Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sat Feb 29, 2020 4:57 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:23 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
That this game was even made is disturbing enough, but that 7 of our Supreme Court Justices saw this as a freedom of speech issue for 13-year-olds? God help us!
Quote:
A Free Speech Challenge for Parents

August 5th, 2011 by Dr. Joseph J. Horton


Should a 13-year-old be able to purchase a school-shooting simulator without parents’ knowledge or consent?

The Supreme Court says that freedom of speech requires that 13-year-olds have that opportunity. In a 7-2 decision, the court struck down a California law barring the sale of graphically violent video games to people under 18.

I have not seen legal minds commenting on what seem (to me) to be obvious consequences of this decision. If the First Amendment requires that minors be able to purchase graphically violent video games, does this mean minors may attend R-rated movies without an adult or purchase pornography? We have longstanding traditions and laws which regulate the speech to which minors may be exposed without the consent of their parents.

The research on the effects of violent video games shows that parents and society have reason to be concerned. Today, we are not talking about the games from my youth like Space Invaders or games that involved a cartoon-like image of a person falling over. We are talking about games with graphic, movie-quality images of death and dismemberment. Unlike a movie, however, which is viewed passively, game players are actively causing the scenes which unfold before them.

Yes, video games are pretend. Of course, they are. Even young teenagers who play the games know they are pretend. Yet, even passively viewing pretend images affects the way people think. Television commercials are pretend. We all know they are pretend. The reason some of the most successful businesses in the world advertise—even paying over $2,000,000 for a 30-second Super Bowl spot—is not to generously provide free television for us; it is because they have data showing that advertising changes consumers’ attitudes and behavior. Active participation, like playing a video game, changes attitudes and behavior more efficiently than passively watching TV.

Will most kids who play games that simulate school shootings live out the roles they are playing? Will most kids who play Grand Theft Auto steal cars? No. Very few kids who play violent video games will perform those acts in real life. The changes most kids will experience as a result of playing violent video games are more subtle than mass murder, but are still quite measurable.

For example, greater exposure to violent media desensitizes people to the effects of violence and aggression. What would have been abhorrent, or should be, becomes not so bad or perhaps even funny. Violent video games cause users to think more violent thoughts. Typical behavioral effects from these changes in thinking might range from not being appropriately moved by images of real human suffering to being more argumentative and disrespectful.

Space does not allow for a full consideration of the effects of using violent video games. I spend an entire class period in my course on child development discussing violent media. Among the well-established effects is that users of violent media are more likely to believe that crime victims deserved their fate. In addition, users of violent media have a distorted view of the world, believing life to be significantly less safe than it is.

It is true that people who are prone to aggressiveness are more likely to use violent media. It is also true that people who use violent media become more aggressive. None of us want to believe that we will acquire a taste for the distasteful, but if we consume enough of what began as distasteful, it becomes satisfying.

Make no mistake about it; video games can be a great use of free time. Research shows that kids who play video games develop better spatial skills and hand-eye coordination. They are also just plain fun. Yet the benefits of video games do not require gruesome images.

We endure a lot of ugliness to protect our right to free speech. Like Justices Clarence Thomas and Steven Breyer, I do not believe that restricting the sale of violent video games to people 18 and older would have strained the First Amendment. With or without laws that require adult involvement for kids to have questionable material, parents must be parents. Laws are no substitute for parental monitoring. While I find the Court’s decision disappointing, it highlights the need for parents to be proactive and willing to make tough decisions.

Dr. Joseph J. Horton is an assistant professor of psychology at Grove City College and contributing scholar with the Center for Vision & Values.

http://catholicexchange.com/2011/08/05/156775/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 1:08 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
I disagree with you on this one. Why should the government have the right to restrict commerce on video games? I guess the issue comes down to which is worse: violence or pornography? I believe there is a justification for government to protect minors from pornography, but those restrictions should be tied to age of consent laws. On the other hand, there is no age of consent for violence. We expose even the youngest of children to cartoon violence, which is what I believe these video games amount to.

If you want kids to stop buying the violent games, parents groups should put more pressure on the retailers to abide by the ratings system in place. It seems to work fairly well for the MPAA ratings of movies, which have no legal authority backing them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:08 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
It is proven that violent games contribute to violence - this one is a particularly heinous form of violence that we do not want kids to become "comfortable" with. I have problems with it being available at all, but I cannot see why there would be an issue with intervention when it comes to purchases made by minors - this is at least as bad as cigarettes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 2:21 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:27 am
Posts: 200
Location: New Ulm, MN
Likes: 40
Liked: 29
All I can do is shake my head at the people who would offer these things to children. We rate movies "R" for language, sex, and violence and they are restricted by age because it was recognized that they are harmful to children. How are these games different? Whether it is language, sex, or violence, exposure to it dulls the conscience toward these things.

