View Full Version : violent video games for kids.
poetry_writer
6-27-11, 3:14pm
WASHINGTON – Some video games are clearly too violent for minors. But is it legal to ban their sale? Apparently not.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors Monday, a ruling that could profoundly affect the multibillion-dollar video game
California wanted to prohibit the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. But federal judges have declared that the law violates First Amendment free speech rights, and the trade industry argued that the law was too broad.
This one surprised me - so how far do they think these "First Amendment free speech rights" go? How about R rated movies? X rated movies? Porn?
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said.
If they were distributing stuff like this for free, I could see the First Amendment thing applying, although I would not like it. But I think it moves into a different realm when the primary motivator is profits and not free speech. It then becomes commerce which could be regulated.
Glad to see this struck down --- I think these decisions should be in the hands of parents.
Glad to see this struck down --- I think these decisions should be in the hands of parents.
Me too, Madsen.
It doesn't make much difference what the laws say. If the parents don't watch out for the kids better than the 'nanny' does playing video games will hardly make a difference. Even so, I think the SC missed the boat here.
On a personal level I do not understand the allure of such games and, in fact, I'm appalled by them. While I'm not sure about the gateway drug argument saying they can lead to violent behavior, I don't see how the images would not at least desensitize the player to some degree. And I don't see how that could be positive for kids who are still impressionable: I care far less what other adults want to do with their time. Regardless, I have no right to stop someone else from playing them with others to whom the games are acceptable as long as the games are legal. I just don't understand why the SC didn't go all the way so little Johnny can LEGALLY enjoy a cigarette and a shot of Old Crow while he's playing.
poetry_writer
6-27-11, 9:44pm
I think the law gives a hint of the direction our society is headed to. Nothing is forbidden. Violence is glorified. They want to sell it to our children, its a multi million dollar industry. And it is sick.
HappyHiker
6-27-11, 10:08pm
I dunno, life seems bizzaro to me at times--it's legal to market and sell violent and brutal games for kids (what are we teaching them for gawd's sake??), but illegal--in most of our states--for those of the same sex who love one another to marry one another. As I said, life seems bizzaro to me.
The Storyteller
6-27-11, 10:19pm
Glad to see this struck down --- I think these decisions should be in the hands of parents.
Me too, Madsen.
Me three.
Talk about nanny state.
loosechickens
6-28-11, 12:33am
I do remember reading that studies showed some years ago that in combat, a large percentage of soldiers did not even fire their weapons. Despite training, to actually point a weapon and shoot another human being was very difficult for them to do, even in combat conditions. So the military began training heavily with video type warfare games, with emphasis on shooting human figures, etc., and gradually was able to raise the percentage of soldiers who no longer had hesitation in shooting at another human, a great deal.
So, to think that constant desensitization by seeing violence, torture, killing other human beings, etc., doesn't HAVE an effect, especially on the young, is silly. Especially when it was the specific route that our military chose to increase the percentage of soldiers who would shoot at the "enemy".
That said, this Supreme Court is very friendly to business, corporate interests, etc., so it doesn't surprise me, and I guess that there can be made a free speech argument in this, as distasteful as it might be. Although, since we shelter the young somewhat from being marketed and sold other harmful substances, why not this one, as well? As Gregg said, why did the Supreme Court stop at violent video games, and not just let the cigarette manufacturers market and sell to kids and the liquor industry, too?
Not that kids don't get ahold of these things whether they are legal or not, just as they get ahold of alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, etc., but if we loose this much vicarious violence into our society, why should we be surprised when real violence results as people become more and more desensitized to its horrors?
The Storyteller
6-28-11, 12:30pm
Of course it has an effect. READING has an effect. I don't want the government controlling that, either.
Of course it has an effect. READING has an effect. I don't want the government controlling that, either.
To me there is a big difference between outright censorship and simply limiting access by minors to something that is generally considered inappropriate for them. As far as I know no one in this case was talking about limiting the access to such games by adults or in any way censoring the games themselves. I'm almost always a fan of smaller government and less intrusion and I truly believe a huge part of our societal struggles are rooted in the current state of parenting. But this is a non-intrusive way in which the government can give parents a little support. It would not and can not do the parent's job for them. (Ha, parenting should be so easy!) It is not coming into your home nanny state style to take something bad away. It is limiting minor's access to something potentially harmful. That's not just semantics, there is a difference. If you feel the games are appropriate for your kids head on out to Wal-Mart and buy a couple. No one is stopping you.
