High Court to consider ban on violent video-games in California?

[Firestormalpha]

FYI, this news source is religious in nature and does hold conservative views.

This is gonna cause some protests.

The Supreme Court will decide whether California can ban the selling of violent video games to kids. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the ban into law in 2005, but it never took effect. The law would have made it illegal to sell violent video game to minors. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," Schwarzenegger said. A federal court blocked the law, saying there's no solid research to prove a connection between violent video games and psychological harm. Critics say parents, not the government, should decide what games kids play, but supporters point to some studies linking violent games with aggressive behavior. The high court will hear the case this fall.

[Hivetyrant]

Well a lack of an R18+ rating here in Australia has done wonders!

/sarcasm

This article is a bit confusing so I may not have the whole story, but this:
"The law would have made it illegal to sell violent video game to minors."

I assume that needs some context, surely kids in cali can't just go into a store and buy whatever rated games they want right?

Maybe i'm just used to good ole' Australian restrictions

[kev]

In Australia excessively violent or pornographic games do not pass censorship & are not easily available. This doesn't stop people blaming vidio games for violence. I think that it is just a cop out, these crap kids are violent to start with.

The most violent kids in my area are the ones who's parents only spend money on booze & drugs, they would only have a PC if they stole one.

Kev

[Kakero]

Just get an older person to buy those violent games for you. Problem solved...

[Wolf Rider2]

That's what most people do. It's not just video games that make kids violent, it's a range of factors. Surely these people know that...

Banning violent video games won't do much. Kids will just get bored and end up attacking each other instead.

[Firestormalpha]

Originally Posted by Hivetyrant I assume that needs some context, surely kids in cali can't just go into a store and buy whatever rated games they want right?

Many stores in the US do have a policy regarding the sale of 'M' or 'Ao' rated games to minors, but there is no law prohibiting the sale (at least none that I am aware of). However, even in stores where the policy is to only sell such games to those 17+ years of age, the policy is not always enforced.

I think honestly it is the parents job to choose what they will get there children and what they will allow them to play in their own house. And if their children are overly aggressive
1) look at the games the play
2) look at their other media intake (music, movies, etc.)
3) look at their own parenting (many children will act out simply to get their parents attention, sometimes they're just mimicing their parents)
4) if they can't figure it out, go to a family counselor.

Media input does have an affect on childhood psychological development. Just to what degree, however, is debatable (as is my spelling). More so, parental input affects childhood development, or the lack thereof.

[Cerek]

There have been several studies showing a link between what kids see and how they act. Kids learn by imitating the behavior of others. The younger they are, the more impressionable and likely they are to imitate the most recent thing they've seen. A study of Kindergarten kids several years ago looked at this. When kids watched Barney the Dinosaur, they spent the next day playing "sharing games" among themselves. When they watched Power Rangers, they spent the next day playing "fighting games". So, yes, media DOES have an impact on how children behave.

Having said all that, I think it's a good idea NOT to sell violent video games to young kids, but it would be useless signing such an act into law because it would be too difficult to enforce. Oh, they might actually be able to enforce not selling the game to a young kid (WalMart won't sell "R" rated movies (and even some PG-13 ones) unless the customer shows valid ID), but that doesn't mean the kid won't gain access to the game some other way. In my own situation, my oldest son is 13 and his closest brother is 11 (soon to be 12). The youngest of the three will be 8 soon. There are some games I allow the two older boys to play that I feel are inappropriate for the younger one, but the reality is that the 8 yr old WILL see (and play) ANY game his brothers get, so I have to keep that in mind when I buy games or allow the boys to buy one.

I agree with both sides of the debate, up to a point. I have seen for myself how violent video games can have at least a short term effect on the behavior of my kids and I think it is a good idea to restrict access to these games. But I also agree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the parent(s). They are the ones with the final authority to tell their kids "No, you can not have that game."

[Chewbacca]

What a failed ideology that is behind these flawed Mommy-State type laws. Wasting all of our time while we face true challenges in a changing new world. Best part is no prohibition like this will stop a youngster from getting whatever game they want. So-called leadership looks like a bunch of ineffectual controlling buffoons, probably cuase that's what they are.

[ElfBane]

ANOTHER blue law discussion??? Are these things on a schedule? Can we take 'blue law' discussions off of that schedule??? They never change anyone's mind !!!

[robertthebard]

Millions of tax payer dollars thrown into a program that alleviates the need for parents to actually parent? I didn't have violent video games while growing up, but that didn't stop me from outbursts of violent behavior. What did? A swift kick in the ass from my parents. BTW, we should all consider that some of Arnold's movies are far more violent, and sexually suggestive, than any video games. Way to bite the hand that fed you Arnold.

A far better, and cheaper measure would be to hold parents accountable for the actions of their children. If a child gets a hold of the parent's gun, and kills/wounds somebody, then the parent goes to jail too. Where children are involved, there should be no accidental shootings. Pre-teen children shouldn't be handling guns w/out parental supervision anyway, and if the gun is left where a child can get a hold of it, then it's the parent's responsibility.

Ultimately, it's not the government's responsibility to tend to our children, it's ours, and if we can't do that, then we need to be held accountable for what they do. That will go farther than any other measure anyone can take. Making something illegal does not stop people from getting a hold of it. If it did, we'd have no junkies in this country.