DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - "California law to ban violent video games ruled out by Supreme Court"

**prmwsinfo** · 06-28-2011, 04:55 AM

They could, but it's reasonable to assign the responsibility of allowing that access to the parents and the rules of the house. Do you think that minors should be allowed to purchase cigarettes? If not, then there is a line that you agree with, defined by laws passed by our representatives, that limits what a minor can and can't purchase. My question is why is a law about video game content different than a law about cigarettes, when what is in question is the harm to minors. The line has to be drawn by laws, by us. The Supreme Court should not be striking down laws passed regarding what society deems to be harmful to minors. Constitutional law should not be applied to the limitations that we as a society place on minors. It's ridiculous.

So society can decide to pass any law it wants now? That is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place, to prevent mob rule. Cigarettes actually cause physical harm to anyone who smokes them. It has been shown time and time again that there is no link AT ALL to the viewing of violent images or playing violent video games and actually committing an act of violence. Scalia quoted a doctor in his majority opinion who said "the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated `E' or even when they `view a picture of a gun."

Video game systems of today are not the same as the old days. Yes, the games are more realistic, but they have parental controls built in. You want the parent to allow access and that is what this does. If you have any of the current generation of consoles you can have it not play games of a certain rating. The same is true of DVD/Blu-ray players. If you are a parent and you have not adjusted these settings then that is YOUR fault and no action by the government or a retail store is going to fix that for you.

You ignored my point about what is available online. Any kid is going to have easier access to an unrestricted internet connection than an unrestricted video game console. Not to mention that a computer can play games and many are easily downloadable with little or no oversight. (read: click here to confirm you are XX years old. It is pretty much the honor system on most sites.) Back in our day we might have had to watch the scrambled bars on blocked channels or hope that our parents were not aware that it was Showtime's free preview weekend, but today any kid can get access to that stuff quite easily.

These laws are an unnecessary infringement on free speech and reinforce the attitude that the government knows better than you what your kids should be doing.

06-28-2011, 04:55 AM	#13
prmwsinfo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 518 Senior Member	They could, but it's reasonable to assign the responsibility of allowing that access to the parents and the rules of the house. Do you think that minors should be allowed to purchase cigarettes? If not, then there is a line that you agree with, defined by laws passed by our representatives, that limits what a minor can and can't purchase. My question is why is a law about video game content different than a law about cigarettes, when what is in question is the harm to minors. The line has to be drawn by laws, by us. The Supreme Court should not be striking down laws passed regarding what society deems to be harmful to minors. Constitutional law should not be applied to the limitations that we as a society place on minors. It's ridiculous. So society can decide to pass any law it wants now? That is precisely why we have a Constitution in the first place, to prevent mob rule. Cigarettes actually cause physical harm to anyone who smokes them. It has been shown time and time again that there is no link AT ALL to the viewing of violent images or playing violent video games and actually committing an act of violence. Scalia quoted a doctor in his majority opinion who said "the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated `E' or even when they `view a picture of a gun." Video game systems of today are not the same as the old days. Yes, the games are more realistic, but they have parental controls built in. You want the parent to allow access and that is what this does. If you have any of the current generation of consoles you can have it not play games of a certain rating. The same is true of DVD/Blu-ray players. If you are a parent and you have not adjusted these settings then that is YOUR fault and no action by the government or a retail store is going to fix that for you. You ignored my point about what is available online. Any kid is going to have easier access to an unrestricted internet connection than an unrestricted video game console. Not to mention that a computer can play games and many are easily downloadable with little or no oversight. (read: click here to confirm you are XX years old. It is pretty much the honor system on most sites.) Back in our day we might have had to watch the scrambled bars on blocked channels or hope that our parents were not aware that it was Showtime's free preview weekend, but today any kid can get access to that stuff quite easily. These laws are an unnecessary infringement on free speech and reinforce the attitude that the government knows better than you what your kids should be doing.
	Quote