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.
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.
Since when were any of those laws followed?
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.
No research supports this, no logic supports this, only what can be called wishful thinking supports this. And since video games have not been proven to be unhealthy, you mine as well ban Stuffed Animals saying that it teaches inappropriate behavior around animals.
Guys, stop attacking me. I am just saying what possible arguments EMA can make and what arguments Schwarzenegger can make. So far only two people have talked about what this thread's purpose was asking.
15 year old tries to see R rated movie. Has no Id. Is not allowed to see movie. Law maintained. 18 year old tries to buy some beer at a gas station. No Id. No beer. Law maintained. Vendors follow the rules.
15 year old tries to see R rated movie. Has no Id. Is not allowed to see movie. Law maintained. 18 year old tries to buy some beer at a gas station. No Id. No beer. Law maintained. Vendors follow the rules.
Sure vendors (as far as you know) follow the law: it is not like they go around saying "Yeah, I let my underage friend have a beer in the store" or "Yeah, I let an underage kid in to the movie!" but the thing is, it doesn't matter if the vendors do not sell it. If the kids really wanted it, they get it some how. As the old saying goes "Beg, borrow, or steal". Beer if famous for underage parties. I would assume R rated movies would be the same thing, illegal things that foolish teenagers take for parties.
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.
So far as I know a vendor cannot refuse to sell someone something because they might give it to someone underage. In fact if someone under 17 goes to buy an R rated DVD, they refuse to sell it to you unless your parent is there. And thats how it should be. Obviously you can't sell alcohol to anyone under 21, even with an adult present, but what that adult does with the alcohol is not the stores fault.
15 year old tries to see R rated movie. Has no Id. Is not allowed to see movie. Law maintained.
15 year old brings parents to see R rated movie. Parent has ID, is allowed to take child in.
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.
Game's are just an idea, but that idea can change your personality and stuff it can make you think that killing people is cool and gore is something to laugh at and make some more.
They do card people you know. It's not like every vendor is an easily fooled moron.
I've seen vendor's in Toys are us sometimes let a kid buy a M game by himself, they don't really care it's not like if would matter to the casheir if they sell it to a kid or to an adult. I think EMA will win because games are kinda a "buyers beware" type merchandise.
Game's are just an idea, but that idea can change your personality and stuff it can make you think that killing people is cool and gore is something to laugh at and make some more.
If that happens its not from the video games, its either some deeper problem or the kids parents taught them that.
If that happens its not from the video games, its either some deeper problem or the kids parents taught them that.
I always thought that those really violent games suggested that too you you ever played a game and got a bloodlust? Just started killing things with the weakest weapon and watched em die slowly? Maybe I got some deeper problem like you said but I think some games encourage that.
Game's are just an idea, but that idea can change your personality and stuff it can make you think that killing people is cool and gore is something to laugh at and make some more.
I don't have anything to back this up, but to me it seems that you'd have to be either a sociopath already or just plain stupid for a game to affect you so much that you think killing is funny.
