Video games.

[piece-itpete]

A nice, easy subject we can all agree on, that 10 year olds should be able to decapitate people and rape women at will, as long as it's in a video game.

The SC requires it

Pete

[BlueStreak]

The danger of it lies in the ability of the individual to separate fantasy from reality.
In other words, the danger is real. Having said that; Is it really all that much more warped than when we played "Smear the Queer", or "War" with BB guns and throwing rocks/ice balls at each other as kids?

Honestly, I'm not a "Gamer" and have no kids, so I really don't know much about it.
I did see a piece on "Violence in Video Games" on television once, not all that long ago. I was amazed at the realism of the imagery. And the inclusion of rape, overt hatred and crime as part of the game was disturbing, I must admit. They even showed games sold and distributed by lovely people such as the KKK and both American and European Neo-Nazis---with no age restrictions on the labels.

And I find that very disturbing.

But, are you advocating government censorship, Pete?

Dave

[d-ray657]

If you are interested in reading Justice Scalia's opinion, follow the link. Some of the reasoning in his "underinclusiveness" analysis, is a bit suspect. There is no doubt, however, that the games are expression. As has been said before, popular speech does not generally need the First Amendment's protection. It is only that speech that is objectionable that needs help. Just as was the case with the Phelps wackos, we must hold our nose and conclude that the First Amendment prevails.

I will observe that once again the curious choice is made that sex is more dangerous than violence. It is OK to restrict pornography, if the statute is narrowly enough drawn, but violence passes. It reminds of the George Carlin bit on the seven words you can't say on television. Carlin would prefer sex to violence - and substitute the word f**k whenever the word kill is used.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Blue - absolutely 100% yes. At the state/local level. Freedom! Some of the games are truly awful. Far worse then the politically incorrect games we played.

D, I can't disagree, now that we're friends I too find it interesting that it's OK to restrict sex (although that barrier is moving) but tearing out someones' guts and strangling them with them is - a ok? But them there's a great deal of sexual content in these games too. Their argument is free speech. When can kids rent or buy x rated movies? The games will soon have movie quality video. Something just doesn't jive.

Sidenote, I remember when Atari came out there was a charming game floating around where you won based on how many women you raped. You had to chase them down and the little crudely done figure humped up and down on the victim.

Carlin is hugely funny!

Pete

[bhunter]

Of course, I concur with the court's decision. The problem is not the product, but the lack of parenting. The kids ought not be playing these games for extended periods; however, it is an easy way for lazy parents to get "some downtime." Perhaps, they should have thought before they became pregnant.

BTW, violent entertainment is not new, but the interactivity is. The proliferation of entertainment portraying law enforcement as heroes while violating the legal rights of citizens bothers me more.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Of course, I concur with the court's decision. The problem is not the product, but the lack of parenting. The kids ought not be playing these games for extended periods; however, it is an easy way for lazy parents to get "some downtime." Perhaps, they should have thought before they became pregnant.

BTW, violent entertainment is not new, but the interactivity is. The proliferation of entertainment portraying law enforcement as heroes while violating the legal rights of citizens bothers me more.

I agree that the parents need to take more responsibility. My boys tell me that they can tell when other students on campus have not experienced limits, but they can also tell the ones that haven't had any practice making decisions.

Discipline is hard, because it requires self-discipline and follow-up. Sometimes it seems easier to just give in. We learned that a few strict rules early on makes it easier to communicate with the kids later on. They knew that whining or crying would not change an answer we have given, nor would running to the other parent. That saved them a lot of energy as time went on. When they got a little older, we would give them the opportunity to logically explain why the decision should be one way or the other. So long as they made sense, and they did it without whining or yelling, we would occasionally relent. That gave them experience at thinking about choices (although it didn't insure that they would always make the right ones).

So, Mr. Hunter, how would you convince parents to undertake the hard job of discipline?

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

We don't let them drive, drink, rent movies, smoke, there's curfew laws, we require school attendence, I bet we could think of many ....

Why should video games be different?

Pete

[merrylander]

Because ol Antonin says so. Face it chums, the court kowtows to business no matter what it is selling.

[flacaltenn]

MerryLander:

Because ol Antonin says so. Face it chums, the court kowtows to business no matter what it is selling.

Really? This is all about kowtowing to business? Then can I get a ruling on SouthPark?

BTW: I toned it down because of your sensitive hearing. Hope this is better.

The industry already has provided parents with a rating system on each package. Completely voluntary (after being threatened with legislation of course). When TV did the same thing, the govt TRIED to enforce it with V-chips and that just added $6 to every new TV. I've seen shows rated TV-14 where the main topic was self-mutilation and oral sex. (on the ABC Family Channel no less. )

It's like enforcing diet and excersize and all those other parental duties. You've got to have your kids experience satisfaction for consuming HEALTHY things. When they read library books and their grades go up --- they get it. When they ditch the chocolate and greasy fried cheese balls (and start taking vitamins), their faces clear up.. If they don't see the harm and experience the benefits, they think you're just blowing smoke.. Like we do on the boards here...

Personal opinion is that the harm doesn't come from the games. The harm comes from what the games are replacing in terms of useful activities.. A kid with a gaming addiction is a kid who isn't challenged for time.. I know -- I was addicted to NASCAR racing. Built myself an entire enclosured space for the game. It was like a mouse on crack..
I grew out of it after a year or two.. At age 48!!!

[merrylander]

[QUOTE=flacaltenn;65874]
The industry already has provided parents with a rating system on each package. Completely voluntary (after being threatened with legislation of course). (the govt TRIED ) there you go again

What good is the rating system if the stores sell regardless of the age of the buyer? That someone includes rape etc. in a video game tells me a great deal about them.