Poll: Violent Game Law Goes To Supreme Court

[Flying-Emu]

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

There is no rational reason to prevent children seeing porn.

Unsupported opinions have no place in this argument.

Lemme guess. Feel free to ignore me if this is wrong. But this is the argument I often hear.

Children should be allowed to view porn because it doesn't show anything unnatural, or that they won't (hopefully) be taking part in later in life.

Now. The reason I, personally, do not agree with this is because I don't want my children to grow up thinking that sex is something trivial. I was raised to think that it was an important decision, one not taken lightly, and I will raise my children thusly. Pornography is, in effect, women selling their bodies for other men's pleasure. I do not necessarily support or condemn this. However, I refuse to allow my children to think that this is a socially acceptable or morally (or even physically) responsible act. Because as far as I'm concerned, it's not.

You may disagree. Fine. You raise your children to be sexually loose and filled with sexually transmitted diseases. I'll do it my way, you do it yours.

 

[manaman]

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

There is no rational reason to prevent children seeing porn.

Except that it has been shown that children who are exposed to very graphic pornography or molested as children go on to practice child on child sexual abuse. Sure it's mostly because of child sexual abuse, but it has and does happen just from visual exposure to graphic sex acts.

And no, I am not saying seeing a pair of titties is going to scar a child for life and lead to mental health problems and drug abuse. I am saying that very young children are very impressionable and for many simply viewing these graphic sex acts can lead to mental health issues, and while not as extreme as say a forced sex at with a relative it can and does still cause harm. A person's brain is not even fully developed until they are around 24 years of age. We still don't have all the answers to what chemicals and experiences can do to minds so young, so keeping it away from them till they are at an age they are sure to be capable of handling it doesn't seem like such a bad idea does it?

 

[Naheal]

Yeah the rating system is in place for a reason.

This man put it better then I was going to.

 

[DarkDain]

I think that its not really the government doing this without a million parents yelling at them to. i think that the easiest way to support the fining and limitation of stores selling these games to minors is having less annoying kids on them.

 

[Evil mr dave]

from the sounds of this system it will reduces the number of annoying 10 year olds online, give anger, uninformed hate mongerers even less of an argument, and won't affect me in the slightest (canada yo).

well played california, well played /clap clap clap

 

[armaina]

I don't believe this is true. I used to work at an electronics store, and we were told to watch for kids with games, not movies. I can't say I ever saw a kid with a R rated movie, but still there was no rule about it.

It all depends on the store you're in, for one, some stores do have a policy for M rated games, but there are no laws against it. However, with movies, there are laws. The reason you don't see kids with movies is because they already know they can't buy it in the first place aaand kids now a days are more likely to buy games.

 

[Schneizel]

snip

You may disagree. Fine. You raise your children to be sexually loose and filled with sexually transmitted diseases. I'll do it my way, you do it yours.

The thing is, my way doesn't involve imposing arrogant and intrusive laws on those you prefer your way.

The point is it's the parent's choice. If I were ever to adopt I'd certainly be raising the child to be a rational and intelligent person. The fact that most parents aren't rational or intelligent themselves is the problem here: in their incompetence, they force laws on everyone else.

I was never "protected" from any of the shit you people bleat BUT IT'S BAAAAAD about and I wouldn't change that if I could. If you can help your child grow into a superior adult, why wouldn't you, even if it's too late you?

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

while I HATE to see anything even smelling like game censorship hit the supreme court of the US.. I agree with the concept.. but I don't like the government having a word in something that squarely falls in a parenting concern.. As long as it's a tight law with very little room for expansion.. and as long as the fines are not redonkulous (don't need to create a store that just wont sell games at all for fear of getting fined), and as long as parents have the option to buy violent games for their children without it becoming "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".. then I guess I'm ok with it.

Fines are $1000

Here is a quote from the governator so i think he has that in mind

"Today I signed legislation to ensure parent involvement in determining which video games are appropriate for their children," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "The bill I signed will require that violent video games be clearly labeled and not be sold to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."

here is a link to the article i pulled it from http://pc.ign.com/articles/656/656998p1.html

good old SCHWARZENEGGER, i gree with him. somewhat.

really, i approve of kids playing these games cause the whole "kids have no concept of unreality" is bull.

i played DUKE3D as a kid.
i wathed my uncle play god of war at 9.
i started playing M games at fucking 7 and i am most certainly NOT a psycho


[sub]says the kid with a katana under his bed.[/sub]

 

[direkiller]

from the sounds of this system it will reduces the number of annoying 10 year olds online, give anger, uninformed hate mongerers even less of an argument, and won't affect me in the slightest (canada yo).

well played california, well played /clap clap clap

I hate to break it to you but at some point this will work its way around the US and Canada in one way or another because politicians always grab laws from outer country's and states to sute there party views.

 

[bassdrum]

All this fine would do is force parents to be more involved in their child's gaming purchases, and given how many 10 years olds get their hands on copies of GTA and Manhunt (or really just anything made by Rockstar), that doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Plus, this may inspire parents to actually figure out what those letters on the box mean and stop treating games as harmless toys (or harmful toys, for that matter--hell, let's just settle for them not considering games to be toys).

Really, this isn't anything too new anyways. I had a short discussion with a clerk who told me that selling M rated games to minors is grounds to have a chunk cut from their salary. This law would just make that official. Is it a good idea? Well... yeah, I guess so. Is it the best corse of action? Probably not, but I'm not smart enough to come up with a better one.

 

[Caligulove]

Its basically just better enforcing a policy already in place.

It's what age-restrictions are for, after all. Regardless of what you think about the violent video games causing behavior in gamers, this is just enforcing the age-restrictions on games. Makes it harder for the younger kids to get the games that have been deemed not suitable for their play.

I guess it would also mean that to get the game, kids would actually have to get their parents to see what the game is that they're getting. Hopefully put the minds at ease for all the parents worried about what they're 'precious children are exposed to'

 

[Sporky111]

Why the hell would this need to go to supreme court? I thought if a game was rater M then retailers weren't allowed to sell it to anyone under 17. Are they just now saying "Shit, son. Maybe we should enforce this here law."?

 

[AbsoluteVirtue18]

I'm 18, so this wouldn't matter to me, and besides, this is a good idea.

 

[AwesomeExpress]

There's lots of time for kids to grow up. No need to hurry it along. If the game is really good, it'll still be good when they're old enough.

 

[The Great JT]

I like this idea. People are finally going bo be held accountable for selling minors to those who shouldn't be playing them.

 

[Schneizel]

There's lots of time for kids to grow up. No need to hurry it along. If the game is really good, it'll still be good when they're old enough.

You don't think maybe the person whose life it is should get a say in how he/she spends the first quarter of it?

 

[robert022614]

well really i dont care too much my mother always went with me to buy games and she didnt care what i bought. well she did the same for alcohol as well. she would be there when me and my sisters drank though and seen that we handled ourselves just fine so idk.

 

[crudus]

... I'm under the impression everyone who thinks this is a good idea is assuming it will somehow stop kids from playing these games...

It won't. They already have to beg parents for the money to buy the game, begging their parents to buy it for them isn't going to be much harder.

That isn't why I think it is a good idea. I think so because activists like Jack Thompson will be harping about one thing less. The less they talk the better it is for everyone else. This also may be the only thing they talk about that holds water. Playing them is up to the parents which means the parents are the ones that should be buying them.