California, seeking to cure all that ails the state (that is sarcasm), have passed a law banning the sale or rental of certain video games to minors. Video games currently go through a ratings system similar to movies. At a certain age, the child either needs the parent to rent the game or they don't get to rent or buy it.
I am unaware of what is considered unconstitutional about this law to the degree that the Supreme Court is getting involved. The claim is that not enough evidence is in place to show that enough danger is posed to children being exposed to violent and sexually explicit games to restrict their first and 14th amendment rights. Perhaps this is another case of "if the parents did their jobs, California wouldn't have to step in and filter things to minors." Of course the video game industry is behind making sure that the law stays "down" as this would most likely injure sales - protection of rights being a distant second concern.
I am unaware of what is considered unconstitutional about this law to the degree that the Supreme Court is getting involved. The claim is that not enough evidence is in place to show that enough danger is posed to children being exposed to violent and sexually explicit games to restrict their first and 14th amendment rights. Perhaps this is another case of "if the parents did their jobs, California wouldn't have to step in and filter things to minors." Of course the video game industry is behind making sure that the law stays "down" as this would most likely injure sales - protection of rights being a distant second concern.
I feel that each is responsible for their own actions and video games are not entirely to blame when children commit criminal acts that mirror the video games they adore. If I were in the video game industry, I would think that this law also protects them as it would place legal blame strictly on retailers, renters, and parents, instead of the video game companies having to defend spend millions defending themselves legally and publicly.
However, children are mirrors for whatever they see and experience. Some video games do glorify violence and immoral conduct. Without proper parenting, these games are indeed attractive to minors and may negatively influence their behavior. But so do a variety of 'entertainment' sources. Professional wrestling is not a super positive influence either, but it is up to the parents as to whether or not their children watch it.
What I hope to see as the outcome of all this is that the supreme court rules: The parents right to control what the children are exposed to trumps the minors right to purchase the product, as well as the right of the company to sell their product to whomever.
If children are allowed to go and buy whatever game they want to, the parent is handicapped in their ability to raise their children in the way the deem appropriate. It is not until the individual becomes an adult that they are able, legally, to determine what is best for themselves. There is no law saying that the children are not allowed to play the game, but they simply have to go through their parents, or some other adult, in order to obtain it. It is like a movie, or cigarettes.
At least you didn't blame gays on this one. There is hope for you.
ReplyDeleteI don't blame anything on gays save their own acts only.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit I don't see much wrong with the CA statute. We routinely prohibit minors from viewing pornography, buying cigarettes or alcohol, engaging in otherwise legal gambling, etc. Adding "violent" video games is similar. As in the other cases, if parents want their children to be exposed to these things that others consider damaging, they can certainly buy them and hand them over to the kids. I'd call that bad parenting, for sure.
ReplyDeleteThere are two legitimate concerns here. First, is in the definition of violent. Who gets to decide which games are to be restricted? What criteria do they use? Could there be instances (say games created for armed forces recruiting purposes) where the ban would be questioned?
Second, is the larger issue of banning products or services because some people believe them to be evil. While such a concern does not apply in the case of minors, it does apply in other cases where our government decides to ban products or services or activities that it determines are "bad" for us. We need to be vigilant in insuring that these kinds of bans are only used to protect minors, not to restrict adults.
Why in the world would you blame gay acts. Are you a peeping tom? I don't have improper thoughts of you in the bedroom with your spouse. I think you need to make a call to the bishop so he can help you with this problem.
ReplyDelete