SCOTUS to rule on violent video games
We read:
"The Supreme Court will decide whether free speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children.
The justices agreed yesterday to consider reinstating California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco threw out last year on grounds that it violated minors’ constitutional rights.
Source
The kids just get pirate copies of the games anyway
26 comments:
I hope the Supreme Court rules for free speech, I'm sick and tired of parents needing "help" from the government, do your freaking job, raise your kids rights, supervise their friend, teach them to respect the law and fellow human beings, and then you won't have to worry about them playing Grand Theft Auto anymore than parents in the past worried about their kids playing "cops and robbers."
The only way to truly protect kids from violence, is to totally eliminate it from, not only Rap music, but from society in general. Violence is as much a part of human nature as is love. We are basically a warrior race inspite of what the bleeding hearts wish for. No one can outlaw reality.
Bobby,
Do stores have a "right" to bypass the parents' wishes?
Video games already have a rating printed on them.
Parent: Don't buy any videos that have an "M"
Kid: OK
Store: DO you have the $30 for the game?
Kid: Here you go.
Store: Did your parents allow you to buy this.
Kid: None of your f*ng business.
Or... the way it should be..
Kid gets home:
Parent: Hey, that game is rated "M". Get me my hammer.
Kid: Thats not fair - that was my money.
Parent: Tough. Now you also get a spanking for backtalk.
...Of course, in FL the kid would just call 911 to get the parents arrested.
Story
So -- I'm going with let the parent's parent.
America is the "land of the free" (translation = reckless anarchy)!
1st: Let Free Speech reign!
2nd: It seems most American parents are the laziest group I have ever been around. They rely on the government way too often to rear their children for them.
"Do stores have a "right" to bypass the parents' wishes?"
---So if your kid is fat do you sue McDonalds because they sold him a double quarter pounder with cheese?
Do you sue Verizon if your kid uses his cellphone to take a picture of his weiner and send it to his girlfriend? Come on, at some point parents have to take responsibility.
The whole point of being a parent is limiting the choices kids have. They don't need cellphones with cameras, they don't need credit cards and they certainly don't need the kind of allowances that would allow them to buy video games the parents don't like.
And if you kid does buy a video game he shouldn't be buying, guess what? You can sell it on amazon, throw it in the garbage, and take other measures to ensure that your kid will not defy you again.
---So if your kid is fat do you sue McDonalds because they sold him a double quarter pounder with cheese?
How is that even remotely associated with this? You have tried to make this a "free speech" issue even though it is not. Are you now trying to say that a quarter pounder is free speech?
The question is whether laws such as this take the place of parents, or help people to parent. This is clearly the latter.
"How is that even remotely associated with this? You have tried to make this a "free speech" issue even though it is not. Are you now trying to say that a quarter pounder is free speech?"
---It's related because some parents seem to want "help" from the private sector. So if they want help with video games, why not food, why not clothes? Should we simply ban commerce for the underage? Are we going to start treating video games like booze and only sell them to adults?
"The question is whether laws such as this take the place of parents, or help people to parent. This is clearly the latter."
---People don't need help parenting, studies have shown that children who are home-schooled do better than those who are not, so the problem isn't the video games, the problem is parents that spoil their kids and then want society to play babysitter.
Tell me, why don't books come with ratings? I mean, if we're afraid of kids buying violent video games why aren't we afraid of them reading Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, or anything by the Marquis de Sade? I know some Christians find Harry Potter objectionable, should that book come with a Mature rating?
---It's related because some parents seem to want "help" from the private sector.
So your issue is not that this is a free speech issue (as you originally claimed) but one of "parenting."
---People don't need help parenting,
Clearly you have never been a parent. Even home schooled kids have parents that want information that allows them to make informed decisions for their children. "Use the Name, Luke" asked whether a store should be able to override the wishes of a parent. Apparently you believe that they should.
So please don't try and couch this as a "free speech" issue as you now say it is not. Don't try and couch it that you want responsible parents when you believe that the wishes of responsible parents should be trampled upon.
Tell me, why don't books come with ratings?
They do. The genre and content of books are listed on the jackets.
I know some Christians find Harry Potter objectionable, should that book come with a Mature rating?
Should a parent have the right to determine what is or is not appropriate for their child? That is the question here. There are not going to be many parent who are unaware of books with adult content. The same cannot be said of video games.
Rating of games and movies allows parents to make appropriate decisions for their children. This is not a question of censorship, as the product is still for sale. It is a question of information for parents.
Why are you against parents being informed of the content of games on the marketplace?
