US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether violent video games should be government-regulated

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Again, there is nothing wrong with social responsibility, but that should start in the home. Creating yet another law to control the behaviors of others is not going to fix this problem in the slightest - it is just giving government more power that it does not need.

I guess the only real thing we disagree on is whether this should be a law. I feel happier knowing it is there as a safety net.

But I fail to understand how this gives governments power when all it is saying is "don't sell inappropriate things to children"?

It's a state issue. I know you get tired of hearing it but our constitution limits the power of the federal gov't here. If a state wants to make a law on something like this, there's nothing that can stop it.... except the USSC ruling it a freedom of expression.

No, that's fair enough. Should be down to individual states but from another perspective it might seem a little strange if a kid would be refused something like "Manhunt" in one state because of their laws but be allowed to go to the next state and buy it there if theres are a little laxer. But that's just me.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:No, that's fair enough. Should be down to individual states but from another perspective it might seem a little strange if a kid would be refused something like "Manhunt" in one state because of their laws but be allowed to go to the next state and buy it there if theres are a little laxer. But that's just me.

There was a time where all states had different drinking ages. When I graduated from school in 1981 (the dark ages), the drinking age in Minnesota was 19. But one just went to Wisconsin (next door) where it was 18. Also, fireworks are illegal in Minnesota but legal in South Dakota. People here got here to buy them. But state law says you can't blow shit up here. So, if one gets caught igniting fireworks, you'd be fined a hefty amount.

It's all about state sovereignty. That might be hard for you guys to grasp, I think. Let's look at it this way; all 50 states here are a country within a country. Each state has a constitution. The only thing is that the state constitutions can't trump the US constitution. For instance, if the US says you can have abortions, then the states can't make a law saying you can. Or, states can't make pot legal because the federal gov't already has a law on this. But that pot ruling is going to be challenged here soon in itself.

Hope that clears it up on that point.

This court case will probably get thrown out (sent back to lower court ruling) based on free speech. Again, if the state where this originated wants to make a law forbidding sales of games like this, they're within their right.

dblboggie wrote:I have to say that when it comes to laws like this, I default to freedom. This law would give government yet another power it does not need, the power parents should be exercising as they see fit, and it would criminalize an activity that is not currently criminal. As Tex noted, there is already a voluntary rating system and prohibition on children buying overly graphic and violent video games. When my children were still young and living with me, I did not allow them to watch certain TV programs that I deemed inappropriate, including the Simpson's and Married With Children (didn't have the video game problem parents today now face).

And the argument that bad parents will ignore what their kids are doing so we need the law is faulty as well. Bad parents who aren't paying attention could easily be persuaded by their kids to buy the games for them side-stepping the law.

This law is unnecessary. And the LAST thing we need is yet another unnecessary law on the books.

It's one thing to not know what your child is playing on the computer, but to go out and buy them an overly graphic video game and thereby committing a crime is something completely different and not something every irresponsible parents would do.
It would only be a safety net, in case parents don't know what their kids are playing on the computer, they still know that it's harder for their kids to buy graphic games.

It's not a case of any of us not wanting this safety net. It's whether the federal gov't here has the power to do so... which it does not. I made it clear in a previous post that the states have the right to make a law for this type of thing.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Yes... that's the statement. I mean, how sick can someone get? I should sincerely hope there is no such game as this, but surely he got this from somewhere.

No game that I'm aware of as I've said. Maybe our other gamers can shed light on that statement.

There are games like that out there, but you normally don't hear about them because they're extremely bad and the only reason why people buy them is because they're so graphic. Most of these games you can't even get in a 'regular' store like Best Buy or something, you'll really have to go to a pure video game store that has a large selection and doesn't care what it sells.