Love: Worse than Murder?

[J.T]

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a California ban on selling or renting violent video games to minors. The ruling was an important win for free speech, as the court said that violent video games, not matter how objectionable, are works of art in their own right. But the ruling also raised an intriguing question: Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently? http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2080289,00.html


Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the two dissenters in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, pointed out the court's double standard. "What sense does it make," he asked, "to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?"

[Abbey Marie]

I think they both should be prohibited. But the woman in the magazine is a real person.

[revelarts]

I think they both should be prohibited. But the woman in the magazine is a real person.

Not after photoshop is done with her.

[DragonStryk72]

The thing with violent video games is that it isn't even the kid buying them most of the time. It's their parents that buy the game for them, as though it's not blatantly obvious from the packaging of the games that it's of an extremely violent bent. I worked electronics, I've had a mother look at me and ask if Grand Theft Auto IV was appropriate for her 9-year-old.

She wasn't concerned when I mentioned the cop-killing, the rather graphic execution mode, the entire game system being built around violent crime. No, none of that crap was considered "objectionable". It was when she found out there were hookers in the game, and that you could heal up by having sex with them.

[Gunny]

The thing with violent video games is that it isn't even the kid buying them most of the time. It's their parents that buy the game for them, as though it's not blatantly obvious from the packaging of the games that it's of an extremely violent bent. I worked electronics, I've had a mother look at me and ask if Grand Theft Auto IV was appropriate for her 9-year-old.

She wasn't concerned when I mentioned the cop-killing, the rather graphic execution mode, the entire game system being built around violent crime. No, none of that crap was considered "objectionable". It was when she found out there were hookers in the game, and that you could heal up by having sex with them.

The progressive leftists will tell you that exposing your children to violence and sex will not influence their behavior. The game you mentioned glorifies being a criminal and gets the player to participate in that role.

Denying that it affects the person playing; especially, impressionable children, is denying reality.

[Abbey Marie]

Not after photoshop is done with her.

She's still a real person.

[DragonStryk72]

The progressive leftists will tell you that exposing your children to violence and sex will not influence their behavior. The game you mentioned glorifies being a criminal and gets the player to participate in that role.

Denying that it affects the person playing; especially, impressionable children, is denying reality.

That's sort of my point. I've played the game, but then I'm an adult, and it's my time to waste. It doesn't matter what you make the warnings on those games, the parents are still the ones buying them for their kids, and they are not bothering to look at the game to see what's in it, or worse, they get anxious about saying no to their kids.

Hell, Manhunt is probably the most graphically violent game on the market (game system revolves around finding new and inventive of horrifically killing people), and I've parents buy it without a second. The whole box art screams, "Not for Children!!!" and it doesn't matter, it still gets bought. There is no law that will get around clearly stupid people

[gabosaurus]

Solution to the problem: Don't allow your kids to buy violent video games. Be a parent.

Or perhaps JT is further endorsing the nanny state.

[logroller]

The progressive leftists will tell you that exposing your children to violence and sex will not influence their behavior. The game you mentioned glorifies being a criminal and gets the player to participate in that role.

Denying that it affects the person playing; especially, impressionable children, is denying reality.

More specifically, it denying the child a positive role model-- the parent. Ive no problem with a parent allowing their kids to play some vidgame with sex and violence; those things have happened, (except for restart)so it's a reality, but so is love, understnading and compassion. Show them that, and the video games pale in comparison.

[red states rule]

Solution to the problem: Don't allow your kids to buy violent video games. Be a parent.

Or perhaps JT is further endorsing the nanny state.

Like you do not support the liberal nanny state?

You are getting more like your boy Obama everyday Gabby. Just keep tossing out the one liners and see what sticks

BTW, did you forget about your own thread?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31537-Questions-for-RSR