I do not have a problem with my kids having limited access to tobacco or alcohol before they are a little more mature. Can they get either one? Of course, but in denying DIRECT access the law provides an opportunity for me to head them off at the pass. I also like the movie rating system. It doesn't necessarily stop them from seeing movies rated for more mature audiences, but it at least gives me a tool to use to help them determine what options are appropriate. Limiting their access to violent games only slows them down a notch, but that gives me a chance to get with them and take a closer look at the games they pick out. Any parent knows kids will not set limits themselves. We also know that no matter how hard we try we can not be vigilant 100% of the time. A tool like this is helpful.
poetry_writer
6-28-11, 2:47pm
To me there is a big difference between outright censorship and simply limiting access by minors to something that is generally considered inappropriate for them. As far as I know no one in this case was talking about limiting the access to such games by adults or in any way censoring the games themselves. I'm almost always a fan of smaller government and less intrusion and I truly believe a huge part of our societal struggles are rooted in the current state of parenting. But this is a non-intrusive way in which the government can give parents a little support. It would not and can not do the parent's job for them. (Ha, parenting should be so easy!) It is not coming into your home nanny state style to take something bad away. It is limiting minor's access to something potentially harmful. That's not just semantics, there is a difference. If you feel the games are appropriate for your kids head on out to Wal-Mart and buy a couple. No one is stopping you.
I do not have a problem with my kids having limited access to tobacco or alcohol before they are a little more mature. Can they get either one? Of course, but in denying DIRECT access the law provides an opportunity for me to head them off at the pass. I also like the movie rating system. It doesn't necessarily stop them from seeing movies rated for more mature audiences, but it at least gives me a tool to use to help them determine what options are appropriate. Limiting their access to violent games only slows them down a notch, but that gives me a chance to get with them and take a closer look at the games they pick out. Any parent knows kids will not set limits themselves. We also know that no matter how hard we try we can not be vigilant 100% of the time. A tool like this is helpful.
Well said Gregg. Those of us who have raised kids know that despite our best efforts sometimes they get into things they should not. It isnt expecting the govt to police my child, its just common sense. Those who create such games stand to make billions off the sale of them. Greed is their problem.
I'm just curious.......of you who are glad the SC voted the way they did........do you have children?
I'm just curious.......of you who are glad the SC voted the way they did........do you have children?
I have a five year old, and I agree with the decision. I’m not thrilled about her being exposed to some of that stuff. I’m even less thrilled at the thought of giving government the power to decide what is appropriate for her or anyone else to see or hear or read.
I have a five year old, and I agree with the decision. I’m not thrilled about her being exposed to some of that stuff. I’m even less thrilled at the thought of giving government the power to decide what is appropriate for her or anyone else to see or hear or read.
You may get that - I don't see how any government regulation of the sale of any sort of media to minors can hold up after this ruling.
The Storyteller
6-28-11, 4:45pm
To me there is a big difference between outright censorship and simply limiting access by minors to something that is generally considered inappropriate for them.
Well, no, there isn't. This is censorship in its most basic form... the government telling individuals what information they can and cannot have access to. I find myself in the very unusual position of agreeing with Justice Scalia on that.
As to alcohol and tobacco, as far as I know, there is no amendment specifically protecting one's right to access either of those. In this case, there is the First Amendment. That is what makes it different.
And CathyA, yes, I have three kids. Three grown kids, all of whom I was able to raise to be happy, healthy adults without the government making parental decisions on my behalf.
ETA
And the movie rating system is a completely voluntary system on the part of the film industry. The theater has the ability and right to ignore it entirely in selling tickets and admitting individuals. It is not the government's program.
The Storyteller
6-28-11, 4:56pm
You may get that - I don't see how any government regulation of the sale of any sort of media to minors can hold up after this ruling.
Except in the case of obscenity, which is governed by the "harmful to minors" standard.
Except in the case of obscenity, which is governed by the "harmful to minors" standard.
It didn't sound like they were making an exception for obscenity - and I'm sure some video games would fall into that category.
Good, in-tune parents probably are okay. But what about the huge numbers of parents who aren't involved with their kids and let them do just about anything? We have to live in society with these kids. Do we want these videos to be their teachers?
True....it would be great if everyone was a good parent, but unfortunately, there's probably more uninvolved parents than we want to realize.
We all want every freedom in this country, whether it ends up destroying the moral fiber of the society or not. I don't know where you draw the line. But I feel that freedom to watch this garbage will only infect us and bring us down.
The Storyteller
6-28-11, 5:50pm
It didn't sound like they were making an exception for obscenity .
