit with their kids and talk to them about life, what's real and what's fake,so that they won't have these issues adjusting in society. Parents need to stop blaming media and other means of communication and start taking responsibility, and therefore there would not be all these shitty *** restrictions all over the damn place
I played MK when I was five years old. Did I think it was cool? Hell Yeah I thought it was cool. Did I think I could create a ball of ice out of my hand and force it to my brother and then kick him into a million pieces? Of course not. I'm pretty sure unless you have a serious mental illness, one is born with the ability to decipher reality. Do parents neglect to punish their children for their actions? Yes, you are correct. Playing video games has not hindered my ability to funcion in society, except for the fact that I don't give a damn, and hate people.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 83
By Asura.Twotones 2010-04-26 21:47:58
I agree with Ktjrn that parents need to take control more and tell their kids right from wrong. Teach the kids that this is a movie game or whatever it maybe.
Scorch I played Mk that was a awesome game I even played Eternal Champions where you could decapated a person. On neglect to punish thier kids for their actions now days its called child abuse its not like the old days where you could get a whooping for something wrong which most of these age people turned out right. I belive passing laws can do more wong than right and I do agree with the rating but knowing them they will add a bunch of bs that would hurt gaming.
On a side note other than getting a whooping my other punishment was working my *** off at a farm which I enjoyed and was taught things.
Bismarck.Recaldy
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 412
By Bismarck.Recaldy 2010-04-26 22:15:49
Always start with the parents.
Ramuh.Tousou
Server: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2083
By Ramuh.Tousou 2010-04-26 22:47:11
Bismarck.Recaldy said: Always start with the parents.
Always goes back to the fact that nobody takes responsibility for their actions. In our society, it's acceptable to point the finger somewhere else. Our parents do it, their grandparents did it, etc.
Fenrir.Fdeath
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 108
By Fenrir.Fdeath 2010-04-26 23:12:03
Ramuh.Tousou said: Bismarck.Recaldy said: Always start with the parents.
Always goes back to the fact that nobody takes responsibility for their actions. In our society, it's acceptable to point the finger somewhere else. Our parents do it, their grandparents did it, etc.
agree on that.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 99
By Shiva.Dinarii 2010-04-26 23:22:20
it's all the parents. years ago reading this, i would have scoffed at the notion. but now, it's quite a thought provoking idea.
here in PA, if you arent 18, you cant purchase anything rated Mature without ID. no matter what you do, the system isnt going to be perfect. But if you're the parent buying this stuff for your kids, don't be surprised when they do stupid things they've seen/heard/done in a video game. i don't believe that games or movies make kids do stupid things. but it isn't for those whose minds are still developing as it may slightly twist the way they see things as acceptable, especially with a parent who can't say no and teach their kids proper values and right from wrong.
everyone has that friend who as a kid had everything. their parents bought them whatever they wanted, when they wanted it. no matter what it was. aside from firearms(who i knew a few parents who did just that). If the parents are absent as many are wont to do in todays world, the child grows up without the same ideals that maybe our parents had shown us.
i came from a family that spanked their kids, grounded them(no going outside, no phone calls, no games, no tv. you cleaned. and cleaned. and cleaned some more), etc. there was no "timeouts" there was none of this, i'll take you're video games away for 2 hrs bs. and yes, i do believe there is a difference between spanking and full out beating the ***out of your kids.
as a parent myself now, i look at things differently. i reward my children when they should be, i punish them when they require it. depending on severity of the deed, brings about the severity of the punishment. i look at it, if you can't raise your kids you should have them taken from you. someone else wants kids but cannot have them who would be happy to take them off your hands. and who could be 10x the parent that you are. (generalization here, not pointing at any of YOU)
[+]
Ramuh.Dasva
Server: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 40469
By Ramuh.Dasva 2010-04-27 00:02:19
Bismarck.Recaldy said: Always start with the parents. I like where this is going!!!
But seriously you can't expect all parents to just raise there kids right. Just saying blame the parents everytime and move on is the lazy way out. Sure better parenting could've helped but clearly man parents are lacking and as such people are taking steps to take over where parents are failing.
Phoenix.Degs
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2448
By Phoenix.Degs 2010-04-27 00:31:58
Though I agree that subject matter deemed to violent should be kept away from kids.. albeit movies/tv shows/videogames, it is 100% the parents decision. As a parent I choose what my kids play as far as games go, or what the watch on tv... and I dont want the government sticking their noses in my business. If the sale of violent material does become restricted... who's to say that parents wont just buy it for their kids anyway...
My 2cents
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1085
By Asura.Israfel 2010-04-27 01:09:03
Remember when you were like 5 and power rangers was the coolest thing on TV? And I mean like Season 1 with Zordon and that awesome Robot called Alpha.... *sigh..... good old days*
And you could always tell who the kids were that were watching it, because you'd always try and like go all ninja on your siblings, or if you were into wrestling you'd try wrestling moves :P
Your folks would be like "Stop trying to put him in headlocks! You're gonna put him in hospital! And don't suplex the cat, kitties don't bend that way."
