# Violent Video Games Free speech Right



## JohnEdward (Jun 27, 2011)

> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/us-usa-court-videogames-idUSTRE75Q35820110627
> 
> (Reuters) - Governments cannot ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors because it would violate free-speech rights, the U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday in its first ruling in a video game case.



Seems it's all about lobbying, to increase those profit margins. But, if you are a minor you are restricted to what movie you want to see. Movie ratings favor violence to be more acceptable than sexual content, if you ask me both should be treated equally.  If it were really a violation of free-speech rights, then nothing should be bleeped on tv or in music, kids should be able to have free access to prono. Corporations have far more threatening power than the government, and we should fear corporations to govern us, and act in the way we prohibit our government.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 27, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Seems it's all about lobbying, to increase those profit margins. But, if you are a minor you are restricted to what movie you want to see. Movie ratings favor violence to be more acceptable than sexual content, if you ask me both should be treated equally. If it were really a violation of free-speech rights, then nothing should be bleeped on tv or in music, kids should be able to have free access to prono. Corporations have far more threatening power than the government, and we should fear corporations to govern us, and act in the way we prohibit our government.


 
Geez, y'know my kids played video games. If there was anything I didn't want them playing, I'd say *No.* Pretty much the end of the story.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 28, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Geez, y'know my kids played video games. If there was anything I didn't want them playing, I'd say *No.* Pretty much the end of the story.


 
But but but Little Bobby down the street might play it.  If he does then there is no way to stop your kid from being exposed, don'tchaknow.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Games are no longer geared just toward Children.

I agree that adult material should be kept out of reach of young children, because we should empower parents.

But if I want to play Duke Nukem: Forever, I should be able to buy it anywhere games are sold.

Games are art, and they are geared to my age group..Halo, Gears of War, Mass Effect, etc...weren't made for kids at all. So it really comes down to empowering parents to be able to make the best choices for their children, which I am completely behind...

But just don't mess with my beloved game time.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 28, 2011)

The MPAA codes for movies are voluntary, and voluntarily enforced. I'm not aware of any law preventing a movie theater from selling tickets to any person for any movie. The USSC overturned a law -- a government action -- controlling the actions of private entities, finding that it was impermissible to create new areas of restricted speech. The California law targeted games because of their violence, not obsenity or sexual content.

This Court has consistently drawn a sharp line against government infringement on speech; I suspect that if obscenity cases were to land before them, they'd pull back the restrictions there, too.

It's the job and responsibility of the parents to control what their kids are exposed to and what games they play.


----------



## cdunn (Jun 28, 2011)

Hammer that home - There is no law, whatsoever, preventing any theater from selling a ticket for an NC-17 movie to a minor. It is enforced voluntarily. There is a parallel rating system for video games, detailed well enough that parents can be parents, though there may, or may not, be enforcement issues at the retail level. 

In any case, the California government failed to show it had sufficient cause to abrogate the right of free speech. What data there is on the theory that media violence begets violence in life is heavily conflicting, and therefore, we do not have the direct speech-to-harm link that exists in the cases of fraud, libel, and shouting fire falsely in a crowded room. Thus, no regulation. (Obscenity regulation is also absurdly overwrought, but chipping it away in front of the pearl-clutchers would be difficult.)


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Pron* won its obsenity cases due to the first amendment right, and we have to keep that only in certain places/away from children.

Why wouldn't they do the same for games? Especially for those games of an adult nature? Because games are specialty items. Sure wal-mart carries them..but there are full on Video game stores that would have to revamp the way they do things, if they can't even display Mature rated games.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Pron* won its obsenity cases due to the first amendment right, and we have to keep that only in certain places/away from children.
> 
> Why wouldn't they do the same for games? Especially for those games of an adult nature? Because games are specialty items. Sure wal-mart carries them..but there are full on Video game stores that would have to revamp the way they do things, if they can't even display Mature rated games.



Simple answer - the morality of our nation on balance.  Despite the fact that we are a secular nation, we are made up of deeply religious people in general.  More in some parts of the country than in others, and values and standards differ.  But in general, (and VERY generally), Christians find obscenity more objectionable than violence.

Obscenity laws have been largely left to local community standards.  A hotel manager in Cincinnati was sentenced to prison for allowing adult movies to be shown in the rooms of the hotels he managed; despite the fact that his hotel was part of a national chain and such movies were being shown in hotel rooms across the country.  It was illegal there, and that was the community that set standards there.

