After a ban in California that prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from buying or renting overly violent video games, the case has been brought to the Supreme Court. Some of the justices do believe that such video games are not the best influence for younger teens and children, but at the same time do not believe that this ban can exist due to First Amendment rights. Other justices, such as Chief Justice John Roberts, believe that it is not acceptable for such violent images to be experienced by children. He was quoted saying, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy - being merciless and decapitating them - shooting people in the leg so they fall down." Another side of the debate is that the violence in video games is no more than what is seen on television or in movies, so if the video games have an age restriction put on them, it would only be logical for the other genres of entertainment to have them as well.
It is true that some video games are ridiculously violent, for some because the violence makes the games easy to market and appealing to the consumer, while others the violence is merely a significant part of the video games' story lines. I don't necessarily believe that there should be a legal ban put on minors buying or renting the games. When buying games, I think that 17 is old enough to purchase them without an adult, while anyone younger should have parent or guardian approval. In the case of renting, rental stores should have a system where parents can approve and allow their teens to rent games without their presence, and they could also deny the rentals.
Source: BBC News - "Supreme Court considers violent games rules case"
No comments:
Post a Comment