One of the big cases that the Supreme Court is scheduled to take on in this 2010-2011 term is violence in video games. This case (Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants) is a free speech issue over a California law that would prohibit the sale/rental of video games that are "excessively violent" to anyone under 18.
Should she be allowed to buy a game on her own like that???
As you can probably tell by my rather extreme image above, I don't have a problem with the government restricting a minor's ability to purchase excessively violent video games. Violence in our media has become overwhelmingly prominent in every aspect, and I believe limiting minors from buying these things themselves is a good step in the right direction. If, however, their parents are fine with their children playing these games, the parent is completely able to purchase the games for their children, the kids just can't buy it by themselves.
My questions for you are, do you support the government denying children from buying these types of games? Or do you think that children have the right to purchase these materials for themselves? Do you think this is just a continuation of restricting children under 17 from seeing rated R movies by themselves?
if you guys want to read more about this case and other upcoming supreme court cases, this article gives a brief overview of the already schedule supreme court debates to come: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/04/scotus.new.term/index.html
7 comments:
Ok...so I think that 18 is a little too drastic of an age...but I definitely don't want it so little children are playing these games...go outside!! watch tv or play with friends...I really am sad when I see my little cousins, who are gaining weight more than I did since all they do is sit on their bums, play video games (violent or not) and think that the wii fit is a bit too strenuous! I think that violent video games add another complex level to development that isn't good, not only is it just another video game making children sit listelessly as they press buttons, not to mention ruin their eyesight since they sit so close to the TV...but the violence portrays violence as ok...and easily accessable and that just doesn't sit right with me. I teach young kids and it's hard enough to get them to be quiet and pay attention, but if they start to do these video games they will become more violent because they are easily swayed by media/technology. Ugh...it sucks becuase media and technology is great but young children doing these violent games take it too far...I guess it's a blessing and a curse!
I think that this is a little pointless and the people trying to prevent children from buying games are playing unfairly. While people tend to use the most extreme examples they can think of, most popular games are not as violent and bloody as groups portray them to be. Everyone's favorite electric yellow mouse is as popular as ever, that is hardly violent unless you see it as animal fighting (it isn't really, it is based on bug collecting). More violent games such as Halo, COD, or GTA actually are not the most graphic, or at least not as much as the media portrays them to be.
Anyways, if they are banned, kids are going to have their parents buy it for them. Maybe this is because I've been assimilated, I don't see anything wrong.
I think that in the case of M Rated (17+) games, and in the case of online gaming, age limits should be enforced to some degree, because if you've ever played a popular game on Xbox Live or the Playstation Network, you'll probably notice how sometimes kids have a very inappropriate way of taking out their anger... A way that comes in the form of racial, and sometimes even anti-semitic or anti-gay language without a second thought. I don't know whether this reflects poorly on their parents, or other environmental factors, but taking away an environment they can use to reinforce the use of such language will probably help them eventually stop using it.
I agree with Danielle on this issue. The government seems very comfortable with protecting minors from potential harmful influences such as gambling; violent video games are just another potential harmful influence that I think the government has the right to regulate.
It's interesting to point out how we are all subconsciously affected by the violence in popular culture. While I agree with agoya93's assertion that the violence of most popular games is somewhat exaggerated, his defense of such games as "Halo" as "not the most graphic" is pretty telling of how extreme most games have gotten; fundamentally, "Halo" is a first-person shooter video game that places violence as one of the central themes of the game.
To clarify, I am not afraid that minors will suddenly turn into serial murderers after playing violent games; I am, however, afraid that those who play these games without parental supervision or explanation will develop some sort of resistance to violence, subconsciously accepting ever-more violent games as "the norm." And parents should have the legal power to protect their children from this subconscious threat.
I feel as if this law has been effect for a while because I myself can't even buy R rated video games...
Anyway, it's totally logical for this law to be implemented. Violent video games are exactly like violent movies, but worse because you can express your creativity in a video game. Maybe 18 is a little too high, but then again that creativity aspect. I definitely favor this law because it's been proven before that video games have had a connection with real life murders and that the prohibition of the sale to minors would encourage a more safe and sound society. The law isn't even extreme; kids can still get their hands on these games with a little permission from mom and dad.
I agree with Alex and Danielle on this problem. I think that kids playing these type of video games, with violence, is wrong. It is wrong because in the video games violence is portrayed as being ok and normal, and I think that young kids should not be playing these type of video games. I also think it's wrong for kids to spend so many hours in front of the tv, especially playing such horrifying games that don't educate them in any way. Kids should be playing outside, running around, and being active, educating themselves by learning a new sport/activity, etc.
I think that if the government restricts certain age groups from watching certain things/playing certain games, it's for a logical reason. This reason might be that young kids should not be watching/playing certain things at their age because it is not proper for them at that age. Restrictions are set for a reason and those restrictions should be followed in order for society to function and prosper positively. I believe that even parents should follow these restrictions by not buying these video games for their offspring, giving kids the opportunity to engage in such a terrible activity for hours throughout the day. Entertainment is a good thing, but certain entertainment is just unacceptable.
I think there should be a age limit when kids can play video games.I have two older brothers who brought me up playing games such as Halo by the time I was 13-14, and such games don't scare me. But when you are 7-8 like the girl depicted in the picture-yeah, there is a limit because so much blood and gore is being displayed to her. So maybe 18 is too high, perhaps 16 or 17, a more mature audience for video games like these. But parents have to be aware of how MUCH blood and Gore there can be. There are much better games they can play, Mario Brothers and other such games that are visually amazing and clean in story plot. But like Alex said, they should be getting out there and being active. And yes, Wii Fit isn't really a way to lose weight or be Active...
Post a Comment