So understanding that laws on obscenity are not based on presumed harm done to society, but simply on the desire of society to not permit it because it is morally objectionable, one can see that you can't really compare obscenity laws to laws against the depiction of violence.  They're not the same thing to a deeply religious society; even when the logic just makes no sense at all.

This is an example of something I've talked about before.  Laws do not have to be logical or based on truth or science.  They only have to reflect the will of the voters and not infringe on civil liberties.  In the case of violent video games, the majority of the voters don't really care, and restricting them does infringe on civil liberties.  In the case of obscenity, the community cares very much, and the courts have found that community standards are sufficient to permit a minor (reasonable) infringement on what would otherwise be a strong 1st Amendment right.

We want our laws to be logical.  They often are not, and in reality, there is nothing that requires them to be that way.  This causes great consternation among the logical, which I totally get.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Simple answer - the morality of our nation on balance. Despite the fact that we are a secular nation, we are made up of deeply religious people in general. More in some parts of the country than in others, and values and standards differ. But in general, (and VERY generally), Christians find obscenity more objectionable than violence.
> 
> 
> We want our laws to be logical. They often are not, and in reality, there is nothing that requires them to be that way. This causes great consternation among the logical, which I totally get.


 
American Censorship:
Boobies *Bad*
Guns *Good*


----------



## Steve (Jun 28, 2011)

I think that the current rating system works just fine.  There are games that are rated "M" for Mature, and for good reason.  This is just another law we don't need.

I do believe that there are games kids shouldn't play, but making yet another mostly unenforceable law won't change anything.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> American Censorship:
> Boobies *Bad*
> Guns *Good*



Yes.  But that's what we (apparently) want.  Not saying I agree with it.  Just noting what is.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Seems it's all about lobbying, to increase those profit margins. But, if you are a minor you are restricted to what movie you want to see. Movie ratings favor violence to be more acceptable than sexual content, if you ask me both should be treated equally. If it were really a violation of free-speech rights, then nothing should be bleeped on tv or in music, kids should be able to have free access to prono. Corporations have far more threatening power than the government, and we should fear corporations to govern us, and act in the way we prohibit our government.


 
I call BS on the whole thing!  Seems today, people are so afraid that the music their kids listen to, the tv that their kids watch, the movies, the games, etc, are sooooo bad that somehow, they'll have a negative effect, thus, the kids will turn into some nutjob.  Funny though....I grew up watching Freddy, Jason and Michael running around, hacking people up, violently I may add, as well as watching the Coyote take fall after fall, explosion after explosion, while chasing the roadrunner, and to date, I've yet to terrorize my neighborhood with a knife, re-enacting my fav. horror badguys, nor did I think that I could hold explosives, and all that'll happen is some birds flying around my head. LOL.  

IMO, it all comes down to the way you're raised.  Gasp....yes, God forbid a parent teaches their child that what they see isn't real.  LOL.  

And if parents aren't up to speed on the current stuff, then shame on them.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> IMO, it all comes down to the way you're raised. Gasp....yes, God forbid a parent teaches their child that what they see isn't real. LOL.
> 
> And if parents aren't up to speed on the current stuff, then shame on them.


 

Agreed, although educational shows should be prevalent more than mindless show like "adventure time" and "Spongebob"

When I was a kid I enjoyed the history channel as much as I do today. Although, back in the day, History channel was more about History than "Modern Marvels" and "Pawn Stars"...but none the less..good.  I introduced my 16 year old sister to the history channel the other day..and shes hooked...can't wait till she see mythbusters.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

> Christians find obscenity more objectionable than violence.




Bwahahahahahaha

(and that's when kids can get violence but find boobies icky....up to a certain age, of course)


Is Tipper Gore on the lose again?


What it boils down to again is being a parent.

I had a similar discussion with my sister-in-law a while back. She rolled her eyes at her boys playing 'grand theft auto' and I asked her why she let it happen...or rather why she bought the game. 
Well she had not bought it, but felt so helpless about it (she's a ditz, so let's not go there) when I remarked that there would be no way there would be a game in my house I didn't approve of.

In the aftermath I had to have a talk with my kid why I didn't like that game and why he wasn't supposed to play it...

