Slashdot Mirror

Florida Spring Break beach goers were asked

That's an argument to repeal the 26th Amendment and allow the states to up the voting age back to where it was before Vietnam War. Back then it was lowered under the questionable argument "Old enough to die, old enough to vote."

However invalid it always has been, that argument is simply moot now that there is no military draft... Of course, the Illiberal kind want the voting age lowered even further — to 16 and even 14.

The truth is, age should not be the deciding factor — as it is a poor indicator of maturity. Pompey celebrated his first triumph before qualifying to sit in the Senate...

With my proposal, we could eliminate it altogether — whoever can do those two things I listed, gets to vote even if they were just born (or, Heaven forfend, aborted).

You insensitive clod!

You might find this interesting.

It is a valid opinion, and the National Youth Rights Association was formed to make it irrelevant by lowering the voting age.

YOU! Report to the National Youth Rights Association NOW for membership!

Rather than repeat arguments that are already printed somewhere else I recommend you visit the National Youth Rights Association, read their website, perhaps debate the forum members, and post back here about what you think.

Oh, and why is my age relevant to this discussion?

As far as I can tell, Alaska's drinking age is 21. I have found multiple sites that agree and none that disagree.

As an activist and advocate for youth rights, nothing aggrevates me more than retailers/theaters barring the sale of entertainment, whether it be video games, movies or music.

Granted, voluntary enforcement leaves the retailers at liberty to decide whether to create such a policy without laws forcing them to, but barring sale based on an organization's rating system (ESRB, etc.) is shoving someone else's opinion (rating) down the consumer's throat, and barring the sale to individuals, based on the vague and discriminate class of age.

In Michigan, section 301 of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976 prohibits a place of public accommodation (defined: a business...of any kind...whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations are...made available to the public) "from denying an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities...of a place of public accommodation because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status." It is undoubtedly arguable that any retailer in Michigan prohibiting a minor from buying a "Rated M" game is violating this act.

The responsibility lies in the hands of the parents, not the retailers, or the government. If parents want to make their purchasing decisions based on a rating system, whether it be the ESRB, or something like the Childcare Action Project, so be it. Retailers should either sell the product to everyone, or not carry it at all. The "One Rating System to Rule Them All" mindset is not the way to go about it.

Just my two cents...