A Delay in the Michigan Violent Games Law

TecnaDigit writes "The ESA and the VSDA have achieved a small victory in the case against Michigan Senate Bill 416. According to Game Daily Biz, Michigan Judge George Caram Steeh (who himself seems a bit skeptical of the bill) passed an injunction holding it for consideration. In other words, while the bill is under examination it won't be passed into law. Originally, the law was supposed to commence on December 1st, 2005. Though the battle for this case is far from over, it is a bit of silver lining."

Comments

Re:Someone pinch me.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Government has many laws concerning "issues that should be a parent's job." and for good reason.

No man is entitled to have sex with a 14 year old, which includes his daughter. why? in addition to the absurdity and evil in the act itself, it injurs the child, who would (at minimum) be confused between the conflicting roles of lover (having sex) and ruler (father /adult.) His job is to protect the child from harmful things, especially those harmful things which she may find pleasurable. (This is not to say that a 14 year old girl would, find sex with her father pleasurable; her body may respond on a physical level to certain stimuli, but the confusion that ensues will be very harmful for her) Precisely because a young child cannot fully ascertain the long term ramifications for their actions, their rights are restricted.

IN the US, they usually cannot drink before 21. why? Alcohol impacts reasoning skills, memory, and other brain functions.

In the US, retailers can sell pornographic magazines only to adults. why? Pornographic images are harmful to young people, give them a distorted view of sexual relationships, and, especially during the puberty years when sex is already a major issue, can be the object of intense distorted focus, and lead the child to make the opposite sex another object of this skewed focus.

The parent's role is to raise their children with the understanding that sex and violence are very special things with very specific purposes (very seldom to be intertwined, by the way). Yet the grand theft auto was another reiteration of the same thing horror movies have been doing since the '60's: showing that violence IS sexy, that it's better to kill a naked chick than to kill her with her clothes on or even to have sex with her, and linking the rush of terror with that of sexual arousal.

Unfortunately, we live in a country where the ideas that everything is urgent, that childrearing is a waste of a mother's time, and that Freedom of the Press has come to mean, "I can say any damn thing I want, but DON'T YOU DARE TALK TO ME ABOUT GOD!" In such a place, unfortunately, too many people are conned into believing these ideas and integrating them as if they were actually good vales.

If the parents are willing and able to step up and take control of their children's education then more power to them: this law is less about them than the other parents, who dont care enogh to know enough about what the hell their kids are doing. Laws like these are written about parents that are so strung out on drugs / alcohol / pride / greed / selfishness that they don't see or care what their child needs, so the government MUST interfere.

Re:Politics of the Nanny State

[ackthpt]

If I were a parent

But it seems you ain't so that dimension of thinking isn't open to you, all subsequent rant is pure conjecture.

I wouldn't need a LAW to teach my kids right from wrong, nor would I need one to set parameters for their activities and behavior. That's a PARENT'S job, not the government's!

Here's a clue, dingbat, if you're a parent you want businesses to abide your wishes not to sell things to your kids, not to show things to your kids, not to get your kids hooked on things when your kids are away from home. Even the best parents in the world aren't going to be able to expect their well trained progeny to resist peer pressure or temptation 100% of the time so there's the matter of having statutes which require business to behave.

You seem to believe that anyone who wants government to stop interfering with how we raise our kids advocates anarchy and debauchery.

"We the people", "Government of the people, by the people and for the people", ever heard those before? People elect the legislatures. People write the petitions and sign them. These measures are not the work of devious government leaders working in isolation, but with parents groups, concerned citizens and even slashdot readers. Rather than piss and moan on slashdot about "government interference in your [theoretical] parental right", take part.

I'm calling you out on that strawman.

You don't even know what a strawman.