This is a case that will be going to the Supreme Court and basically, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be suing Entertainment Merchants Association because allow underage children play violent video games where you can have sex, use sex toys, and murder people. He believes that children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to play games that are rated M for Mature.
Personally, I think he will win. I don't think the Supreme Court would think it'd be fine to let children do that. I wish they wouldn't vote in favour of it, but I think it'll be at least 7-2.
This already happens, to some degree. If you remember the 'Hot Coffee' incident of Grand Theft Auto, than any of the games that had the part were only available to 18+, while the modified games that didn't could be brought by anyone.
This would just be another example of Parens Patrie. I think a parent should decide what games their child plays, rather than the state.
Arnold Schwarzenegger will be suing Entertainment Merchants Association because allow underage children play violent video games where you can have sex, use sex toys, and murder people. He believes that children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to play games that are rated M for Mature.
Sorry, but uhh....whose fault is it again? The children? Or the parents? Should the EMA be the one at fault? They aren't the ones who are allowing the children to play the games. They are just selling them.
Guys, stop spamming this thread. Now, who do you think will win?
I honestly can't say. I'd THINK that EMA would win, because it's the parents responsibility to watch what their kids play, not the seller of the game. They put a rating on it. If the parent wants to be so stupid as to just by their 8 year old M rated games, well, that's their problem. Knowing that some person can spill coffee on themselves from MCDonalds and win makes me lose all faith in the system though.
I honestly can't say. I'd THINK that EMA would win, because it's the parents responsibility to watch what their kids play, not the seller of the game. They put a rating on it. If the parent wants to be so stupid as to just by their 8 year old M rated games, well, that's their problem. Knowing that some person can spill coffee on themselves from MCDonalds and win makes me lose all faith in the system though.
Well, it could go either way. There is the fact that the Supreme Court could believe that since they put the ratings it is up to the parents, but at the same time, what do the ratings do other than serve as a guideline to neglectful parents? Even then, it does nothing.
It would seem like EMA will win, but if it is possible to enforce the law that no child under the age of 17 can see a rated R movie without parental admission, it should be easy. If the vendor notices that what the parent is buying for the child is not suitable for his age, he could not allow him to buy it. It is as easy as enforcing the no persons under 21 can drink law.
Which brings me to my next point; just like alcohol is unhealthy for young children, violent video games can be deemed mentally unhealthy to young children. It could go either way, but Schwarzenegger just has a stronger argument, even though it makes more sense to side with EMA.
Parent buys kid video game. Kid plays game at home. No one the wiser. Hard to enforce. I also doubt this will pass as similar suits brought to the court all failed.
Which brings me to my next point; just like alcohol is unhealthy for young children, violent video games can be deemed mentally unhealthy to young children.
I disagree with the gaming part. I can understand how Alcohol can be harmful, it is after all a Toxin technically. But gaming is just an idea, and I think it just depends on the person how it would affect them. I don't believe that it would make a difference how a particular person reacts to it after like age 10, where they are old enough to think for themselves and not always look to someone else. Of course, if you're like 6 and playing grand theft auto, that does seem like it could be problematic in some cases.