Actually they were quite clear on that.
Good, in-tune parents probably are okay. But what about the huge numbers of parents who aren't involved with their kids and let them do just about anything? We have to live in society with these kids. Do we want these videos to be their teachers?
True....it would be great if everyone was a good parent, but unfortunately, there's probably more uninvolved parents than we want to realize....
Sorry, you don't get to direct the content of my children's intellectual life, that's my job, and if I'm not doing it to your satisfaction, well that's just too bad. (In this I mean the generic "you.")
Now, for those of you worried about the commerce aspect of media, remember that there is money to be made on systems that BLOCK that stuff from your kids, on the web, anyway. An easy way to see that your children don't play video games you don't like is to make sure they dont' have those games. Dont' fund them! And know the video game standards of their firends' parents! But kids who have their own money, harder to block. Yet if a kid has his own money that implies he's got his own job, and who really wishes to blcok a 16 year old from violent games, a 16 year old who is out there in the world earning pay?
And that's the problem, there's no One Size Fits All for "children" that the gooberment should enforce. A mature 11 year old is ready for things that an immature 15 year old is not. The ages 10 - 17 are rife with difference and there simply is NO One size for each age.
Until I am Queen and can decide who reproduces and who does not, that's the deal, parents get to raise their own children. Not my responsibility to decide for them.
I applaud parents who keep an eye on the stuff their children use and sympathize at the challange thof keeping the "bad stuf" away from them, but really, in the end, how many really bad video games are there? Not that many.
Actually they were quite clear on that.
Maybe I'm reading the ruling wrong , or I just haven't gotten to the right part yet, but although the ruling is specific to video games, it makes it sounds like if it was more broadly applied, banning the sale of any media to a child that an adult would have access to would be in violation of 1st amendment rights. Obscene probably wasn't the right word to use - obscene does not have 1st amendment protection (I learned something new). But you can go pretty far in that direction without crossing the line.
I expect companies that have their media products regulated will be looking at this ruling closely.
poetry_writer
6-28-11, 8:56pm
Sorry, you don't get to direct the content of my children's intellectual life, that's my job, and if I'm not doing it to your satisfaction, well that's just too bad. (In this I mean the generic "you.")
Now, for those of you worried about the commerce aspect of media, remember that there is money to be made on systems that BLOCK that stuff from your kids, on the web, anyway. An easy way to see that your children don't play video games you don't like is to make sure they dont' have those games. Dont' fund them! And know the video game standards of their firends' parents! But kids who have their own money, harder to block. Yet if a kid has his own money that implies he's got his own job, and who really wishes to blcok a 16 year old from violent games, a 16 year old who is out there in the world earning pay?
And that's the problem, there's no One Size Fits All for "children" that the gooberment should enforce. A mature 11 year old is ready for things that an immature 15 year old is not. The ages 10 - 17 are rife with difference and there simply is NO One size for each age.
Until I am Queen and can decide who reproduces and who does not, that's the deal, parents get to raise their own children. Not my responsibility to decide for them.
I applaud parents who keep an eye on the stuff their children use and sympathize at the challange thof keeping the "bad stuf" away from them, but really, in the end, how many really bad video games are there? Not that many.
Evidently you have not purchased video games recently. There are plenty of them not fit for children. I dont think they are fit for anyone. If you think your kiddos would benefit from seeing a bloody corpse after its head explodes on a game then by all means, buy it. Mine are grown and can buy their own gruesome gore.
Evidently you have not purchased video games recently. There are plenty of them not fit for children. I dont think they are fit for anyone. If you think your kiddos would benefit from seeing a bloody corpse after its head explodes on a game then by all means, buy it. Mine are grown and can buy their own gruesome gore.
I dont' use video games and I come into contact with them a lot at the library. I didn't say my kids would benefit from them. I don't use video games, don't have kids. I see enough violent gore on network tv (and it's stupid to boot) as well as previews of stupid, violent films to have an idea of what's out there.
I hope that if my kids played with some gory video games they would temper that with some amusing ones. And if the gore was amusing enough ('I'm thinking of the wood chipper scene in Fargo, the film) I might just join in with them!
I think that we don't know what hours and hours of interactive games do to kids and their developing brain and I fear that it's not good, but blanketly denying them access--that's ever worse.
Except in the case of obscenity, which is governed by the "harmful to minors" standard.