But as parent, you are not supposed to be the kid's best buddy, but the guiding light.

but then again, the state assembly is not supposed to force their ideas on the people.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

granfire said:


> Bwahahahahahaha
> 
> (and that's when kids can get violence but find boobies icky....up to a certain age, of course)
> 
> ...


 
Since when was violence not obscene?  

I think its just easier for parents to explain violence to there kids than it is to explain sex to them.

The Parents being so uptight already is where the lack of communication happens...Mommy and Daddy don't talk about it, so neither should you, and since the sexual revolution and the dawn of the internet, its coming closer to the forefront now more than ever...and its beeding over into our games. Which I think is a good thing..since the games were made of people my age...but for parents..it makes there job a little harder...IMO minors should have parents permission to buy a game thats rated to be for adults/mature.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Since when was violence not obscene?
> 
> I think its just easier for parents to explain violence to there kids than it is to explain sex to them.
> 
> The Parents being so uptight already is where the lack of communication happens...Mommy and Daddy don't talk about it, so neither should you, and since the sexual revolution and the dawn of the internet, its coming closer to the forefront now more than ever...and its beeding over into our games. Which I think is a good thing..since the games were made of people my age...but for parents..it makes there job a little harder...IMO minors should have parents permission to buy a game thats rated to be for adults/mature.



ah, uhm..

Actually violence is more obscene...
kids can 'get' violence, but up to a certain age (puberty) nekked people don't do anything for them 
Sexuality is a matter of life, violence, we can get through life with minimal exposure to it.

(but I blame it on this puritan vibe in the country...having fun 'doing it' is BAD, but bullying your wife is ok - rule of thumb meant you could beat your wife with sticks as long as they were not wider than your thumb...)

however, that's not something one can regulate, neither by law nor protest. It's something that is.

But generally speaking the attempt to pass laws like that have the base problem at the core: Parent not wanting to do their job, or unwilling to accept that you can't pack the little one in a bubble and spoon feed the facts of life to it.
Morals and such should develop through communication as to _why_ such things are not good.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 28, 2011)

Nevermind the issue of how the hell this law would be enforced in the first place.  If parents have young kids, are the parents themselves not allowed to purchase the games period?  Have them in the house?  

This is a free speech issue, plain and simple.  I would also like to point out the difference between imposing a rating system that puts parents on notice of the content of a game/movie and a flat-out proscriptive law saying "kids can't play these".  

Anything else I could add has already been posted.  Glad the Court found as it did.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 28, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Nevermind the issue of how the hell this law would be enforced in the first place. If parents have young kids, are the parents themselves not allowed to purchase the games period? Have them in the house?


 

The same way as a rather R movie, thats all they can do.

For most things, making them illegal or legal, the system on how to regulate them are already enacted today with other systems.


----------



## MJS (Jun 28, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Agreed, although educational shows should be prevalent more than mindless show like "adventure time" and "Spongebob"
> 
> When I was a kid I enjoyed the history channel as much as I do today. Although, back in the day, History channel was more about History than "Modern Marvels" and "Pawn Stars"...but none the less..good. I introduced my 16 year old sister to the history channel the other day..and shes hooked...can't wait till she see mythbusters.


 
Agreed.  IMO, some of the educational shows today, well, they suck.  I got more out of Sesame Street, than I think anyone would get out of spongebob.


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> Agreed.  IMO, some of the educational shows today, well, they suck.  I got more out of Sesame Street, than I think anyone would get out of spongebob.



LOL, Spongebob does not claim to be educational...

But there used to be shows that were fun to watch and did teach something.

(I am glad tho somebody else hates Adventure Time....)


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 28, 2011)

MJS said:


> I call BS on the whole thing!  Seems today, people are so afraid that the music their kids listen to, the tv that their kids watch, the movies, the games, etc, are sooooo bad that somehow, they'll have a negative effect, thus, the kids will turn into some nutjob.  Funny though....I grew up watching Freddy, Jason and Michael running around, hacking people up, violently I may add, as well as watching the Coyote take fall after fall, explosion after explosion, while chasing the roadrunner, and to date, I've yet to terrorize my neighborhood with a knife, re-enacting my fav. horror badguys, nor did I think that I could hold explosives, and all that'll happen is some birds flying around my head. LOL.
> 
> IMO, it all comes down to the way you're raised.  Gasp....yes, God forbid a parent teaches their child that what they see isn't real.  LOL.
> 
> And if parents aren't up to speed on the current stuff, then shame on them.


