Parents Group Denounces Supreme Court Decision

[42 is the question]

You know, things like this make me happy to be canadian. Nobody in power, in Canada, in their right mind, would try and do this! Not only would the oposition jump down their throat about restricting the freedom of speech, but your own party would too. Also, if violent video games were bad for minors, anyone young enough for it to be harmful, wouldn't have enough money to get them, And, as everyone else has said, just watch them play if you are worried!
well, that's my daily rant done.

 

[Jonabob87]

I most have lucked out since my parents bought what every I asked for with out question in terms of the game in question. I had Doom, Wolfenstien 3D, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake, Unreal Torny, Diablo, and all before age 11 . You know what my parents did, TAUGHT ME THAT GAMES AND REAL LIFE ARE TOO DIFFERENT THINGS AND TO KNOW TO ALWAYS SEPARATE THE BLOODY TWO. Yep I had my first "M" game at age 4 and I turned out well.

You turned out well?

Dude you're on the Escapist. None of us turned out well.

 

[Rath709]

The PTC are a completely unofficial, unelected, unmandated group of right wing religious proselytisers with no more actual authority than the kind of people who twitch their curtains and gossip whenever someone in their neighbourhood lets their lawn grow an inch higher than what they think should be the standard.

If news outlets would stop quoting these people as if they were some sort of real authority on anything they rant about, they might actually just fade into the background with all the other irrelevant noise.

 

[starwarsgeek]

Personally I don't see what's wrong with this law.

Could someone explain the problem?

Basically, if the SCOTUS had sided with California, then video games would not be protected by free speech in the United States, which would have opened up lots of nasty possibilities for sales restrictions and censorship in a major region for gaming. Not to mention the law was basically redundant, since stores self-regulate (just like theaters), and the majority of kids who get M-rated games do so with parental permission.

 

[JET1971]

Winter seemed to ignore any of the arguments put forth by both the game industry's lawyers and the Justices, using language that seems to demonize game publishers as corrupters of our youth. "Countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: Repeated exposure to violent videogames has a harmful and long-term effect on children. Despite these troubling findings,

And historicly there has always been violant teenagers who become violant adults, and every new media causes this according to someone. I can do a study as well that shows that violant video games, movies, and TV shows better prepairs the kids for when violance happens. I can start by an incident at work where 1 student took a whole class hostage by gunpoint. None of the students were traumatized except for 2 girls who were sheltered at home, not allowed to have a boyfriend and right after school ended they got right into mommies car and went home.

So a class of over 30 students, all but 2 had access to violant games/movies/TV and they were not traumatized but the 2 with no access were traumatized? If I did a study with that in mind then the study would ofcourse prove that. thats the way it works. you poll the people that will most likely prove your study by polling where they congregrate and use cases that support it. ask most anyone that ever gets in a fight at school 1 question. "have you ever played a video game that had violance in it?" the majority of the time the answer will be yes, but that does not prove anything considering the vast majority who has played a violant game does not do anything violant.

So as far as i am concerned they can go screw themselves in as many ways they can until the genitals fall off because i think the "study" they did is utter bullshit! Go be a parent and get out of court.

 

[MikeOfThunder]

"retailers can now openly, brazenly sell games with unspeakable violence and adult content even to the youngest of children"

Is this actually true? I mean what would the law have done if it had been passed? (Forgive me not knowing any of this, I live in the UK if it helps)

 

[Mr.Lucifer]

The purpose of the PTC is useless anyway. Any moron can tell what Tv shows, movies, music,literature, and video games are appropiate for kids and which are not.

You don't need people denouncing any form of media when said media was aimed at adults in the first place.

If you use the PTC website to check to see wheter or not House is appropiate for your 7 year old, you are an idiot.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

*sigh*
This is like when italy encouraged the burning of literature around 16th century.
And do you know how about that?
VIDEOGAMES.
And i think it's a little extreme to say that really young kids can walk in and pick up something like Dead Space.
sheesh, someone needs to go on a crash course in REALITY.