From Miriam Webster:
Definition of OBSCENE
1. disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2. a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics>
c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power>
d : so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>
I've seen at least some of these games and truly do consider them obscene in almost every sense of the definition above. I'll readily admit that I am not a video game player, but I am also far from being a prude. Maybe its just me, but I find depictions of wanton violence far more objectionable than seeing people naked.
Also from Miriam Webster:
Definition of CENSOR
1. [+ obj] : to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
The way I understand the law that was shot down there was no talk of removing anything from the games or requiring them to be changed in any way. Do I have that right? If I do then there was no censorship. I will immediately jump to the side of supporting the SC decision IF there are ANY demands for the creators of the video games to change their product. For now, that is simply not the case.
I think that we don't know what hours and hours of interactive games do to kids and their developing brain and I fear that it's not good, but blanketly denying them access--that's ever worse.
I think most parents are in favor of a legal drinking age because we understand that kids will usually be impacted to a greater degree by consumption than adults and that kids have generally not developed the ability to set their own reasonable limits governing their behavior. I'm not exactly sure where the age of 18 gained it's mojo, probably something do to with high school graduation, but that is commonly an age where the transition from adolescence to adulthood is recognized. I know 15 year olds more responsible than I am at 50 and 50 year olds that will never get there so its a given that the age of 18 is arbitrary. What is fact is that the human body and brain are developing into the late teens. Logically it makes sense to limit harmful stimulus before that development is complete. There are a lot of studies that have concluded that violent games are harmful, but I've never seen one expounding their benefits. I don't think it will hurt anyone to simply wait a year or two to play a game (or take a drink or go to war or smoke a cigarette or have sex or...).
Access was not being denied, only delayed. The difference is important.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 9:03am
I've seen at least some of these games and truly do consider them obscene in almost every sense of the definition above. I'll readily admit that I am not a video game player, but I am also far from being a prude. Maybe its just me, but I find depictions of wanton violence far more objectionable than seeing people naked.
But your definitions are not legal definitions. The SC has laid out very specific requirements for what is and is not obscenity or constitutes "harmful to minors".
Which aren't the same thing, BTW.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 9:07am
Also from Miriam Webster:
Definition of CENSOR
1. [+ obj] : to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
The way I understand the law that was shot down there was no talk of removing anything from the games or requiring them to be changed in any way. Do I have that right? If I do then there was no censorship. I will immediately jump to the side of supporting the SC decision IF there are ANY demands for the creators of the video games to change their product. For now, that is simply not the case.
Also not a legal definition, even though I agree those items do constitute censorship.
If you block even a segment of the population (in this case, minors) from particular information, that is censorship. In some cases (obscenity), censorship is legal. In most others, it is not. The point here is, the censoring is the parent's responsibility, not the state's.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 9:12am
Access was not being denied, only delayed. The difference is important.
I have seen that argument applied to library materials. There is no real difference between delay and denial. To delay is to deny.
And again, your analogies with drinking or smoking or whatever are misplaced. They are not protected by the Bill of Rights. Access to information, on the other hand, is.
poetry_writer
6-29-11, 9:32am
Who gives a **** what the legal definition, or whether some think its censorship or whatever......where did common sense and decency go? I dont know myself but I know they are GONE. You want kids to get bloody and violent video games, hey, thats wrong and sick. You dont have to like what I say. We are so busy being politically correct in this country we've lost our minds and gone to the dogs.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 9:53am
There is a difference between WANTING children to get this stuff and opposing government intervention into parental rights and duties.
Legal definitions matter here, considering we are talking about the law.
My feelings exactly, poetry_writer.
There's a cancer growing and we're encouraging it and giving it rights.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 10:34am
Well, no, nobody is giving "it" rights. Individuals have rights, which is what this is about.
poetry_writer basically summed up what I'm feeling as well, but feelings aside its worth digging a little deeper for all of us...
Storyteller: Miriam Webster's definitions, or my own for that matter, are not legal definitions, but presumably we (as a people) are intelligent enough to define obscenity and other constructs of society without needing to rely on appointed intellectuals every time. There is no way to apply empirical evidence to define what is obscene. Even the SC can't do it. It is wholly subjective and I would gladly argue that no member of the SC is ANY more qualified than any of us to make that determination. We do, however, have the ability to get pretty darn close to a real definition by applying the shared values of our society, which is what the SC SHOULD be doing. I'm not so sure that was accomplished here.
"Harmful to minors" is a different matter. There is overwhelming empirical evidence showing repeated exposure to violent imagery is harmful. The video games in question contain violent imagery. Unless you want to argue about the definition of "harmful" we're at the end of that road.