But... You mean I can't stretch bungee cords across the road, and use them to launch when I'm wearing roller skates?!  I suppose next you're gonna tell me if I walk out on a big branch, and cut the branch between me and the tree, the tree won't fall away.  

Parents need to parent.  I didn't see things my parents didn't approve of when I was young because they were there.  And my friends's parents had similar enough standards that it wasn't a problem...


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> But... You mean I can't stretch bungee cords across the road, and use them to launch when I'm wearing roller skates?!  I suppose next you're gonna tell me if I walk out on a big branch, and cut the branch between me and the tree, the tree won't fall away.
> 
> Parents need to parent.  I didn't see things my parents didn't approve of when I was young because they were there.  And my friends's parents had similar enough standards that it wasn't a problem...




Just something we talked about here at the house a couple days ago.

back in the days there were a lot of shows that were considered off limits for kids. 
Like <gasp> Colombo! Really no violence to speak of....
But then again, we didn't have a TV in every room either...


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 28, 2011)

I find the onus doesn't just to fall on the parents. Parents don't manufacture M rated video games and sell them to their kids. Well, the parents that don't work for the video game company. It is another thing concerned parents need to monitor. Concerned parents are constantly embattled in protecting their kids from a laundry list of things.  Where is the help for the concerned parent. Where are the video companies that have a social conscious and are willing to share the responsibility? Do video gaming companies have to make it tougher for parents? Well they do, it is just for a buck. 


Another thought. there is isn't a sex video game that is equally graphic and on the same level of sex as a M rated game on the market available to kids. What if there was, would have California court made a different decision?


----------



## granfire (Jun 28, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I find the onus doesn't just to fall on the parents. Parents don't manufacture M rated video games and sell them to their kids. Well, the parents that don't work for the video game company. It is another thing concerned parents need to monitor. Concerned parents are constantly embattled in protecting their kids from a laundry list of things.  Where is the help for the concerned parent. Where are the video companies that have a social conscious don't they share a responsibility. Do they have to make it tougher for parents? Well they do, just for a buck.
> 
> 
> Another thought. there is isn't a sex video game that is equally graphic and on the same level of sex as a M rated game on the market available to kids. What if there was, would have California court made a different decision?



Well, there have been (and likely are) sex video games out. However nerdish it might be, eventually the one handed game play seems to prove unsatisfactory (yes, I read the comments on one such games from the early days of computer games, i think it was based on the C64 system) 
So I guess that's the prime reason why sex as theme for games is rather under explored. (and considering the aversion against skin, I guess it would be off the market in a hurry anyhow)


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 29, 2011)

Honestly...I don't care what the say about games and children and the like...because even when I was a kid I was getting into things that legally kids shouldn't be doing...like "Mortal Kombat" and watching Rated R movies.  Kids are gonna keep doing what they do.

JUST DON'T MESS WITH MY GAMES BECAUSE OF IT!!!

Don't want kids buying these games...I don't care.
Want to set up a rating system to keep certain titles out of children's reach..FINE

Want to ban certain scenes in video games that are adult in nature, let it be violent or sexual, and the scene could even be in a rated R movie, but the system blocks it out because they say games are for kids, when studies show that gamer are between the ages of 18 and 35...*Now I have a problem.*


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 29, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Honestly...I don't care what the say about games and children and the like...because even when I was a kid I was getting into things that legally kids shouldn't be doing...like "Mortal Kombat" and watching Rated R movies.  Kids are gonna keep doing what they do.
> 
> JUST DON'T MESS WITH MY GAMES BECAUSE OF IT!!!
> 
> ...



There is truth to what kids will get into. When I was a kid, there were no violent video games. Pong was it. We mocked playing war, and cowboys and indians. We ran around with our imagination shooting each other, and playing dead. But, today we have come along way from that and from PacMan and Astroids. The video game play has far greater realism, intensity, and graphic violence. The level of violence and realism is phenomenal and incredibly intense, and increase with each new version, and that is what sells. 

