More boobies, less violence
I have conflicted feelings on the recent violent video games ruling (for those who haven't seen it: the US Supreme Court ruled that California could not ban the sale of violent video games to children, as it violated the first amendment protecting free speech). On the one hand, I do like the whole 'free speech' idea, and wish we had something similar to the first amendment over here.
But at the same time, I'm not opposed to restricting the sale of violent video games (and violent films) to adults only. If I had a ten year old child then I wouldn't particularly want them playing Postal 2, although I've spent many enjoyable hours playing it myself. And yes, it would be my job as a parent to ensure that they weren't playing it, but that doesn't mean that age guidelines shouldn't be enforced. It would be my job as a parent to ensure that my children weren't drinking cheap cider, but that doesn't mean that shops should be allowed to sell it to them.
And one thing I find curious is the selective implementation of the first amendment. Justice Stephen Breyer (one of the two dissenting votes) put it rather well:"What sense does it make 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?
What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"
As quoted in Free-Speech Rulings: Violent Video Games vs. Sexual Images
Long-time readers of this journal will possibly remember that this is a point which has baffled me for quite some time. This entry from nine years ago (nine years and three days, to be exact) has an interesting, if somewhat clumsily portrayed, perspective. And elsewhere I've written about my uncle and Live TV.Among its programmes were Topless Darts, with commentary by comedian Jimmy Frinton. Other features were the weather, read in Norwegian by a blonde model (Eva Bjertnes or Anne-Marie Foss) wearing a bikini, Britain's Bounciest Weather with Rusty Goffe (known, although uncredited, for his appearance as an Oompa Loompa in the 1971 film Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory) who due to his small stature bounced on a trampoline while doing the forecast (bouncing higher the further north he was talking about), Tiffany's Big City Tips, in which model Tiffany Banister gave the financial news while stripping to her underwear, Painted Ladies, which involved topless girls "painting" on large sheets of paper with various body parts and the News Bunny, a person in a rabbit suit who stood behind a newsreader making gestures and expressions for each item.
Live TV was everything I wanted in a cable channel (naked women and weird shit) and I was quite sad when it ended in 1999. I used to watch it at my uncle's house, because he was the only person I knew with cable TV. And he would always be concerned about the kids seeing the later coverage, when the boobies came out. And yet he had no problem with them watching films like Robocop, which feature brutal violence (I think the scene where they're blowing pieces off Murphy with a shotgun gave me nightmares as a child).
I have no idea why this attitude is so prevalent. What possible harm is going to come to a child who sees boobies? Even if those boobies are jiggling as the woman throws darts, or are covered in paint as the woman rolls around on a giant canvas. I certainly wouldn't encourage children to watch porn, especially the more hardcore variety, but I have to think that it's going to do less harm to them than watching brutal violence. Having sex is generally a good thing, killing people is generally a bad thing. Why are we happier for our children to watch the latter than the former?
Free speech should be protected, but certain restrictions to protect children seem reasonable, as children have a poorer ability to distinguish between fictional representations of reality and reality itself. And protecting one kind of free speech - decapitating schoolgirls with a shovel (one of many fun things you can do in Postal 2) - while heavily restricting another - boobies - is ridiculous at best.
But at the same time, I'm not opposed to restricting the sale of violent video games (and violent films) to adults only. If I had a ten year old child then I wouldn't particularly want them playing Postal 2, although I've spent many enjoyable hours playing it myself. And yes, it would be my job as a parent to ensure that they weren't playing it, but that doesn't mean that age guidelines shouldn't be enforced. It would be my job as a parent to ensure that my children weren't drinking cheap cider, but that doesn't mean that shops should be allowed to sell it to them.
And one thing I find curious is the selective implementation of the first amendment. Justice Stephen Breyer (one of the two dissenting votes) put it rather well:"What sense does it make 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?
What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"
As quoted in Free-Speech Rulings: Violent Video Games vs. Sexual Images
Long-time readers of this journal will possibly remember that this is a point which has baffled me for quite some time. This entry from nine years ago (nine years and three days, to be exact) has an interesting, if somewhat clumsily portrayed, perspective. And elsewhere I've written about my uncle and Live TV.Among its programmes were Topless Darts, with commentary by comedian Jimmy Frinton. Other features were the weather, read in Norwegian by a blonde model (Eva Bjertnes or Anne-Marie Foss) wearing a bikini, Britain's Bounciest Weather with Rusty Goffe (known, although uncredited, for his appearance as an Oompa Loompa in the 1971 film Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory) who due to his small stature bounced on a trampoline while doing the forecast (bouncing higher the further north he was talking about), Tiffany's Big City Tips, in which model Tiffany Banister gave the financial news while stripping to her underwear, Painted Ladies, which involved topless girls "painting" on large sheets of paper with various body parts and the News Bunny, a person in a rabbit suit who stood behind a newsreader making gestures and expressions for each item.
Live TV was everything I wanted in a cable channel (naked women and weird shit) and I was quite sad when it ended in 1999. I used to watch it at my uncle's house, because he was the only person I knew with cable TV. And he would always be concerned about the kids seeing the later coverage, when the boobies came out. And yet he had no problem with them watching films like Robocop, which feature brutal violence (I think the scene where they're blowing pieces off Murphy with a shotgun gave me nightmares as a child).
I have no idea why this attitude is so prevalent. What possible harm is going to come to a child who sees boobies? Even if those boobies are jiggling as the woman throws darts, or are covered in paint as the woman rolls around on a giant canvas. I certainly wouldn't encourage children to watch porn, especially the more hardcore variety, but I have to think that it's going to do less harm to them than watching brutal violence. Having sex is generally a good thing, killing people is generally a bad thing. Why are we happier for our children to watch the latter than the former?
Free speech should be protected, but certain restrictions to protect children seem reasonable, as children have a poorer ability to distinguish between fictional representations of reality and reality itself. And protecting one kind of free speech - decapitating schoolgirls with a shovel (one of many fun things you can do in Postal 2) - while heavily restricting another - boobies - is ridiculous at best.