Minors don't have the same rights as adults (they can't vote for instance) but they do have significant rights especially the right to Free Speech. For instance in Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas the Supreme Court struck down a law that set up a citywide rating system for movies as unconstitutional. In Erznoznik. v. Jacksonville the Supreme Court said "In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors." Free Speech is the flow of information, it sends messages, opinions and points of view. Video games are free speech. Therefore laws barring the sale of video games to minors are unconstiutional except in certain circumstances. The government would have to show direct harm to minors from the playing of video games before they can constitutionally restrict access to them.
"Following this logic, why are kids allowed to buy anything by themselves?"
This is true. The fact is the government's not a babysister. They're not there to keep YOUR kids from materials YOU find offensive and unsuitable for them.
Should religious parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to Harry Potter books, Heavy Metal music and Dungeons & Dragons? Should Atheist parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to the Bible and other religious materials? Should health nut parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to junk food like soda pop, potato chips and chocolate bars? If not then why should the government restrict access to kids in regards to violent video games because of parents who object to their violent content?
O.K, never mind i see what your saying now. It's sounds like it's read to say "potentially harmful things to children are things stores shouldn't have the right to sell" instead of "things that are potentially harmful to children are things that stores shouldn't sell to children." But i think everyone should've known what the OP really meant.
People should be kind and considerate to others but that doesn't mean it should be dictated by law.
If parents are so worried about certain stores selling their kids "M" rated video games there is such a thing as a boycoot which might help them get their way without the need for government regulation.
Pornography is meant for one thing and one thing only, sexual arousment and titalation. There is also no artistic, literary, scientific, political or historical merit when it comes to pornography.
Movies, Music and Books with the exception of pornography are not regulated by the government.
The movie rating system in America is a voluntary one and isn't inforced by law. Why should different rules apply to video games.
The Democrates are just as involved in your personal lives as the Republicans are if not more so. Look at all the politians who propose these anti-gaming restriction laws. Leland Yee - Democrat, Mary Loe Dickerson - Democrat, Joe Lieberman - Democrat, Joe Baca - Democrat, Rod Blagoveich (sp?) - Democrat.
It's the Democrats who want to regulate every aspect of our lives and our children's lives. I've never seen any Republican try to pass laws like these.
Regulating game/movie/music sales to minors is NOT censorship,
When the government does it, yes it is censorship, towards minors of course which is still censorship all the same. The government is deciding what free speech material (materials that express points of view and opinions) are appropriate or not for dissemination to minors, not the individual minor's parents.
and it's NOT a substitute for parenting.
Actually, yes it is. It allows parents who object to violent content to become altogether uninvolved in the process of regulating what their children are allowed to watch. People other than the parents are put in charge of preventing access to the objectionable content so that parents don't have to deal with it themselves. After all, as long as it's somebody else's responsibility to prevent my son from playing DOOM 3 I am relieved from having to worry about it.
It's simply giving RESPONSIBLE parents additional tools to help them raise their children, because unless you plan on keeping your kids locked in their room until they're 18, they are going to have access to things that you as a parent are going to disapprove of.
The government shouldn't restrict access to materials to minors based on what some parents may find unsuitable or offensive when those parents can damn well do it themselves.
Should religious parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to Harry Potter books, Heavy Metal music and Dungeons & Dragons? Should Atheist parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to the Bible and other religious materials? Should health nut parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to junk food like soda pop, potato chips and chocolate bars? If not then why should the government restrict access to kids in regards to violent video games because of parents who object to their violent content?
It has nothing to do with being a good parent - it's ridiculous to assume parents can monitor their kids 24/7, and GOOD parents need every bit of help they can get.
Parents can't nor shouldn't have to be around their kids 24/7 BUT they are or should be around their kids enough to know what kind of things they're getting into or ahold of.
No minors do not have the same rights as adults, and they never were meant to have the same rights as adults.
True, but the court systems including the Supreme Court have ruled many of times that children DO have significant rights under the first amendment. Three courts have already struck down laws such as this one as unconstitutional.
"That being said, if you were to actually read the Constitution, you would see that a law like this does not even come close to violating the First Amendment. See for yourself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a proposed law from a state legislature, not Congress. You may be able to make an argument that it is in violation of the 14th if you can establish that playing video games is a basic human right. In that case, you had better hope the judge is a/.er."
Congress doesn't just refer to FEDERAL congress but any any form of government congress including state ones. Also the word congress is gernerally meant to mean "body of government". Otherwise states and cities could pass all the anti-free speech and expression laws they wanted.