When we get tire of the current video game's violence level, we want something more violent, more real, and more graphic to get that adrenaline, and endorphins pumping.  It is like an addiction, that isn't satisfied with the current high. We want something stronger, to get us higher. Take Doom, or Fall Out, which over the years have become much more intense and violent.  The first versions now are just unappealing to the current amped up version's play and graphics. The demand for more realistic violence in video games and the companies response to that demand creates a very violent and intense play experience. And that gets updated every year. How is playing a video game at 12 years old going to effect the kid, where the game is so realistic you shoot or hack someone and it is almost undistinguishable from the real thing.  The difference between tv and a video game is with tv you don't interact. You don't make it happen. Is that too much for a kid? 

Now you have a 12 year old out buying Mature rated games, like Black Ops. A game that can be handled better by 16 or 17 year olders. How does restricting kids 5-15 years old from gamers that are 16 year olds and older from buying the game? How does it effect adult gamers if there are multiple versions of the same game? Versions acceptable to 5-15 year olds, less intense and graphic. And versions for adults or older kids that are restricted from purchase by those under 16 years old?  

Where is the help for concerned parents? Must parents be the ones without allies? Are the video gaming lobbyist that strong, that powerful? Why do video game manufacturers shun assistance to parents who are concerned their product is too strong for their kids? Is it because their profit margins will drop. 

If your an adult gamer, why is the issue of kids being prohibited from buying these games, a concern? Would it be that those who play M rated games the most are between the ages of 10- 17; being the bulk of the online gaming community.  And isn't this the age group the gaming manufacturers target. They must be taking pages out of the Cigarette companies play book. That is a concern. 

Do we really need to have kids exposed to such intense and realistic violence? We know kids who grow up in crime ridden areas who see real death and violence are effected by it. If given a choice these kids will seek a non-violent environment. Does the concern for kids get thrown to the side, because of the demand by adults for more violent and graphic games and the profits of the video game companies?  Why is there a lack of conscious.


----------



## granfire (Jun 29, 2011)

Parents without allies?

Puleeze!

It's called 'doing your homework'

My kid wanted Black ops. Mom's answer: I think you lost your marbles, kiddo!

We do own a series of M rated games. But surprisingly they are not a huge hit.


Yes, the images to affect you. How much, the jury is still out. 
But they are a symptom of a larger problem. 
it is no longer socially acceptable to run around and pretend shoot your friends. Running, fighting etc...males are just hot wired for that.

my mom hates those games (she used to be in mental health) because those games hype up the psyche but provide no physical outlet for the energy.
maybe this is why we see so much ADHD...

In any case. Parenting isn't easy. You can't rely on what's on the outside of the box to be true. You have to keep in touch with the kid. You can't prevent them from being exposed to things, but you have to install values and communicate why they are important. 
Restrictions and big brother won't do the job for you.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 29, 2011)

I see your point, let me define allies. For me this is a corporate responsibility issue. The corporations putting out these violent games can lobby and hire top lawyers to stop laws that prohibit selling violent games to kids. These corporations have societal support because our society favors violence. But parents who don't favor violence have to fight against allot of slick global marketing campaigns of numerous products questionable for minors all the time. Corporation targeting their products to minors. How do you fight that? Especially when the court says, hey it's ok for kids to buy M rated video games no matter how violently ugly the game is or gets in it next version.  A parent allies are laws or strong societal support that do work against irresponsible corporations to help parents to keep kids from purchasing products that are not acceptable to minors.  Why is it important that kids are not restricted from buying violent video games? Is it really about free speech?


----------



## granfire (Jun 29, 2011)

well

you can't have it both ways.
You want allies in terms of Big Brother keeping taps on coporate?
Don't complain when they keep taps on you.

Parents are free to form interest groups, hire lawyers and lobby for their interests.

And here is were the rubber meets the road:
Parents interesting in controlling the output of such games are the big brother, HOA types...the overbearing ones...

While the rest is perfectly fine with doing their jobs as parents, filtering on their own account what they want their kids to be exposed to. (or they don't give a flip, but I don't call them parents)

On the other hand, should you in turn propose to limit corporate lobbying, I am all for it...too much of that going on in DC and the other 50 capitals....


----------



## WC_lun (Jun 30, 2011)

I have to admitt that I am uncomfortable with letting children have free access to violent video games...or movies, music, art etc.  If you are an adult, I don't think the government should dictate it, but for children I am not so sure.  If all parents were involved enough with thier children's lives to regulate such things on thier own, I wouldn't care.  However, when my nephew is playing a game at the nieghbor kid's house that involves torture and maiming people because the kid's parents don't care, it leaves me a bit cold.  We already recognize that children are different from adults.  Why is this different?