 

[poiuppx]

Hey, PTC. I heard you complaining about how you lost. And you know, that really does suck for you, fighting all this time, only to lose like a total loser. Y'know, getting viciously smacked down, having all your 'evidence' thrown out, and the fact that it wasn't even a close race in the final decision tally. But, see, here's the important bit...

You. Lost.

When the Supreme Court slams you down, it's time to call it a day. Unless you can arrange for God to take a few days to hear all arguements, you're not snagging yourself a higher court. You took the fight to the big boys, thinking you finally had enough traction to make it worth the risk. You gambled and bluffed with a hand of 8-high; flawed studies to support negating First Amendment protections. Not a winning combo. But you took the risk, hoping the other guy was bluffing worse. The EMA laid down a straight flush, and TOLD YOU AT THE START OF THE GAME it was a straight flush- i.e., that your logic was flawed, that your studies sucked, etc. You CHOSE not to listen, and now you get to suffer the consequences.

Look. I'm sure some of you have perfectly logical reasons for supporting this. Like... wanting a government-controlled fascist state of total 'safety' at the cost of all hopes and dreams. That would seem to be up your alley. But no. It's over. Suck it up and find something else to occupy your time.

 

[BrotherRool]

I think American optimism is a bit of a double-edged sword. It's really cool to see and (with the help of geography and profit from two world wars) has made America into The super-power.

But you don't half have a lot of crazy people

 

[KiruTheMant]

In response.

"THIS JUST IN! A new study declares that most parents who complain about the governments denial to ban everything are lazy parents who often have had at least one punch from their child for their own stupidity!"

Or something :I

 

[Headsprouter]

I'll begin by muttering:

".....it's always one of those fuddy-duddy parents groups....."

Then, to my many-times-aforementioned point:

"They didn't take away your right to STOP your kid's from playing Postal!"

 

[RaikuFA]

1. do some fraking parenting. if my kid ever tried to buy a violent game, id tell them its not even that good and get them away froom it. yknow actual parenting

2. these guys are the biggest hypocrites in history, theyre members? christina applegate(married with children, one of the most controversal sitcoms of the 90s) billy ray cyrus(father of miley cyrus, whos quickly turning into the next paris hilton) yeah you want those people dictating what you watch and play?

 

[PrinceofPersia]

It might just me but it looks like the PTC projecting all their failures onto the ESRB and video games, pity really.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I got to the second paragraph and knew what was going to happen. I think the thing to remember is: who gives a crap? The supreme court has said that they can be sold to minors, there is nothing more too it. It doesn't remove the parent's authority if they already have the authority. I've seen people on this site say that their parents won't let them play violent video games, while I disagree with it they're still good enough parents that they can actually say that and have their rules respected.

Basically, you're a shitty parent if you need laws and councils to control your kids for you.

 

[Rath709]

Everything the PTC denounces, I usually enjoy. In fact, I have used them as a guide to finding new entertainment - whatever they reckon should be banned, I usually find highly entertaining. I wouldn't have even known of the existence of Sons Of Anarchy if not for their rant about it, and now I'm eagerly awaiting the fourth season.

 

[Jonabob87]

Personally I don't see what's wrong with this law.

Could someone explain the problem?

Basically, if the SCOTUS had sided with California, then video games would not be protected by free speech in the United States, which would have opened up lots of nasty possibilities for sales restrictions and censorship in a major region for gaming. Not to mention the law was basically redundant, since stores self-regulate (just like theaters), and the majority of kids who get M-rated games do so with parental permission.

That's interesting, I don't think anything is covered by freedom of speech where I come from (Scotland) but there aren't any sales restrictions or censorship (except common sense) over here.

What I gather from the law is that if a parent wanted their child to have a violent videogame they'd have to physically buy it themselves? Maybe that's a good thing, to enforce that there is a connection between the parent and what the child is exposed to.