I raised my daughter in a "Skinner Box" and let her out at 18.She turned out OK.
"The whole point of being a parent is limiting the choices kids have."
Exactly!
But if stores sell games with restrictive ratings without the parents' approval, it destroys the ability of parents to limit those choices.
As a parent, I was very grateful for store policies which would not sell restricted games to my children without my permission. I did give approval in one or two instance. The key point is that it was my choice about which games my kids could buy, not my kid's, and certainly not the store's.
"Don't try and couch it that you want responsible parents when you believe that the wishes of responsible parents should be trampled upon."
A-frikkin'-Men!
"Violence is as much a part of human nature as is love."
Love has already been eliminated because it's deem too kinky...
"Do stores have a "right" to bypass the parents' wishes?"
They may have a legal obligation to not assume what those wishes are.
"Use the Name, Luke" asked whether a store should be able to override the wishes of a parent. Apparently you believe that they should."
---Too bad you didn't get my example about McDonalds. A parent may want his kid to be thin, yet if McDonalds sells him a burger, the company is overriding the wishes of the parents. A company isn't a babysitter, they have to follow the law, unless SCOTUS rules otherwise, selling a video games is no different than selling a book. Besides, this is a country where minors can watch R-rated movies with adult supervision, what do you think about that?
"They do. The genre and content of books are listed on the jackets."
---Have you ever heard of a minor being denied the right to purchase a book? You worry about Grand Theft Auto when some kid could be buying The Satanic Bible.
"Should a parent have the right to determine what is or is not appropriate for their child?"
---Yes they should, but stores are only responsible for what the law says. Besides, some kids have fake ID's, should stores be responsible for kids who lie?
Tell me, do your kids have body piercings and tattoos? Because if they do, then you haven't done your job as a parent.
---Too bad you didn't get my example about McDonalds.
Oh, I got it and saw it for what it it - a deflection. You first attacked this law as an affront to "free speech."
Are you really equating eating a burger to free speech?
Besides, this is a country where minors can watch R-rated movies with adult supervision, what do you think about that?
I believe that parents have the right to make decisions and give guidance for their children. It is part of the responsibility of being a parent.
You wish to trample those rights and responsibilities.
---Have you ever heard of a minor being denied the right to purchase a book?
Another deflection from you. We aren't talking about books here. Stick to the topic at hand.
---Yes they should, but stores are only responsible for what the law says.
Agreed. So you want parents to be responsible for their kids, but also enable the government to rip that responsibility away from the parents.
Besides, some kids have fake ID's, should stores be responsible for kids who lie?
Actually, they already are. That is established law.
Because if they do, then you haven't done your job as a parent.
This from the guy who hides his deeds from his mother. Please, clean out your own house before you even try to attack others.
"Agreed. So you want parents to be responsible for their kids, but also enable the government to rip that responsibility away from the parents. "
---If your kid buys a violet video game is your goddamm fault for giving him the money in the first place.
If I own a video game store how am I supposed to know that the 15 year old is buying the video game for himself and not his brother, father, etc? Am I supposed to check his ID before I sell the game?
If you want your kid to be a pussy pacifist, then fine, get rid of your cable, get rid of your TV, force the little bastard to read books and play musical instruments, don't let him socialize with friends who have video games, don't give him more than $10 or $20 when he goes out, and then you won't have to worry about your kid buying games he has no business playing.
The last thing we need is another law, we have too many goddamm laws!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
--C.S. Lewis
---If your kid buys a violet video game is your goddamm fault for giving him the money in the first place.
How so? If he earns the money (not is given it) and there are legal stipulations on what he may buy with it, what right does a company have to overrule and override my legal and moral guidance?
Am I supposed to check his ID before I sell the game?
Yep. Thanks for playing.
If you want your kid to be a pussy pacifist,
In other threads you have claimed that games and depictions of violence have no affect on anyone. Now in this thread as you points once again fall apart, you say that they do have an affect.
(Of course, your statement is hysterical in light of the fact that you have stated that you hate the military and won't stand up for what you believe in public, at work, or to your own friends. Project much?)
The last thing we need is another law, we have too many goddamm laws!
Of course that has nothing to do with this at all. You seem to think that just because a law is passed that makes it a bad law. Laws should be evaluated on the basis of merit - not number.
--C.S. Lewis
I agree with C.S. Lewis. As his point is that we don't want people telling us what moral code we should abide by, and what morals should be forced down our throats, CS Lewis would be on board with the law that allows parents - not the state or the "tyranny" of those who think they know better how to raise someone's kids - to override a parent's judgment for their child and family.