I also have an issue with violence being okay, but nudity or sex being taboo.  While I don't advocate kids watching porn, I think that it can't be any worse for kids than exposing them to extreme violence.  I certainly don't think seeing a woman's exposed breast is gonna have the same impact.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jun 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> When we get tire of the current video game's violence level, we want something more violent, more real, and more graphic to get that adrenaline, and endorphins pumping. It is like an addiction, that isn't satisfied with the current high. We want something stronger, to get us higher. Take Doom, or Fall Out, which over the years have become much more intense and violent. The first versions now are just unappealing to the current amped up version's play and graphics. The demand for more realistic violence in video games and the companies response to that demand creates a very violent and intense play experience. And that gets updated every year. How is playing a video game at 12 years old going to effect the kid, where the game is so realistic you shoot or hack someone and it is almost undistinguishable from the real thing. The difference between tv and a video game is with tv you don't interact. You don't make it happen. Is that too much for a kid?
> 
> Now you have a 12 year old out buying Mature rated games, like Black Ops. A game that can be handled better by 16 or 17 year olders. How does restricting kids 5-15 years old from gamers that are 16 year olds and older from buying the game? How does it effect adult gamers if there are multiple versions of the same game? Versions acceptable to 5-15 year olds, less intense and graphic. And versions for adults or older kids that are restricted from purchase by those under 16 years old?
> 
> ...


 

Honestly...I just don't want my games messed with because some parents don't know how to tell there kids no, or don't know how to do there own research.  They expect parenting to be as easy as spoon feeding.

Put whatever restrictions for the kids...do your thing...just don't restict the content of games because there are ignorant parents that think since its a game its automatically for children.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 30, 2011)

Big Brother? 

The Court's action and decision is oligarchical dictatorship well developed beyond Orwellian-ism.


----------



## MJS (Jun 30, 2011)

granfire said:


> LOL, Spongebob does not claim to be educational...
> 
> But there used to be shows that were fun to watch and did teach something.
> 
> (I am glad tho somebody else hates Adventure Time....)


 
Be that as it may, its sad that the educational shows that are on (are there any left?) are replaced with non educational things.  Like I said, I grew up with Sesame St.  One of the best educational shows out there, IMO.  Then again, I dont think its on anymore.


----------



## MJS (Jun 30, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> But... You mean I can't stretch bungee cords across the road, and use them to launch when I'm wearing roller skates?! I suppose next you're gonna tell me if I walk out on a big branch, and cut the branch between me and the tree, the tree won't fall away.
> 
> Parents need to parent. I didn't see things my parents didn't approve of when I was young because they were there. And my friends's parents had similar enough standards that it wasn't a problem...


 
Ditto!


----------



## MJS (Jun 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I find the onus doesn't just to fall on the parents. Parents don't manufacture M rated video games and sell them to their kids. Well, the parents that don't work for the video game company. It is another thing concerned parents need to monitor. Concerned parents are constantly embattled in protecting their kids from a laundry list of things. Where is the help for the concerned parent. Where are the video companies that have a social conscious and are willing to share the responsibility? Do video gaming companies have to make it tougher for parents? Well they do, it is just for a buck.
> 
> 
> Another thought. there is isn't a sex video game that is equally graphic and on the same level of sex as a M rated game on the market available to kids. What if there was, would have California court made a different decision?


 
Yes, you are correct.  Reason I put the blame on the parents, is because they're the first ones to complain.  Well....that tells me that they're not keeping up with the times, they have no idea what their kids are doing, playing, who they hang with, etc.  I mean, it shouldn't be that hard, IMHO, for a parent to take a look at the tv and see a guy wearing a hockey mask, chasing after a 18yo half dressed girl, while holding an ax, and realize that this isn't a G rated movie. LOL.  

Then again, in the age of computers, I bet you could google any video game name, and come up with numerous descriptions of what the game is all about.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jun 30, 2011)

After all those great posts about kids resulted in these thoughts. For kids when something is against the law that means no. It marks something off limits to them or something they should not do. That in turn shapes a kids developing judgment, and (including shaping societal morals and ethics connected to) their developing decision making process.  The kid then has some guidelines to decision making. The kid knows there is a law against stealing. He is aware if he steals and gets caught he will get in trouble. If he doesn't get caught he still knows it is wrong. Regardless if his parents condone it or not, the kid knows the greater authority, the law, says it is wrong.  