I'm not so sure video games are protected by the bill of rights, either. The Miller Test is subjective so I can argue that the games fail it and you can argue they pass. There is no doubt the games I have seen contain "fighting words" which could be cause for exclusion from 1st Amendment protection. You mentioned "access to information" which is not something that is mentioned in the 1st Amendment and IMO there really isn't any "information" pertaining to anything except the games themselves contained in these games.
My alcohol argument is not so much about the Constitutional rights of anyone, but about how we as a society decide to watch out for our youth. I will not for a minute dispute that parents have the obligation to raise their own kids. I might feel even more strongly than you do about it. However, a society has responsibility to the next generation as well. To allow exposure to known threats is a failure on both an individual and a societal level.
Just to be clear the 21st Amendment, which granted is not part of the bill of rights, gives me the "right" to purchase and consume alcohol. My state, like most, limits that right to citizens age 21 and over. I don't see a big difference between that and a video game.
I think one thing that's getting lost in the discussion is the law that was struck down had nothing to do with censorship or restricting what children can have access to - the law restricted anyone selling these games to directly to minors. I think there is a distinction there.
poetry_writer
6-29-11, 12:40pm
Lets just give the little whipper snappers some Jack Daniels to drink while they play Gore n More. Sorry, I'm sarcastic here. Who says individuals have "rights"? We are talking children. Little ones. Given to us to care for. Screw your "rights". Why did our society get to the point where gore and violence and garbage is considered cute? My son went to see the movie Saw. He said it was gross he almost threw up (he is 23) I said well why did you pay good money to go see crap like that? He didnt know. Neither do I. If we didnt buy it/watch it/rent it.....they wouldnt make it.
I think one thing that's getting lost in the discussion is the law that was struck down had nothing to do with censorship or restricting what children can have access to - the law restricted anyone selling these games to directly to minors. I think there is a distinction there.
Yeah, this is my understanding too. It's not saying that parents can't buy this stuff for their kids. I have a friend who chooses to buy her son video games that are rated M. This law would not have changed that. Another friend does not allow her son to own rated M video games, but without a law prohibiting the sale of those games to him directly, he can go out and buy them without her knowledge.
Minors do not have full legal rights, even rights ennumerated in the bill of rights. My six year old can't make the decision to see an R rated movie without me purchasing the ticket (which would never happen). She can't walk into a gun store and buy a gun even though we have a right to bear arms. Laws restricting their direct access mean that the decision of what kids can and cannot have is made by their parents, not by the minors themselves, not by the government. It's taking control for those decisions away from kids and giving it to the parents.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 1:46pm
Who says individuals have "rights"?
The United States Constitution. The courts decide what that constitution means. The courts have always said children enjoy First Amendment rights.
If you don't like it, amend the constitution.
Frankly I don't see this as any different from the right to read. The state has no right to dictate what books my children have access to, and neither do you. That is the parent's job, and the parent's job alone. Same thing here. Just because you object to the content does not mean you have the right to restrict access to other people's children.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 1:49pm
I think one thing that's getting lost in the discussion is the law that was struck down had nothing to do with censorship or restricting what children can have access to - the law restricted anyone selling these games to directly to minors. I think there is a distinction there.
There is no distinction. It restricted minors' First Amendment right to access information based on moral objections.
Your argument is one I frequently see in justifying burning I mean censoring library books. Hey, people can always get the books somewhere else, so how is that censorship?
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 1:56pm
Gregg, the courts have never extended approved speech restrictions beyond sexual materials. Harmful to minors and obscenity deal with sex, and only with sex. The court specifically said in this decision that it is unwilling to extend them beyond sex and into violent content. To do so is certainly a slippery slope. How violent is too violent? Do we restrict minors access to books with violence? Films with violence?
The ""fighting words" exception is for in-your-face confrontational exchanges that could lead you to punch me in the face. It has never been for things that might maybe someday make you want to punch somebody somewhere.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 2:00pm
My six year old can't make the decision to see an R rated movie without me purchasing the ticket (which would never happen).
That isn't technically true. There is no law preventing minors from purchasing tickets for an R rated movie, or a theater from selling them one and allowing them to attend. Such restrictions are entirely voluntary. If the state stepped in and dictated otherwise, that would be as unconstitutional as this law on video games was.
ApatheticNoMore
6-29-11, 2:05pm
Are we really even talking children? I think not. We're talking minors. That's anyone under 18. A 16 or 17 year old is not a child. Now, yes of course minors also includes 6 year old children, but it's not exclusively children.
