Obiously, we could go into a huge flame war/debate on whose responsibility it is to prevent violent youth crime or who should be the one filtering out uh..undesirable content. I guess it all comes down to where you draw the line between prevention of violence and free speech. This is a line that has to be draws no matter what form of communication you are talking about.
I agree with you that for most of us, video games are a safe and even fun way to release tension and fuffil primal urges. But what about that.01% that have progressive adiction. What about that.01% where violent video games feeds the urge? That.01% can do a lot of damage. Maybe I sound to the propeganda truck, but I did have a second cousin that was the victim of a murder. Trust me, I would rather have a law impose some regulations that in the scheme of things are pretty insignificant than give that.01% the impression that violence is okay.
Indeed, it is a fine line to walk. I place a very high value on both the freedom of speech and human life. But when it comes down to it, I think I would rather sacrifice a little (just a little, mind you) freedom for the lives of murder victims. I dunno. What do you guys think?
First: You are correct that last year saw the lowest youth violence rate in recent time (aka about since 1983). However, so far this year the youth violence rate has gone up at an alarming rate. You cannot deny that this is at least in part due to the media.
Second: I'm not pulling an all out blame on video games or any other form of media. I have Quake. I play Unreal. They're a blast. I just don't think you should be allowing young kids such as those 12 or younger playing them.
Remember, in this case my gripe is not with the games themselves but the fact that the court implies that they somehow will prepare kids for adult life. To make such a statement frankly demonstrates only one thing: stupidity.
I would question anyone that would not support some sort of rating and partial regulation. All we really need to do is to protect the younger children: the ones that are not yet able to differentiate between that which is real and that which is not. For those that are mature enough to handle it, I say "Have fun!"
While I am all for supporting free speech in any form (including video games), doesn't that last line scare anybody? Since when were video games supposed to prepare people for the "real world"? Especially violent ones.... While I praise their decision, I must protest their reasoning. Violent video games are not a good way to be preparing for "real life". And sometimes we wonder why there are so many violent acts committed by young people unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality... It's no wonder they tend to get confused.
Slashdot Mirror
Obiously, we could go into a huge flame war/debate on whose responsibility it is to prevent violent youth crime or who should be the one filtering out uh..undesirable content. I guess it all comes down to where you draw the line between prevention of violence and free speech. This is a line that has to be draws no matter what form of communication you are talking about.
.01% that have progressive adiction. What about that .01% where violent video games feeds the urge? That .01% can do a lot of damage. Maybe I sound to the propeganda truck, but I did have a second cousin that was the victim of a murder. Trust me, I would rather have a law impose some regulations that in the scheme of things are pretty insignificant than give that .01% the impression that violence is okay.
I agree with you that for most of us, video games are a safe and even fun way to release tension and fuffil primal urges. But what about that
Indeed, it is a fine line to walk. I place a very high value on both the freedom of speech and human life. But when it comes down to it, I think I would rather sacrifice a little (just a little, mind you) freedom for the lives of murder victims. I dunno. What do you guys think?
-James
OK, good points. I'll address them.
First: You are correct that last year saw the lowest youth violence rate in recent time (aka about since 1983). However, so far this year the youth violence rate has gone up at an alarming rate. You cannot deny that this is at least in part due to the media.
Second: I'm not pulling an all out blame on video games or any other form of media. I have Quake. I play Unreal. They're a blast. I just don't think you should be allowing young kids such as those 12 or younger playing them.
Remember, in this case my gripe is not with the games themselves but the fact that the court implies that they somehow will prepare kids for adult life. To make such a statement frankly demonstrates only one thing: stupidity.
I would question anyone that would not support some sort of rating and partial regulation. All we really need to do is to protect the younger children: the ones that are not yet able to differentiate between that which is real and that which is not. For those that are mature enough to handle it, I say "Have fun!"
-James
While I am all for supporting free speech in any form (including video games), doesn't that last line scare anybody? Since when were video games supposed to prepare people for the "real world"? Especially violent ones.... While I praise their decision, I must protest their reasoning. Violent video games are not a good way to be preparing for "real life". And sometimes we wonder why there are so many violent acts committed by young people unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality... It's no wonder they tend to get confused.
-James
I just have to say that I haven't laughed this hard in a fair while. I'm surprised that more people didn't find this one funny.