Supreme Court Violent Video Games Ruling

[Silverharp]

As long as parents have an active role in the upbringing of their children, why does the law have to get involved in what your kids play?

Took the words right out of my mouth, Dom.
If parents are actually paying attention to the games that they buy for thier kids, then they don't have to worry about what their kids are playing.

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Again, it's not just about lazy parents. It is more - far more - about people who truly believe that they have the right or even responsibility to force the world to match their moral code. These people sometimes term themselves crusaders; I couldn't agree more.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Again, it's not just about lazy parents. It is more - far more - about people who truly believe that they have the right or even responsibility to force the world to match their moral code. These people sometimes term themselves crusaders; I couldn't agree more.

Well, keep in mind as well that these people are not limited to the left or the right.

Right wing crusaders want to prevent kids from reading about "witchcraft" and try to ban Harry Potter. They want to prevent kids from learning about evolution, and want to make sure schools don't teach that being gay is normal.

Left wing crusaders want to protect kids from violence, sexism and racism and therefore want to make sure the kids can't read the "n" word in Huckleberry Finn or watch Bugs Bunny drop an anvil on Daffy Duck's head.

It's still censorship no matter what direction it's coming from.

 

[Gilwing]

Even if they are, it wouldn't change anything. Hate speech is still legal under the First Amendment (although "fightin' words" aren't... go figure).

The stupid thing about America morals, though, is highlighted in this decision. If you torture and kill a woman graphically in a video game, there's no problem, but if you want to make love to her... well, then we'd have to stop you.

Well you know Mike, any thing of sexual nature is deemed obscene (this is sarcasm, I know the difference).

 

[Dan Nickname Beshers]

Again, it's not just about lazy parents. It is more - far more - about people who truly believe that they have the right or even responsibility to force the world to match their moral code. These people sometimes term themselves crusaders; I couldn't agree more.

Well, keep in mind as well that these people are not limited to the left or the right.

Right wing crusaders want to prevent kids from reading about "witchcraft" and try to ban Harry Potter. They want to prevent kids from learning about evolution, and want to make sure schools don't teach that being gay is normal.

Left wing crusaders want to protect kids from violence, sexism and racism and therefore want to make sure the kids can't read the "n" word in Huckleberry Finn or watch Bugs Bunny drop an anvil on Daffy Duck's head.

It's still censorship no matter what direction it's coming from.

Oh I agree. From either side of the spectrum, these are people who are trying to dictate parts of other people's lives that they have no business interfering in. This is almost always rooted in a deeply held belief about morality. I'm not saying that it is necessarily malicious, most often I think they think they are helping. What I am saying is that trying to run roughshod over the rights of others because you feel you have the mandate of the moral high ground is essentially the same brand of thinking that resulted in the Crusades, or the mirrored Jihads, or <insert holy/ideological conflict here>.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

 

[markusdark]

As long as parents have an active role in the upbringing of their children, why does the law have to get involved in what your kids play?

Although I used to use this excuse myself, with the current hand held, I don't use it anymore. Before such games had to be played at home, somewhere. So a parent theoretically would know what games the kid had and what was going on at their house. However, a kid can now buy a game for his portable, keep it hidden from his parents and they'd never know.

Don't get me wrong, I still agree with the quoted message, just noting that in this case it is something that a kid can hide from a parent without them ever knowing about it. I used the same argument with the attempted bill in California to force all airsoft guns to be painted bright colors (blue, pink, orange, or clear) so that police officers wouldn't shoot people who had realistic looking guns. My response was always "if you do what the police say, you won't get shot. If it is a kid, if you buy them the toy (since they're not cheap), you should instruct them that if a cop tells you to drop it, you DROP IT and not dive behind a car then pop up with it in your hands as if it was a game" (this last part is how a 16 year old got shot with such a weapon, late at night in a park while his two friends did as instructed and were unharmed).

Okey off my soapbox now. I seem to be wearing some footprints into it.