A 16 year old can drive and thus expose the world to far more real danger than is ever likely with video games. The danger of exposing teenagers to this stuff versus the danger of not allowing them adult privileges hmm.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 2:09pm
These discussions always fascinated me. First, it astounds me how little Americans know about their most basic constitutional rights and how lightly they hold those rights.
Second, every now and then a discussion like this one comes up. Generally censorship attempts and arguments are about either the right or the left trying to silence one another. Sometimes, the two extremes side up and want to silence something together. Both due to moral objections, but neither for the same moral objections.
But it is moralizing all the same. Always reminds me of that song in the Music Man where Marion the librarian supposedly "advocates dirty books".
There is no distinction. It restricted minors' First Amendment right to access information based on moral objections.
Your argument is one I frequently see in justifying burning I mean censoring library books. Hey, people can always get the books somewhere else, so how is that censorship?
It does create a distinction between this information and other forms of information which are currently restricted by age - porn for example. I expect there will be challenges to existing laws.
Actually my distaste for this ruling is the idea that restricting this level of violence to minors can be considered violating free speech, while and at the same time restricting something as benign as just nudity in media can be considered valid.
The Storyteller
6-29-11, 3:23pm
Well, FWIW, I view the obscenity and "harmful to minors" exemptions to be wrongheaded and absurd, but it is the law of the land.
But, just because those are stupid doesn't mean they need broadening to include other areas such as violence.
I guess the line I drew earlier is where I will take a stand. To at least some degree it really does take a village to raise a child. I feel very strongly that the society as a whole does have a responsibility to foster a positive environment for the upcoming generation. To not do so would be incredibly short sighted and, IMO, stupid. I can tell you I don't want to grow old in such a place. That does NOT make anyone else responsible for my kids or create a nanny state.
Until they reach the age of emancipation (18 here so that's my example, YMMV) our kids do NOT have the full responsibilities OR the full rights of citizenship. You hear a lot of squawking about the rights and but not much about the responsibilities. That is another post, but rest assured they are inseparable. There are a lot of things we adults accept as just having a "right" to do that kids either can't do or need our parental permission to do until somewhere in their late teens. Since this is a legal argument I'm talking about what they have a legal right to do, not what they can go buy in a back alley.
Until they are 18 they can't vote so have no say in who gets elected or what policies are enacted even if those policies were to have an extreme impact on them. They also can't run for office. They can't be drafted. They would not be treated as adults in court (aka, society does not hold them responsible for their own actions). They can't get a business license for any one of dozens of types of regulated businesses (logging, commercial fishing, pipeline construction, off shore drilling, etc.). They can't buy tobacco, guns, porn, piercings, lottery tickets, alcohol, ammunition or tattoos. They can't rent hotel rooms, apartments or cars. Become a porn star. Donate blood. Sue or be sued. Change their name. Get a prescription for medical marijuana (in states that allow it). They can't go into a casino or a strip club. They can't make their own medical decisions or enter into binding legal contracts. They can't get a credit card or even open their own bank account. Can't get married. Get a commercial drivers license. Drive after midnight or have more than two passengers unless one is a parent (the laws here).
Please tell me how renting/buying a violent video game is something they deserve to do before age 18 more than anything else on the above list. Or would you simply wipe out the whole list granting full rights of citizenship at birth?
I guess the line I drew earlier is where I will take a stand. To at least some degree it really does take a village to raise a child. I feel very strongly that the society as a whole does have a responsibility to foster a positive environment for the upcoming generation. To not do so would be incredibly short sighted and, IMO, stupid. I can tell you I don't want to grow old in such a place. That does NOT make anyone else responsible for my kids or create a nanny state.
Until they reach the age of emancipation (18 here so that's my example, YMMV) our kids do NOT have the full responsibilities OR the full rights of citizenship. You hear a lot of squawking about the rights and but not much about the responsibilities. That is another post, but rest assured they are inseparable. There are a lot of things we adults accept as just having a "right" to do that kids either can't do or need our parental permission to do until somewhere in their late teens. Since this is a legal argument I'm talking about what they have a legal right to do, not what they can go buy in a back alley.