Thank you for posting a quote which proves the fallacy of your position.
"How so? If he earns the money (not is given it) and there are legal stipulations on what he may buy with it, what right does a company have to overrule and override my legal and moral guidance?"
---As long as the son lives in his parents house, he's under the command of his parents. If he earns the money and buys the game, the parents can force him to return it.
(Of course, your statement is hysterical in light of the fact that you have stated that you hate the military
---I have never stated that I hate the military, that is a lie. I have no problem with the military, I don't know why you assume that criticism of a British prince in the army amounts to me hating the military.
"I agree with C.S. Lewis. As his point is that we don't want people telling us what moral code we should abide by, and what morals should be forced down our throats,"
---Yet you don't mind the state of California passing laws banning the sale of violent video games to minors. Face it, this isn't about parents, this is about California imposing their moral views.
---As long as the son lives in his parents house, he's under the command of his parents. If he earns the money and buys the game, the parents can force him to return it.
That is one of the options. It is not, however, the answer to the issue of whether a store or the government should overrule the parental rights of a parent.
---I have never stated that I hate the military, that is a lie.
You have stated that you hate men and women in the military. That is the same thing.
I don't know why you assume that criticism of a British prince in the army amounts to me hating the military.
Because you linked that to a criticism and hatred of the military in general. You also stated how men and women in the US military were without honor and integrity.
Face it, this isn't about parents, this is about California imposing their moral views.
If it were about California imposing their morals on someone, they would ban the sale of violent video games outright. As that is not the case, your point is not accurate.
There is a big distinction between saying "you aren't allowed this" and "here is a tool to help parents raise their children."
If anything, you are trying to impose your moral values on people by saying that anything and everything is acceptable and that parents have no legal or moral rights and responsibilities in the raising of their children.
You want parents to be responsible for their kids and then try and rob parents of the tools, means, and rights to do so.
I was born in the mid-1960's, and as a child, I was never taught about my Constitutional rights as a child. To me, those rights were what adults enjoyed. I was required to follow the rules dictated by adult parents, the violation of which would result in punishment such as grounding, spanking, going to bed with no dinner, getting one's mouth washed out with soap, and a host of other creative, yet effective methods. And most of those methods served as huge deterrents from violating those rules again.
I am now a successful citizen who contributes unselfishly to my coworkers, my family, my friends, my church, and my fellow man. And I attribute it to my parents guiding me within realistic and controlled boundaries.
Fact is, society has created today's parents as a bunch of fearful, pandering, pussies with no concept of right or wrong to provide the required discipline to not only keep children in line, but to teach them how to properly conduct themselves when they become adults.
"You have stated that you hate men and women in the military. That is the same thing."
----Hating Prince Andrew doesn't mean I hate everyone in the military, it is not the same thing.
"Because you linked that to a criticism and hatred of the military in general. You also stated how men and women in the US military were without honor and integrity."
---I have never said that, you're making things up. I have supported the military even when the war became unpopular, and when that Navy Seal was accused of torture, I decided to believe him before believing the state. Someone who hates the military would not have done that.
----Hating Prince Andrew doesn't mean I hate everyone in the military, it is not the same thing.
That was not the only person you hated, criticized or accused of being dishonest.
---I have never said that, you're making things up.
Oh well. I am sorry that you are so intellectually dishonest that you can't and won't admit what you have said in the past.
This isn't really even an issue for most people. This is a politician's issue.
Most retail outlets DO NOT SELL "M" RATED GAMES TO MINORS PERIOD. Just try going to Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, GameStop (or EB in certain markets), Best Buy, Target, etc, and if you look under 18, you will get carded.
If you have an experience, please share, because I am sure that you don't and if you do, then you're either an extremely rare exception or are a liar.
Besides, gaming is now primarily an adult excursion. The following averages are for the American Market.
68% of households play PC or console games.
42% of households have a video game console.
The average age of game players is 35, the average age of game buyers is 39.
Those under 18, make up only 25% of the entire market, with adults who are 50+ making up 26%.
Under 18 males make up only 18% of the market.
83% of parents are aware of what games their children purchase or rent and require their approval before playing.
79% of parents place time limits on video games.
72% of parents place time limits internet usage.
71% of parents place time limits on television viewing.
63% of parents place time limits on movies viewing.
There is no problem and there is not one coming. So would all of you prissy-poopy-pants please shut up and get back to the things that entertain you, like jacks, marbles, pushing a hoop with a stick. Fucking Luddites.
Post a Comment