I forgot to post a blog entry before leaving the city for spring break. As I was driving, I heard a story about a court case in California that was recently decided on appeal. I then was able to find a few articles about it on the internet. It had a big effect on the way free speech is looked at in California. The decision states that a California law that bans the sale of violent video games to children is a violation of free speech. Games that were "patently offensive" to children would have required a sticker on the game that said "18" and any sellers who were caught selling these videos to children would have to pay a $1000 fine. What this decision does, at least in the state of California, is draw a line between sexually explicit material and violent material. The decision also draws a line between protecting minors from harm and attempting to control minor's thoughts.
I can agree with the court when they say the government should not be controlling anyone's thoughts. What I do not understand is the distinction between sexually explicit material and violent material. I know that this is an area where I would be much more conservative than others, and I know that if I ever have children I would not allow them to play violent games. I'm a fairly queasy person, especially when it comes to violence and blood/gore, and I tend to ask my mom or sister to "Tell me when I can look" when watching shows like ER or CSI:(insert city). I would not need the government to tell me or any future children I had to avoid violent games because I would not allow them to begin with. This being said, I don't have a problem with another parent making the decision to allow their children to play violent games--it is not my decision to make. However, I still think that minors should have to get parental permission to purchase "patently offensive" video games, similar to movie R ratings require.
I also think minors who spend all their time playing video games need to be required to spend time with people in reality to avoid events like this, although this again comes in with parental supervision and not so much government intervention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI just scanned something yesterday about new research by Sherry Turkle at MIT that relates to how the military now relies heavily on video games and computer simulations to train soldiers. The point was made that in the past when soldiers learned how to use weapons they were able to see the consequences in a way that they now aren't. I'm not sure that I haven't twisted her findings - it was a briefly viewed but provocative blurb.
ReplyDeleteGretchen, your defensive posture caused you to miss the point. I know Abby is NOT anti-gaming; she is anti-violence. I wonder if you would put cap guns into the hands of children, or if you would teach them to play the kinds of "hunt and shoot" activities children of the 50s ad 60s played in their backyards (such politically incorrect plays as cops and robbers or cowboys and indians). It is not digital gaming that is the issue, it is violent gaming, whatever the medium.
ReplyDelete