"Millions upon millions of people smoke cigarattes, yet only a relatively small number are currently dying of lung cancer. That doesn't mean tobacco has no effect on a person's health."
Congradulations. That was a really great response and it stumped me because it's TRUE. There are millions worldwide who smoke but only a small percentage of them get lung cancer. I know people who have smoked from age 10 right to the age of 84 with no health problems whatsoever. But still i think there's a difference between smoking cigerettes and violent video games and their negative effects. For one thing every single study done on smoking has shown clear-cut empyrical evidence that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer and other health problems. The same cannot be said for violent games and a connection to violent actions in children. Many of the studies claiming this connection are extremely flawed, inconsistent, weak and of course biased. Also there have been many studies done on the connection between violent games and violent behaviour in which no clear link was found between them.
"This type of thing is what will allow R and X rated games to continue to be produced! The reality of the situation is: It's either this, or an outright ban on the sale of all violent video games to anybody. Which would we prefer?"
There are tons of R rated movies, CD's with Explicit Lyrics stickers on them and books with extreme violence and sex without any government regulation on their sales so your point is moot.
"And like R and X rated movies, if the kid wants them and the parent doesn't care, they can still buy them for little Johnny. If you are an adult, this does not affect your game buying at all."
Not directly but it could effect adults in an indirect manner (not going to go into details as there are too many). If baring the sale of violent games to kids makes it even 1% harder in any percevible way for me to buy or play these games, then i'm against it. Not that i would be for it anyways.
Forgot to add in. Pornography doesn't fall under free speech or expression for the reasons that i stated above. So the government can legally regulate it all they want.
Pornography is different because it's only meant for one thing and one thing only - sexual gratification and arousment. Porn also has no artistic, literary, political, scientific, or historical merit like movies/music/video games and books do. It's just meant for titilation.
To be honest though, i don't find porn or hardcore sexual material to be that bad for older teens.
I'm not a minor. I'm 22 yo. But i believe that the government should only get involved in restrictions of material if the material is found to be truely harmful.
"The "government" didn't decide what's inappropriate here. They decided minors shouldn't get to go to the store to buy a videogame that's mature-rated. That's the parent's job until they become an ADULT. They gave a tool to parents so that the decision for what is or is not appropriate for their children is THEIR decision, not their kid's."
Parents each have differing opinions on what's appropriate or not for their children to have. This is one of the reasons amoungst others why the government should not be making outright blanket restrctions on what media material should or shouldn't be available for children. They're alot of parents who don't want their kids to be drinking soda pop, chewing gum, eating junk food or even reading Harry Potter books so should the government restrict access to that stuff for people under 18 to help out the parents who don't want their children to have that stuff. If other parents are o.k with their kids having it, they can just get it for their kids themselves right? Why not just ban the sale of all things in general to people under 18 so parents will always know what their kids are getting ahold of. It's not the governemnts job to help out parents in regard to decisions based on moral beliefs and the suitibility in the eyes of parents (sp?) of media materials.
While this isn't censorship in the broadest sense of the word, this is still a form of censorship as well as age discrimination. The freedoms garneted under the first amendment of the U.S constitution also include minors especially older children and teenagers . The first amendment doesn't say freedom of speech only if you're 18 or older or freedom of expression only if your 18 or older. Even the court system including the Supreme Court have ruled that minors have rights garnered under the constitution unless the government can prove that the speech in question is harmful to or dangerous to minors. In the case of violent video games, there is nothing to prove that they are.
So do minors have absolutly no rights anymore? Did i miss the part in the constitution that says Freedom of speech, expression, religion, the press only if you're 18 or older. Oh, yes that's right, it's not there because the freedoms in the first amendment apply to everyone whether they're 14 yo or 84 yo.
Listen i believe some things should be restricted to minors like alcohol and cigerettes which have PROVEN harmful effects on everyone who uses them, but a 15 yo who plays GTA:SA for a few hours isn't going to make him drunk, damage his liver or lungs, give him lung cancer or even make him more violent. (I don't care what the pychologists and their extremely flawed, inconsistent, baised and weak studies have to say.)
Millions upon millions of kids are playing these so-called evil ultra violent video games with no negative effects whatsoever. It's only an extremely small handful of them that are influenced or imitate the acts they're playing in the games. This leads me to believe that there are so many other issues and problems with the child that you have to take into consideration then that it was just the games themselves that caused it. It's not like the kid was perfectly normal and happy kid to being with and the game corrupted his mind.