Adults are supposed to be able to make wise decisions and say "no" to those things that are harmful for themselves. They are to sensitize their children so they can be discerning because they have not developed that ability. This is another example of how we are losing a grip on shaping our children. It can be argued that by giving minor children such rights, the rights of parents are being trampled on.

_________________
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." (Proverbs 3:5)



Post by maryjthom Liked by: justgrace
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:28 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
It is proven that violent games contribute to violence - this one is a particularly heinous form of violence that we do not want kids to become "comfortable" with. I have problems with it being available at all, but I cannot see why there would be an issue with intervention when it comes to purchases made by minors - this is at least as bad as cigarettes.

You mean government intervention? Do you mean there should be a unelected bureaucrat employed by taxpayers to review the video games on the market and make a ruling as to whether the violence contained within is "graphic"? Maybe you're right. Those games might lead to actual violence. But shouldn't we also have a guy passing judgement on sports games? Kids could get injured if they emulate the pixelated athletes. How about a guy to monitor tv shows which portray promiscuity? We don't want to raise a generation of floozies and hussies. To be safe, we should ban the sale of certain books too. I, for one, thought The Lord of the Rings was too violent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:40 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Before this goes any further, I would like to know - are you for or against the prohibition of alcohol & cigarettes being sold to minors?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:53 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:27 am
Posts: 200
Location: New Ulm, MN
Likes: 40
Liked: 29
God's Word:
"Train up a child in the way he should go..."
"...Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

I was able to train up my children; I hope that my children will be able to train up their children to know that:
"Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things." (Phil. 4:8)

What "rights" does the Lord give to our 13-year-olds? He gives them the directive to obey. He also gives them the blessing of being able to learn from parents who have the responsibility to help their children grow into adults who will exercise their rights in a God-pleasing way. Hopefully parents will take that responsibility seriously. I pray that this right is never taken away from parents.

_________________
"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths." (Proverbs 3:5)



Post by maryjthom Liked by: melopa
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:55 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
maryjthom wrote:
God's Word:
"Train up a child in the way he should go..."
"...Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

I was able to train up my children; I hope that my children will be able to train up their children to know that:
"Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy--meditate on these things." (Phil. 4:8)

What "rights" does the Lord give to our 13-year-olds? He gives them the directive to obey. He also gives them the blessing of being able to learn from parents who have the responsibility to help their children grow into adults who will exercise their rights in a God-pleasing way. Hopefully parents will take that responsibility seriously. I pray that this right is never taken away from parents.



If there could only be more parents like you, taking the responsibility and not delegating it to some nanny state government. The authority many so called Christians are willing to turn over to government will, with the wrong people in power, be used against the very Christians so willing to relinquish it.
Hence the CS Lewis quote I mentioned.
Anything imaginable could have been legal when I was growing up as my parents made the rules and we obeyed them.
Protecting parents' rights to actually raise their children, taking full responsibility in that holy task should be the only government involvement in such matters.
Guess for many the calls for ever more government involvement are clearly a cop out on their parental responsibilities, leaving that vital, God-ordained role to a an entity filled with bureaucratic corruption. Have they no confidence in their ability to apply the Word in this vital part of Christian family life?
Talk about family values and all that....

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:08 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Yes, but lamenting the parents who don't take responsibility won't protect our families from those kids going on a shooting rampage or whatever. As GH says, govt has to step in when people abdicate their responsibilities.

BTW, I have to wonder, do you also take issue with 13 yr olds not being allowed to buy a gun?

Frankly, the more I think about it, I'm wondering if this game could possibly be made illegal under the obscenity law...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:27 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Before this goes any further, I would like to know - are you for or against the prohibition of alcohol & cigarettes being sold to minors?


If we are discussing principle, then yes I am for the prohibition of alcohol and cigarette sales to minors. I am against government enforced prohibition.

If we are discussing practical policy, I understand there is a need for the government to enforce the prohibition.

Alcohol and cigarettes (and drugs) are consumables which have adverse effects on the human body, more so than any other consumable. Minors are not competent to consent.

Video games, movies, and books are intellectual content - ideas - speech. In terms of practical policy, the US Constitution protects these forms of speech. Thus the SCOTUS ruling.

QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Frankly, the more I think about it, I'm wondering if this game could possibly be made illegal under the obscenity law...
I don't think so. It would be judged by the Miller Test:

Quote:
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California. It has three parts:

*Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

*Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

*Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY