Comments on: Judge nixes Michigan law aimed at 'violent' games
State law restricting sale of video games deemed harmful to minors violates First Amendment, federal judge rules.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Leaked HP, Gateway 'Core i3' laptops are low-cost
January 2, 2010 11:43 AM PST
- AT&T, Luke Wilson try smaller coverage number
January 2, 2010 9:41 AM PST
- For eBay sellers, a holiday hamster hangover
January 2, 2010 6:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
the only reason that clinton and others are doing this is for publicity. it makes a good soundbite for politicians and makes them seem to "care about the children."
i say parents are ultimately responsible for most everything their kids do and its not the government's responsibility to watch over kids.
even if video games are proven as having a link to violence, how can they be restricted by the government. as the court said, they are forms of entertainment like video or music and free speech can't be restricted (in these cases).
i wish some politicians would stand up against this waste of time and money. but the same reason that clinton supports it (favorable publicity) others will stay quiet to avoid a negative portrayal by the media. "__________ congressman supports giving kids violent video games that rot their brains." when actually it should be "__________ congressman supports free speech and personal responsibilty of parents for their kids.
Videogame violence fits the bill neatly. Most middle-aged voters have no idea what videogames are about. Their only exposure to them are the sounds of shooting and explosions coming from the family room when their kids are playing on the XBox. It's 'simple' to see that violent games are 'BAD.'
Secondly, being against 'violence' is morally unambiguous. All right-thinking people are against violence (unless it's directed at Iraquis, Afghans or other foreigners, of course), so coming out against violence is about as controversial as coming out in favour of kittens and big hugs.
Finally, by portraying violent videogames as a threat to the 'family,' cynical politicians can win votes by pretending to care about other people's kids.
The press laps this garbage up too, which is why all it takes is some DC waster to belch about videogames, and it's front page news.
Compared to such an easy target, the defecit, terrorism and street crime are way too tough and ambiguous to get snarled up in. They would also require our representatives to do a bit of research into the issues and that would cut into the time reserved for lunch, hookers and counting the money they get from lobbyists. Not a good use of time.
Moreover, anyone who says we need parental responsibility is plain uninformed. UNDERSTAND THIS! If you want the parents to be responsible with their children and video games, the best way is to give the parents control over what the kids buy. By letting the kids purchase games on their own, you take the parents out of the equation. Face it, parents generally dont pay attention to what their kids are doing, and this is partly due to the fact that kids dont need their parents anymore. If you want parental intervention, require parental notification, pretty simple...
Parents have traditionally only had to ensure that their kids were in the home--if they were, they were safe. TV is easy to control, because the industry has been forced to put different types of content into different time slots. If you kid is watching TV at 3:30pm, you don't need to worry that its sexually or violently explicit (unless you have unrestricted VOD). But if he or she is playing video games? Are you sure that he's playing the same game when you leave the room? (Remember, kids are clever, and they want the forbidden fruit, every time.)
Video games change that equation, and people like you say that PARENTS need to change and adopt hyper-vigilance. Because in the case of video games, the industry WANTS to sell violent games to your child. They are fighting for the right to do so, under the "patriotic" blanket of the First Amendment. Fighting for the right to expose your 10 year old child to this (this is copied VERBATIM from the judicial decision):
"The defendants give the example
of Postal II, a game in which players have the ability to shoot schoolgirls in the knees, set them on fire, and urinate on their corpses."
And its the parents that need to change? No, video games present a new threat to children's minds, one that you can't analogize to movies (because children have to get to the theater and get in to the movie--a higher degree of difficulty or "burden" in the law-language) or TV (because of the aforementioned standards that have been developed). You might think that there is no threat, but a parent is legally entitled to think that there is: it's their kid, they have the freedom to control the content. A new type of threat needs a new way of thinking about the law if the state is going to be able to help the parents that want and need help keeping the Id and Take-Two wolves away from their young.
the only reason that clinton and others are doing this is for publicity. it makes a good soundbite for politicians and makes them seem to "care about the children."
i say parents are ultimately responsible for most everything their kids do and its not the government's responsibility to watch over kids.
even if video games are proven as having a link to violence, how can they be restricted by the government. as the court said, they are forms of entertainment like video or music and free speech can't be restricted (in these cases).
i wish some politicians would stand up against this waste of time and money. but the same reason that clinton supports it (favorable publicity) others will stay quiet to avoid a negative portrayal by the media. "__________ congressman supports giving kids violent video games that rot their brains." when actually it should be "__________ congressman supports free speech and personal responsibilty of parents for their kids.
Videogame violence fits the bill neatly. Most middle-aged voters have no idea what videogames are about. Their only exposure to them are the sounds of shooting and explosions coming from the family room when their kids are playing on the XBox. It's 'simple' to see that violent games are 'BAD.'
Secondly, being against 'violence' is morally unambiguous. All right-thinking people are against violence (unless it's directed at Iraquis, Afghans or other foreigners, of course), so coming out against violence is about as controversial as coming out in favour of kittens and big hugs.
Finally, by portraying violent videogames as a threat to the 'family,' cynical politicians can win votes by pretending to care about other people's kids.
The press laps this garbage up too, which is why all it takes is some DC waster to belch about videogames, and it's front page news.
Compared to such an easy target, the defecit, terrorism and street crime are way too tough and ambiguous to get snarled up in. They would also require our representatives to do a bit of research into the issues and that would cut into the time reserved for lunch, hookers and counting the money they get from lobbyists. Not a good use of time.
Moreover, anyone who says we need parental responsibility is plain uninformed. UNDERSTAND THIS! If you want the parents to be responsible with their children and video games, the best way is to give the parents control over what the kids buy. By letting the kids purchase games on their own, you take the parents out of the equation. Face it, parents generally dont pay attention to what their kids are doing, and this is partly due to the fact that kids dont need their parents anymore. If you want parental intervention, require parental notification, pretty simple...
Parents have traditionally only had to ensure that their kids were in the home--if they were, they were safe. TV is easy to control, because the industry has been forced to put different types of content into different time slots. If you kid is watching TV at 3:30pm, you don't need to worry that its sexually or violently explicit (unless you have unrestricted VOD). But if he or she is playing video games? Are you sure that he's playing the same game when you leave the room? (Remember, kids are clever, and they want the forbidden fruit, every time.)
Video games change that equation, and people like you say that PARENTS need to change and adopt hyper-vigilance. Because in the case of video games, the industry WANTS to sell violent games to your child. They are fighting for the right to do so, under the "patriotic" blanket of the First Amendment. Fighting for the right to expose your 10 year old child to this (this is copied VERBATIM from the judicial decision):
"The defendants give the example
of Postal II, a game in which players have the ability to shoot schoolgirls in the knees, set them on fire, and urinate on their corpses."
And its the parents that need to change? No, video games present a new threat to children's minds, one that you can't analogize to movies (because children have to get to the theater and get in to the movie--a higher degree of difficulty or "burden" in the law-language) or TV (because of the aforementioned standards that have been developed). You might think that there is no threat, but a parent is legally entitled to think that there is: it's their kid, they have the freedom to control the content. A new type of threat needs a new way of thinking about the law if the state is going to be able to help the parents that want and need help keeping the Id and Take-Two wolves away from their young.
has a law that requires a parent or guardian to accompany
someone under 17 to a rated R movie. Many other states have laws
that simply forbid the sale of tickets to those under 17. Was this
deemed unconstitutional? Age discrimination is less suspect than
other forms of discrimination because ago is not an immutable
characteristic like gender or race. Everyone will eventually be over
the age of 17.
has a law that requires a parent or guardian to accompany
someone under 17 to a rated R movie. Many other states have laws
that simply forbid the sale of tickets to those under 17. Was this
deemed unconstitutional? Age discrimination is less suspect than
other forms of discrimination because ago is not an immutable
characteristic like gender or race. Everyone will eventually be over
the age of 17.
So I wonder: how do you craft a bill that DOESN'T violate freedom of speech? Not that I'm in favor of censorship, I'm just curious.
So I wonder: how do you craft a bill that DOESN'T violate freedom of speech? Not that I'm in favor of censorship, I'm just curious.
harder for your kids to go out and buy it without your permission.
in other words, it makes it easier for you to be responsible for your
children.
p.s. i'm just playing the devil's advocate. i don't really believe that
crap.
harder for your kids to go out and buy it without your permission.
in other words, it makes it easier for you to be responsible for your
children.
p.s. i'm just playing the devil's advocate. i don't really believe that
crap.
The solution is to expose children to real life. Want to eat, go kill somethng. Watch it fall, twitch, and die. See the actual change of the eyes as life becomes death. After all, it's a natural part of life and has been until well meaning but clueless protectionists shelter children from the realities of life.
Video games are not to blame, its the games played by society on the initial development of young minds that's the problem.
Maybe its time to make sunday dinner the lesson for the day.
The solution is to expose children to real life. Want to eat, go kill somethng. Watch it fall, twitch, and die. See the actual change of the eyes as life becomes death. After all, it's a natural part of life and has been until well meaning but clueless protectionists shelter children from the realities of life.
Video games are not to blame, its the games played by society on the initial development of young minds that's the problem.
Maybe its time to make sunday dinner the lesson for the day.
How in the world is the court going to be able to make the distinction that SOME of the expressions of free speech are guaranteed, while others are not??
- Freedom of expression guaranteed to those under 17??
- by Jim Harmon April 7, 2006 11:35 PM PDT
- If the constitution offers First Amendment protection to everyone, even those under 17, does this mean that it's unconstitutional to enforce the movie rating NC-17?? It sure seems to make that implication to me.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(42 Comments)How in the world is the court going to be able to make the distinction that SOME of the expressions of free speech are guaranteed, while others are not??