I've said this a before and i'll say it again: Government should have no role in deciding what media is suitible or unsuitable for minors. Those decisions should be left up to parents themselves. It doesn't matter whether it's GTA:SA or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or even Harry Potter. Government should have no business in deciding what's inappropriate for other people and their children.
"You never got any money for a birthday when you were a kid? I used to get ~$60 a year when I was 6, do you really think that means I was old enough to buy a game like GTA:SA?"
Personally i would never give a kid as young as 6 $60 for his birthday. That's just rediculous. Plus what 6 year old goes out on his very own to the store to buy video games. None that i know of. The only place my parents would only let me go to was the corner store for candy when i was that young.
If a parent gives a kid that young that much money and lets him go out of his very own without being accompanied by an adult, they're pretty shitty parents in my book and violent video games should be the least of their worries.
"Just curious, does anyone think this is bad? or is this thread going to consist of 300 "I think this is just fine" "Me too" "me three".. "me 300" ?"
My how things have changed. Two years back the question would have been the exact opposite because everyone would have been against this, now it seems everyone is either for it or doesn't mind. I find it sadly crazy how the majority now becomes the minority. Sigh, i miss the good old days.:[
I'm 22 years old so you'd probably think i could care less about this but i do.
Personally i don't want to have to be I.D'ed every time i buy a certain video game. I've never been I.D'ed ever before for either games or movies. I can understand for things like cigerettes and alcohol, but for a fuckin' game with some fake pixilated violence, Come On!
Are these games really that bad for high school teens age 14 and up. With the possible exception of maybe Manhunt and a few others, i don't think so.
Listen, i'm all for parents deciding what's appropriate or not for their children. If they don't want them playing violent games or even reading Harry Potter books then that's fine with me. It's their right as a parent, BUT, i don't believe we need the government involved in this. I'm a staunch believer that the government should not get involved whatsoever in what we watch, play, listen to, or read for entertainment. Leave it up to the individuals themselves and the individuals parents and ONLY THE PARENTS, when it comes to their children. Just my $0.03.
Slashdot Mirror
And the link between violent media and violence in schools and teenage pregnacies is where? I sure as hell haven't seen any.
Calm down buddy, i agree with you. I was just saying what is true.
Minors don't have the same rights as adults (they can't vote for instance) but they do have significant rights especially the right to Free Speech.
For instance in Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas the Supreme Court struck down a law that set up a citywide rating system for movies as unconstitutional.
In Erznoznik. v. Jacksonville the Supreme Court said "In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
Free Speech is the flow of information, it sends messages, opinions and points of view. Video games are free speech. Therefore laws barring the sale of video games to minors are unconstiutional except in certain circumstances. The government would have to show direct harm to minors from the playing of video games before they can constitutionally restrict access to them.
The movie rating system is voluntary. There is no government regulation of movies or laws enforcing the movie rating system.
"Following this logic, why are kids allowed to buy anything by themselves?"
This is true.
The fact is the government's not a babysister. They're not there to keep YOUR kids from materials YOU find offensive and unsuitable for them.
Should religious parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to Harry Potter books, Heavy Metal music and Dungeons & Dragons? Should Atheist parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to the Bible and other religious materials? Should health nut parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to junk food like soda pop, potato chips and chocolate bars? If not then why should the government restrict access to kids in regards to violent video games because of parents who object to their violent content?
O.K, never mind i see what your saying now. It's sounds like it's read to say "potentially harmful things to children are things stores shouldn't have the right to sell" instead of "things that are potentially harmful to children are things that stores shouldn't sell to children."
But i think everyone should've known what the OP really meant.
The original poster said "to children" not in general to everyone.
For $400 if better damn well come with a hard drive or i would never buy the thing.
People should be kind and considerate to others but that doesn't mean it should be dictated by law.
If parents are so worried about certain stores selling their kids "M" rated video games there is such a thing as a boycoot which might help them get their way without the need for government regulation.
Pornography is meant for one thing and one thing only, sexual arousment and titalation.
There is also no artistic, literary, scientific, political or historical merit when it comes to pornography.
Movies, Music and Books with the exception of pornography are not regulated by the government. The movie rating system in America is a voluntary one and isn't inforced by law. Why should different rules apply to video games.
Oops, i meant to reply to the guy under you.
The Democrates are just as involved in your personal lives as the Republicans are if not more so. Look at all the politians who propose these anti-gaming restriction laws. Leland Yee - Democrat, Mary Loe Dickerson - Democrat, Joe Lieberman - Democrat, Joe Baca - Democrat, Rod Blagoveich (sp?) - Democrat.
It's the Democrats who want to regulate every aspect of our lives and our children's lives. I've never seen any Republican try to pass laws like these.
Regulating game/movie/music sales to minors is NOT censorship,
When the government does it, yes it is censorship, towards minors of course which is still censorship all the same. The government is deciding what free speech material (materials that express points of view and opinions) are appropriate or not for dissemination to minors, not the individual minor's parents.
and it's NOT a substitute for parenting.
Actually, yes it is. It allows parents who object to violent content to become altogether uninvolved in the process of regulating what their children are allowed to watch. People other than the parents are put in charge of preventing access to the objectionable content so that parents don't have to deal with it themselves. After all, as long as it's somebody else's responsibility to prevent my son from playing DOOM 3 I am relieved from having to worry about it.
It's simply giving RESPONSIBLE parents additional tools to help them raise their children, because unless you plan on keeping your kids locked in their room until they're 18, they are going to have access to things that you as a parent are going to disapprove of.
The government shouldn't restrict access to materials to minors based on what some parents may find unsuitable or offensive when those parents can damn well do it themselves.
Should religious parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to Harry Potter books, Heavy Metal music and Dungeons & Dragons? Should Atheist parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to the Bible and other religious materials? Should health nut parents expect the government to restrict their kid's access to junk food like soda pop, potato chips and chocolate bars? If not then why should the government restrict access to kids in regards to violent video games because of parents who object to their violent content?
It has nothing to do with being a good parent - it's ridiculous to assume parents can monitor their kids 24/7, and GOOD parents need every bit of help they can get.
Parents can't nor shouldn't have to be around their kids 24/7 BUT they are or should be around their kids enough to know what kind of things they're getting into or ahold of.
No minors do not have the same rights as adults, and they never were meant to have the same rights as adults.
/.er."
True, but the court systems including the Supreme Court have ruled many of times that children DO have significant rights under the first amendment. Three courts have already struck down laws such as this one as unconstitutional.
"That being said, if you were to actually read the Constitution, you would see that a law like this does not even come close to violating the First Amendment. See for yourself:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a proposed law from a state legislature, not Congress. You may be able to make an argument that it is in violation of the 14th if you can establish that playing video games is a basic human right. In that case, you had better hope the judge is a
Congress doesn't just refer to FEDERAL congress but any any form of government congress including state ones. Also the word congress is gernerally meant to mean "body of government". Otherwise states and cities could pass all the anti-free speech and expression laws they wanted.
"Millions upon millions of people smoke cigarattes, yet only a relatively small number are currently dying of lung cancer. That doesn't mean tobacco has no effect on a person's health."
Congradulations. That was a really great response and it stumped me because it's TRUE. There are millions worldwide who smoke but only a small percentage of them get lung cancer. I know people who have smoked from age 10 right to the age of 84 with no health problems whatsoever.
But still i think there's a difference between smoking cigerettes and violent video games and their negative effects. For one thing every single study done on smoking has shown clear-cut empyrical evidence that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer and other health problems. The same cannot be said for violent games and a connection to violent actions in children. Many of the studies claiming this connection are extremely flawed, inconsistent, weak and of course biased. Also there have been many studies done on the connection between violent games and violent behaviour in which no clear link was found between them.
"This type of thing is what will allow R and X rated games to continue to be produced! The reality of the situation is: It's either this, or an outright ban on the sale of all violent video games to anybody. Which would we prefer?"
There are tons of R rated movies, CD's with Explicit Lyrics stickers on them and books with extreme violence and sex without any government regulation on their sales so your point is moot.
"And like R and X rated movies, if the kid wants them and the parent doesn't care, they can still buy them for little Johnny. If you are an adult, this does not affect your game buying at all."
Not directly but it could effect adults in an indirect manner (not going to go into details as there are too many). If baring the sale of violent games to kids makes it even 1% harder in any percevible way for me to buy or play these games, then i'm against it. Not that i would be for it anyways.
Forgot to add in. Pornography doesn't fall under free speech or expression for the reasons that i stated above. So the government can legally regulate it all they want.
Pornography is different because it's only meant for one thing and one thing only - sexual gratification and arousment. Porn also has no artistic, literary, political, scientific, or historical merit like movies/music/video games and books do. It's just meant for titilation.
To be honest though, i don't find porn or hardcore sexual material to be that bad for older teens.
I'm not a minor. I'm 22 yo. But i believe that the government should only get involved in restrictions of material if the material is found to be truely harmful.
"The "government" didn't decide what's inappropriate here. They decided minors shouldn't get to go to the store to buy a videogame that's mature-rated. That's the parent's job until they become an ADULT. They gave a tool to parents so that the decision for what is or is not appropriate for their children is THEIR decision, not their kid's."
Parents each have differing opinions on what's appropriate or not for their children to have. This is one of the reasons amoungst others why the government should not be making outright blanket restrctions on what media material should or shouldn't be available for children.
They're alot of parents who don't want their kids to be drinking soda pop, chewing gum, eating junk food or even reading Harry Potter books so should the government restrict access to that stuff for people under 18 to help out the parents who don't want their children to have that stuff. If other parents are o.k with their kids having it, they can just get it for their kids themselves right? Why not just ban the sale of all things in general to people under 18 so parents will always know what their kids are getting ahold of. It's not the governemnts job to help out parents in regard to decisions based on moral beliefs and the suitibility in the eyes of parents (sp?) of media materials.
While this isn't censorship in the broadest sense of the word, this is still a form of censorship as well as age discrimination. The freedoms garneted under the first amendment of the U.S constitution also include minors especially older children and teenagers . The first amendment doesn't say freedom of speech only if you're 18 or older or freedom of expression only if your 18 or older. Even the court system including the Supreme Court have ruled that minors have rights garnered under the constitution unless the government can prove that the speech in question is harmful to or dangerous to minors. In the case of violent video games, there is nothing to prove that they are.
So do minors have absolutly no rights anymore?
Did i miss the part in the constitution that says Freedom of speech, expression, religion, the press only if you're 18 or older. Oh, yes that's right, it's not there because the freedoms in the first amendment apply to everyone whether they're 14 yo or 84 yo.
Listen i believe some things should be restricted to minors like alcohol and cigerettes which have PROVEN harmful effects on everyone who uses them, but a 15 yo who plays GTA:SA for a few hours isn't going to make him drunk, damage his liver or lungs, give him lung cancer or even make him more violent. (I don't care what the pychologists and their extremely flawed, inconsistent, baised and weak studies have to say.)
Millions upon millions of kids are playing these so-called evil ultra violent video games with no negative effects whatsoever. It's only an extremely small handful of them that are influenced or imitate the acts they're playing in the games. This leads me to believe that there are so many other issues and problems with the child that you have to take into consideration then that it was just the games themselves that caused it. It's not like the kid was perfectly normal and happy kid to being with and the game corrupted his mind.
I've said this a before and i'll say it again: Government should have no role in deciding what media is suitible or unsuitable for minors. Those decisions should be left up to parents themselves. It doesn't matter whether it's GTA:SA or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or even Harry Potter. Government should have no business in deciding what's inappropriate for other people and their children.
Point well taken.
"You never got any money for a birthday when you were a kid? I used to get ~$60 a year when I was 6, do you really think that means I was old enough to buy a game like GTA:SA?"
Personally i would never give a kid as young as 6 $60 for his birthday. That's just rediculous. Plus what 6 year old goes out on his very own to the store to buy video games. None that i know of. The only place my parents would only let me go to was the corner store for candy when i was that young.
If a parent gives a kid that young that much money and lets him go out of his very own without being accompanied by an adult, they're pretty shitty parents in my book and violent video games should be the least of their worries.
"Just curious, does anyone think this is bad? or is this thread going to consist of 300 "I think this is just fine" "Me too" "me three" .. "me 300" ?"
My how things have changed. Two years back the question would have been the exact opposite because everyone would have been against this, now it seems everyone is either for it or doesn't mind. I find it sadly crazy how the majority now becomes the minority. Sigh, i miss the good old days. :[
I'm 22 years old so you'd probably think i could care less about this but i do.
Personally i don't want to have to be I.D'ed every time i buy a certain video game. I've never been I.D'ed ever before for either games or movies. I can understand for things like cigerettes and alcohol, but for a fuckin' game with some fake pixilated violence, Come On!
Are these games really that bad for high school teens age 14 and up. With the possible exception of maybe Manhunt and a few others, i don't think so.
Listen, i'm all for parents deciding what's appropriate or not for their children. If they don't want them playing violent games or even reading Harry Potter books then that's fine with me. It's their right as a parent, BUT, i don't believe we need the government involved in this. I'm a staunch believer that the government should not get involved whatsoever in what we watch, play, listen to, or read for entertainment. Leave it up to the individuals themselves and the individuals parents and ONLY THE PARENTS, when it comes to their children.
Just my $0.03.