Kids think very simply, and in limited scope, hence termed kids. Kids need to be told what is acceptable and what isn't both from society and parents. Parents may fail and be inconsistent, but society isn't when a law is established.  Some parents aren't good parents, true, but not all parents are careless and unaware of what their kids are doing, and they are in the majority. Parents among each other, as a whole are not consistent in their rules or expectations. Kids can exploit that. But laws regardless are consistent, and kids can't exploit that. The law is a constant. Laws define what is and isn't acceptable in society, in this situation what is beneficial to a kids. Who as a result of a law, shape their developing process of judgement and what is acceptable behavior in society. You can't steal, stealing is wrong and you will be punished if caught, the kid knows that.  Basically, if there is a law, it means no. You break it you are punished. It means to kids and adults equally, don't do it. That is a powerful thing to kids, regardless how the feel. They have to think about it. They are aware of it and everyone is required to follow it. That influences kids for better or worse in terms of their developing decision making processes.  


No law tells them that it is ok for them, as the law is greater authority over their parents. It doesn't engage their thinking or decision making processes, very much. Even if their parents say no, the law says it is ok. It is on the level of, my parents don't let me play M rated games, but the law says I can. Now he can go and get a violent video game legally, because the law says they can.  Point being kids are allowed to buy a violently intense video game, even if their parents disapprove. Any kid can go into Walmart, buy the most violent video game out there today freely, unrestricted as if it was a Big Mac.  There are no layers of parental support against buying the game for those parents who don't want their kids buying the game.  

That in itself shapes how kids think and make decisions. Without a law for violent video games prohibiting kids from buying the game, it tells kids the world says enjoy a violent bloody graphic game because that is socially acceptable for you, like candy.  Even if your parents say no, because they are not above the law. We the government say it is ok for you to buy it. Not your parents. That plays on a kids head very strongly who have not yet fully developed the breadth, width, and the understanding of the complexity in making decisions in terms of what they choice. Kid's make decisions with little or not thought, it is more of a reactionary process that companies have been exploiting since the dawn of advertising. The story of Pinocchio really shows how kids struggle with making decisions, as well. 

A law against buying these violent video games allows parents the power to make the choice to parent. We are not taking about saying no to a box of Capt. Crunch. These are games that are violently intense and of concern because it does deal with violence. When there  is no law restricting minors to buy, parents loose a layer power whether they allow or not allow their kids to buy because the government says they can buy. The govern has made the choice for all parents. It is parenting, it has made the decision.  Now kids can still legally (encourage by the companies through their ad campaigns) buy these game no matter how violent or disturbing.  I am going over board a bit, but that could include rape which is considered violence in a game. I can see that being part of several violent games based on the themes of the games. The government regulating the sale to minors or a particular age, results in more power and choice for the parent in making a decision. The court refused to regulate the sale of these games to kids, pulling way that power of choice from the hands of the parent, saying it is free speech. Free speech for whom?


----------



## granfire (Jun 30, 2011)

the question would be what is going on when your kid is alone at a store buying things you don't approve of?

(By the time you can let them go out on their own, they should have absorbed your values....)


----------



## MJS (Jun 30, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> After all those great posts about kids resulted in these thoughts. For kids when something is against the law that means no. It marks something off limits to them or something they should not do. That in turn shapes a kids developing judgment, and (including shaping societal morals and ethics connected to) their developing decision making process. The kid then has some guidelines to decision making. The kid knows there is a law against stealing. He is aware if he steals and gets caught he will get in trouble. If he doesn't get caught he still knows it is wrong. Regardless if his parents condone it or not, the kid knows the greater authority, the law, says it is wrong.
> 
> Kids think very simply, and in limited scope, hence termed kids. Kids need to be told what is acceptable and what isn't both from society and parents. Parents may fail and be inconsistent, but society isn't when a law is established. Some parents aren't good parents, true, but not all parents are careless and unaware of what their kids are doing, and they are in the majority. Parents among each other, as a whole are not consistent in their rules or expectations. Kids can exploit that. But laws regardless are consistent, and kids can't exploit that. The law is a constant. Laws define what is and isn't acceptable in society, in this situation what is beneficial to a kids. Who as a result of a law, shape their developing process of judgement and what is acceptable behavior in society. You can't steal, stealing is wrong and you will be punished if caught, the kid knows that. Basically, if there is a law, it means no. You break it you are punished. It means to kids and adults equally, don't do it. That is a powerful thing to kids, regardless how the feel. They have to think about it. They are aware of it and everyone is required to follow it. That influences kids for better or worse in terms of their developing decision making processes.
> 
> ...


