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

[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

[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.