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?