Not a lot of parents pay attention to what goes in games that their kids play until it's too late; parents, out of the blue aren't gonna sit down with you and say "Well, please don't steal my car and try to ram it into a group of pedestrians like you do on your videogame." or "People don't get one-ups, so you can't go shooting them!" lol ><
But you can bet, the first time a kid steps out of line and does something drastic, it's all "OH well it was his videogames! It was their fault!"
I completely agree with you Kt when you say it's all about responsibility. People will moan that rights are being taken away, but rights are meant to be earned I think. If people can't take responsibility for their actions then they don't deserve priviledges. (Not sure if that's the right word, oh well)
@ Degs: I'm glad that you do regulate what your children play / watch on the TV etc, it's sad to see how many parents are like "Eh, just go play in your room and give me some quiet time"
But the government putting their noses in and age-restricting sales on things like this would be better I think. Yes, you could still buy these items for your children, but for parents who don't own a drop of common sense, seeing '18+ Only' on a game case might make them think that this isn't suitable for their kid, or that they should probably check what the item is/contains before just getting it for the child ><.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 99
By Shiva.Dinarii 2010-04-27 01:13:48
i dont know if i agree with that dasva, yes you will have the occasional kid lash out in some unusual ways, for better or for worse. but the basis of it all, i believe is within the confines of parenting. being a parent isnt easy, but things like this to me is a basic premise to showing your children how to live their lives "properly". if a kid isnt 18, can't buy x game themselves. if parents are not checking out the games/movies/etc that their children are into, i consider that irresponsible.
if i am spending the money on these consoles/systems/games, then i for damn sure am going to see what it's all about. im not going to be buying my 5yo daughter god of war 3, or GTA 57. call it right or not, but if you have parents that dont give a damn, the apple doesnt fall far from the tree.
it's not just this generations parents that are lacking, it's generations upon generations. to give a stereotypical example, but one that i saw occur constantly growing up: Parents buy child whatever they want, not earning anything. child doesnt learn the value of the things he has, treats it like garbage, and does so for the rest of their life. Expecting hand outs, and free meal tickets up to and including today.
on the other hand, you have a kid who has to get their own job, bc parents don't just hand them what they want, tends to learn the value of the things they have. and treats things and other people with more respect.
Lol just found this and I wanted to say this that I was raised when I was not racing my motorcycle I was playing hardcore games from the start not sure when it was maybe computer with 16mhz processor or atari or watching night of the living dead one where the nude chick is in it. My point is that I am fine in life atm because I had parents that told me what is right and wrong. I did not go out and rape or muder some1 cause of video games and myself we should also have more free speach. Like for example if those freaking people in Washington would have gave every1 of the working class (NOT RICH) the bail out money it could have solved every thing by letting people pay off stuff and not going to war cause they want to for the hell of it and by god fix the dang USA or what country you come from. I dont see them do shit for homeless people. Also IRS you dont see them pay you when your return is late but watch out if you late. What do you think about this.
The Supreme Court will decide whether free speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children.
The justices agreed Monday to consider reinstating California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out last year on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, said he was pleased the high court would review the appeals court decision. He said, "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies."
However, the judge who wrote the decision overturning the law said at the time that there was no research showing a connection between violent video games and psychological harm to young people.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue.
California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games — those that include "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" — to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act could have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.
Lawyer Stephen S. Smith, who has represented several video game companies in court, said the Supreme Court may use this case to explain how far lawmakers can go when trying to regulate depictions of violence.
"There is a fair amount of First Amendment law in the area of sexual explicitness and obscenity," he said. "But there is not nearly as much law on the issue of violence and what may be restricted or not under the First Amendment in that arena."
The California law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns.
Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that video games — which the Entertainment Software Association says are played in 68 percent of American households — are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
But supporters of the law note that the Supreme Court has upheld laws keeping minors from buying or having access to pornography, alcohol and tobacco. And the California law does not ban parents from purchasing or buying the video games for their children.
Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said video games should get the same First Amendment protections as the court reaffirmed last week for videos.
Given last week's ruling on videos showing animal cruelty, "we are hopeful that the court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment," he said.
Leland Yee, the California state senator who wrote the video game ban, said the Supreme Court obviously doesn't think the animal cruelty video ban and the violent video game ban are comparable. If the justices thought that, he said, they would not be reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to throw out the video game ban.
"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," said Yee, a San Francisco Democrat.
California lawmakers approved the law, in part, by relying on several studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence in children. But federal judges have dismissed that research.
"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling.
Callahan also said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games.
The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games. They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing games designed for adults.
But courts in other states have struck down similar laws.
The video game industry also argues that approval of California's video game restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material on the grounds of protecting children. "The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of nonprotected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.
The court will hear arguments in this case in the fall.
The case is Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association, 08-1448.
|
|