Until they are 18 they can't vote so have no say in who gets elected or what policies are enacted even if those policies were to have an extreme impact on them. They also can't run for office. They can't be drafted. They would not be treated as adults in court (aka, society does not hold them responsible for their own actions). They can't get a business license for any one of dozens of types of regulated businesses (logging, commercial fishing, pipeline construction, off shore drilling, etc.). They can't buy tobacco, guns, porn, piercings, lottery tickets, alcohol, ammunition or tattoos. They can't rent hotel rooms, apartments or cars. Become a porn star. Donate blood. Sue or be sued. Change their name. Get a prescription for medical marijuana (in states that allow it). They can't go into a casino or a strip club. They can't make their own medical decisions or enter into binding legal contracts. They can't get a credit card or even open their own bank account. Can't get married. Get a commercial drivers license. Drive after midnight or have more than two passengers unless one is a parent (the laws here).
Please tell me how renting/buying a violent video game is something they deserve to do before age 18 more than anything else on the above list. Or would you simply wipe out the whole list granting full rights of citizenship at birth?
Once again I agree with you Gregg. You make excellent points. I wonder how many who hail this decision as good have children? I don't like to discount any one's opinion but, when you have kids it changes your perspective and since this ruling affects kids, then, for me at least, the opinion of those without kids is not too important.
Once again I agree with you Gregg.
I just got a chill. Something must be freezing over... :devil:
I know what you mean peggy. Sometimes I have to catch myself before I say something stupid like, "you don't have kids so your opinion doesn't count". That would be wrong, of course, when we're looking at something like Constitutional issues. It's ok when I'm talking about my own kids and how I choose to raise them, but since were trying to sort out more than just personal preferences here everyone gets a vote (so to speak).
The Storyteller
6-30-11, 10:24am
Once again I agree with you Gregg. But 8 out of the 9 justices don't agree with either of you that children have no constitutional rights. There is only one who does.
Clarence Thomas.
Children are not chattel, the property of their parents or the state to be treated as they wish. They have constitutionally protected rights of their own. The courts have always found that to be the case. Always.
Once again I agree with you Gregg. You make excellent points. I wonder how many who hail this decision as good have children? I don't like to discount any one's opinion but, when you have kids it changes your perspective and since this ruling affects kids, then, for me at least, the opinion of those without kids is not too important.
I have a young daughter. I want to protect her from some of the worst aspects of our degraded culture. But it does not follow from that that I'm willing to provide government the power to protect her, because that also cedes to the political class the power to decide what's appropriate for her to see.
The Storyteller
6-30-11, 11:07am
But it does not follow from that that I'm willing to provide government the power to protect her, because that also cedes to the political class the power to decide what's appropriate for her to see.
Well said. This cuts to the heart of the issue.
I have 3 grown kids, all of whom I raised without state meddling, and have a brand new grandson, and many great nieces and nephews, all of whom I want to grow to be happy, healthy adults.
Hope I pass the test.
But 8 out of the 9 justices don't agree with either of you that children have no constitutional rights.
No one, anywhere that I have read in this discussion ever said that minors do not have constitutional rights. That is a strawman that doesn't even attempt to answer the question that was raised. MINORS RIGHTS ARE LIMITED and their responsibilities are limited in suit. See my list from the post above, and that is just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more examples, but the real point is that minors DO NOT enjoy the privilege of FULL constitutional rights.
The laws of our land have evolved to create that limited situation, or limited citizenship if you want to call it that. Some laws have been created because minors do not have a fully developed social or decision making capabilities. Some have evolved to protect them from substances or practices that are known to be (at least potentially) harmful. Some have come about as a way to limit minors being victimized by adults. Those are worthwhile goals for a society to take on as they are efforts to secure the health and well being of a group of people who are not yet able to fully fend for themselves.
I have a young daughter. I want to protect her from some of the worst aspects of our degraded culture. But it does not follow from that that I'm willing to provide government the power to protect her, because that also cedes to the political class the power to decide what's appropriate for her to see.
I don't think that's correct in this case. Those arguing in favor of the SC decision (overall, not just here) would have you believe the CA government is trying to step into your living room and dictate what your child can and can't see. Not so. They twist the words around trying to make it sound like the law made it illegal for the kids in CA to play the games in question. It didn't.
What the law did do is restrict WHO could provide the material to your child. It made it illegal for someone else, who is not the parent/guardian of your minor child, to provide that material to them until they reached the age where all the rest of society says they should be capable of making their own decisions. It did not limit YOUR right to provide the games to your child or your child's "right" to play the games. Assuming you are 18, you can march right down to the store and buy the game and play it with your kid all night long. The government is "protecting her" only in the sense of positioning you to be the one to decide what is appropriate for your daughter rather than some random person with no vested interest in her well being.
I tend to lean Libertarian on this and most social issues; if I were a parent, I would be livid at the government taking over my responsibility for what my children can read or watch (or eat or must submit to medically).