 
Question:  If its an "M" rating, I assume that much like an R rated movie in the theater, someone would be checking the ID of a child who tried to make a purchase of an M rated game.  



granfire said:


> the question would be what is going on when your kid is alone at a store buying things you don't approve of?
> 
> (By the time you can let them go out on their own, they should have absorbed your values....)


 
Good point.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jul 1, 2011)

Pretty much sums up my feelings. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-30-2011/moral-kombat?xrs=share_copy


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 1, 2011)

If your an adult and want to buy games that show extreme violence, buy away.  I think there should be a line drawn if your 10 year old kid wants to do the same.  We don't let kids buy skin mags, alcohol, or cigerrettes.  Why should they have easy access to things that show extreme violence?  Is extreme violence any less bad for a kid than a drink of beer, a puff on a ciggerette, or god forbid an image of an exposed breast?  If you don't mind your kid playing an extremely violent game, then buy it for them.  At least you will know what your kid is playing and what his taste in gaming leans to.

I don't think this is a case of censorship.  It is more a case of restricting some materials from minors...which we already do.  For the life of me I cannot figure out how keeping a kid from seeing a woman's nipple is not a first amendment issue while keeping them from seeing a woman tortured and killed in a video game is a first amnedment issue.


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> If your an adult and want to buy games that show extreme violence, buy away.  I think there should be a line drawn if your 10 year old kid wants to do the same.  We don't let kids buy skin mags, alcohol, or cigerrettes.  Why should they have easy access to things that show extreme violence?  Is extreme violence any less bad for a kid than a drink of beer, a puff on a ciggerette, or god forbid an image of an exposed breast?  If you don't mind your kid playing an extremely violent game, then buy it for them.  At least you will know what your kid is playing and what his taste in gaming leans to.
> 
> I don't think this is a case of censorship.  It is more a case of restricting some materials from minors...which we already do.*  For the life of me I cannot figure out how keeping a kid from seeing a woman's nipple is not a first amendment issue while keeping them from seeing a woman tortured and killed in a video game is a first amnedment issue*.



welcome to the wonderful US of A....
^_^


well, if your 10 year old is lose in the store, you have a bigger problem than bad video games....

I see the 14/15 and up crowd more in danger, and they usually know where to look at nipples on the net - for free...


(but then, just look at the TV lineup, during day light hours. Criminal Minds is a great show, but of the meter creepy in concept. There aren't any good shows on that are _not _crime shows, trying to put the most realism into the visual experience....the extreme video games are just a small step)


----------



## MJS (Jul 1, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> If your an adult and want to buy games that show extreme violence, buy away. I think there should be a line drawn if your 10 year old kid wants to do the same. We don't let kids buy skin mags, alcohol, or cigerrettes. Why should they have easy access to things that show extreme violence? Is extreme violence any less bad for a kid than a drink of beer, a puff on a ciggerette, or god forbid an image of an exposed breast? If you don't mind your kid playing an extremely violent game, then buy it for them. At least you will know what your kid is playing and what his taste in gaming leans to.
> 
> I don't think this is a case of censorship. It is more a case of restricting some materials from minors...which we already do. For the life of me I cannot figure out how keeping a kid from seeing a woman's nipple is not a first amendment issue while keeping them from seeing a woman tortured and killed in a video game is a first amnedment issue.


 




granfire said:


> welcome to the wonderful US of A....
> ^_^
> 
> 
> ...


 
Good points on both.   Ultimately, in the end, as I said, its up to the parents to monitor and properly educate the kids on what it is they're viewing.  Of course, as GF said, its rare that we can turn on the tv and not see someone in bed, someone kissing, someone getting beat up, blown up, shot, you name it.


----------



## granfire (Jul 1, 2011)

but never any nipples!


----------

