More boobies, less violence

[weemadharold]

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

Comments

[weemadharold]

Most game violence isn't brutal, like most film violence isn't brutal. That's why we have different classifications, so the milder stuff can be bought by younger people.

A friend of mine recently told me that her brother had played Fallout: New Vegas in front of her son. Her son then came up to her and asked "Why did uncle Pete hit that man until he fell over with blood on him?" Even several days later it was still in his mind, and he asked her "Mummy, is that man alive again now?"

Granted, her child is only four, but the balance of evidence (and I'll admit that I haven't studied this extensively) seems to show that exposure to violence in films, TV, or video games at a young age has a fairly strong correlation with violent acts, lack of empathy, etc.

And intuitively this makes sense. As a child you are forming your views about the world, building your model of reality. Everything you see and hear informs that model. If you see a great deal of violent acts then your model of reality is going to include violence as a normal thing.

Why must non-athletic children let off steam by virtually slaughtering people? Why can't they let off steam by leaping around platforms collecting gold rings? Or playing ten pin bowling? Or racing camels across the surface of Mars?

I think limiting children's exposure to violence has to be a good thing. But ultimately 'leave it up to the parents' is exactly what I'm proposing. Little Jimmy wants to play Manhunt 4 so he asks his parents to buy it for him. His parents then make the decision of whether Jimmy should be playing that game or not.

Of course there are ways round it. Jimmy could get an older friend to buy it, or he could find a shop assistant willing to break the law, or he could steal the game. But all these things are true of alcohol as well, but that doesn't mean we should allow five year olds to buy vodka.

[aceoftunes]

Hehehe I initially misread Postal 2 as Portal 2 that threw my head for a loop especially when it came to the shovel part. :-P

I have had strong views on this issue for a long time. I agree that no a child should not be able to BUY the violent game but I see no reason, if the child has shown the cognitive ability to distinguish a video game from real life, that they shouldn't be able to play the game. I guess my main thing is it pisses me off when they try to Ban video games like Grand Theft Auto from hitting the shelves just because Little Johnny might get his hands on a computer version and then stumble across a third party mod released on the internet that allows him to see boobies. I want to play a nice violent and graphic GRAND THEFT AUTO, I enjoy running around and virtually killing homeless people and prostitutes.

The good news is that California can be the first true Guinea Pig in the "DO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES MAKE KIDS VIOLENT" debate.

On a side note I play by the 5 and up rule. If a child is under 5 they should not even be exposed to anything violent or nude (well nude outside the family) and especially not sex, I am not saying shelter them from sex... but don't expose it to them that young... that's what creates serial rapist/killers.

Please forgive my lack of grammatical style.

[weemadharold]

I think we basically agree about video games: children shouldn't be allowed to buy age-restricted games, but it should be a part of responsible parenting to decide when your child is capable of watching such a game without being harmed. And this certainly shouldn't be an argument for wider censorship. When the average age of a gamer is twenty-something "Think of the children!" is no argument at all.

How can California be a guinea pig? The legislation was ruled unconstitutional, so California sticks with the same law as the other states. In the UK you can be fined up to £5,000 and imprisoned for up to six months for selling age-restricted video games to people younger than the specified age.

Is there any evidence that young children seeing sex/nudity are more likely to be sex offenders when they grow up? It seems unlikely to me, but I haven't seen any studies of this.

[aceoftunes]

How can California be a guinea pig? The legislation was ruled unconstitutional, so California sticks with the same law as the other states. In the UK you can be fined up to £5,000 and imprisoned for up to six months for selling age-restricted video games to people younger than the specified age.

I completely misunderstood :-P

Is there any evidence that young children seeing sex/nudity are more likely to be sex offenders when they grow up? It seems unlikely to me, but I haven't seen any studies of this.

I don't know of any off the top of my head... it's just always mentioned in crime shows. Hmmm now that I think about it I am going to have to look into it.

But there was the case of the youngest porn addict at just 5 years old. He became addict after he always watched it with his Grampa. I can't seem to find the story... it was reported upon by Reuters... I am at work so I closed the browser pretty fast when the only results were "Youngest Porn Actress" :-P

[weemadharold]

I certainly don't think it would be healthy for a five year old to watch porn, especially hardcore porn. 2 In The Pink, 1 In The Stink is definitely not going to be suitable viewing for children, but Channel 5 soft porn probably wouldn't do any damage (again, not that I would recommend it).

I found this page about a 7 year old boy 'addicted to porn' but it's pretty short on details.

I don't know. My gut tells me that while both sets of material should be kept away from children, violent material is going to do more damage than sexual material.