"...Sometimes I have to catch myself before I say something stupid like, "you don't have kids so your opinion doesn't count". That would be wrong, of course, when we're looking at something like Constitutional issues.'
I know--I'm always tempted to take that tack when men rail against the availability of abortion. "Sit down and shut up!" comes to mind.
Well said. This cuts to the heart of the issue.
I have 3 grown kids, all of whom I raised without state meddling, and have a brand new grandson, and many great nieces and nephews, all of whom I want to grow to be happy, healthy adults.
Hope I pass the test.
Where did you raise your kids? The state has been meddling since it was created. It definitely affected your kids outside the home, actively and passively.
The Storyteller
6-30-11, 2:36pm
No one, anywhere that I have read in this discussion ever said that minors do not have constitutional rights. That is a strawman that doesn't even attempt to answer the question that was raised.
I would submit that it is your question that is the straw man.
This issue is about the First Amendment, a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, one that is quite clear in its scope. Your analogies continue to be about activities, not the rights behind those activities (which don't exist, surprise surprise). The only one of those activities that is listed in the Constitution is voting, and that has an age limit built in. Therefore, you are not violating someone's constitutional right when you recognize that age limit.
The reason this is a First Amendment issue is video games are speech. The only area where there is an exemption for content for minors lies in sexual content. You want to extend that to include violence. The supreme court in this instance declined to grant that extension. If you want to argue against that, fine. There is certainly an argument to be made that violent content is as harmful to minors as depictions of sexual acts, an argument one of the dissenters (Justice Stephen Breyer) actually made. But that is the issue here, not your repeated insistence on equating this decisions to unrelated (and unprotected) activities.
Except in very limited cases (harmful to minors mentioned above, for example), children enjoy the same basic constitutional protections against state usurpation of rights as adults. Search and seizure, due process, free speech, etc., all equal to adults.
Look, I personally think these games are sick. I don't get why people would even want to play them, whether minor or not. But there are lots of things out there I disagree with and would rather weren't around (Glenn Beck and Fox News, for starters). But we live in a free society. That society is made free and kept free by our Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.
Everyone can agree with freedom of expression and the right to know, the right to access the information they want, until they run up against something they find offensive. That is where the real test of the First Amendment always lies. If we can't protect speech we personally find abhorrent, we can't protect speech at all.
I don't think that's correct in this case. Those arguing in favor of the SC decision (overall, not just here) would have you believe the CA government is trying to step into your living room and dictate what your child can and can't see. Not so. They twist the words around trying to make it sound like the law made it illegal for the kids in CA to play the games in question. It didn't.
What the law did do is restrict WHO could provide the material to your child. It made it illegal for someone else, who is not the parent/guardian of your minor child, to provide that material to them until they reached the age where all the rest of society says they should be capable of making their own decisions. It did not limit YOUR right to provide the games to your child or your child's "right" to play the games. Assuming you are 18, you can march right down to the store and buy the game and play it with your kid all night long. The government is "protecting her" only in the sense of positioning you to be the one to decide what is appropriate for your daughter rather than some random person with no vested interest in her well being.
The way I view it, anything that chips away at the free flow of ideas (however reprehensible the ideas and however limited the restriction) is bad for my daughter's future. If we allow a base of precedent to be established for any level of government authority to determine what words or images are "appropriate", we give the censors and bluenoses a foundation to build on. To the greatest extent possible, and I realize perfection is unobtainable, I'm against anyone using the law as a weapon against ideas they consider offensive to moral propriety, cultural sensitivity or political correctness.
The Storyteller
6-30-11, 3:23pm
It did not limit YOUR right to provide the games to your child or your child's "right" to play the games.
This is quite frequently an argument used by censors who would remove books from the children's or young adult areas in libraries, or restrict children from being able to check out certain kinds of books or certain titles. Mom or dad could always check it out for them. And even if the book is completely removed from the library, mom or dad could always buy a copy from Amazon. And I can assure you, the would-be censors for those library books are every bit as convinced they are harmful to children as you are these video games.
This is why I recognize all of these arguments so clearly. They are part and parcel of the same thing. If you substituted "books" for "video games", the arguments are all the same.
And it is why this was such a slam dunk for the SCOTUS. Once they decided video games were speech, it was quite a simple matter to associate the current subject to years and years of precedence on the First Amendment rights of children.
The point I am making about parental rights and responsibility is not so much that it takes away my ability to provide access to particular speech for my children, but that it is the state that is making a decision that only a parent should be able to make.
It is an important distinction.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.