So, yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States voted 7-2 to determine that banning the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.
Really?
It took a ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States to determine this? Please.
Listen, people. I'm a gamer. Have been for a long time and yes, there are some violent games out there and sometimes I buy them and sometimes I don't. But I also know the difference of violence in a game and violence on television and violence in real life.
The problem here, is lack of parenting. The people who want to ban the sale of violent video games to minors are just parents that don't want to teach their children the rights and wrongs of violent imagery in a video game. These parents are worse than "latchkey" parents in that they are hoping that they could get someone else to tell their kids that playing these violent video games is wrong.
It's not wrong. Sure, they're violent. Some are even hyper violent, allowing for settings, such as "Hard Core", which gives the player the chance to really do some damage to their opponents. But again, it's about knowing the difference.
Television is monitored by the FCC, which in turn tells the stations and the studios and all the right people about what can and can't be shown and at what time certain shows can air because of violence or sexual situations. But video games are not covered under the auspices of the FCC and therefore are allowed their own rating system (much like the MPAA has for movies).
Games that are labeled M for Mature are "supposed" to be played by older children or adults (like me). However, that's not always the case. Sometimes, a child is able to get access to these games because the parent doesn't pay attention. If the parents were to pay attention and actually read the warning label, then there is a slightly higher chance that the kid won't get to play. Then again, there are also those parents that simply don't care what games their child plays because it gets him or her out of the parent's hair for a little while longer and keeps them from having to be a parent.
I'm definitely not saying that I condone violent video games. I could even do without some of the games I play because of the violence that it part of them, but the challenge of completing the game in its entirety is just too much. Plus, the way the video game industry and the technology are going, violent games are simply becoming a part of the cultural landscape just as television shows, such as Deadwood, The Tudors and Game of Thrones have all managed to become cultural phenomenons despite the amounts of violence and sex included in them.
In the end, I feel that parents need to be more attentive to their children. If the children want to play a game like Call of Duty or Fallout: New Vegas, some sort of middle ground has to be found. Parents can't simply watch the child play the entire game and shun their little eyes from the kills, but a child can't be expected to simply be allowed to play the game by themselves and hope they understand that it's just a game. If there is plenty of discussion with the teenager as they play the game, then perhaps it wouldn't be so bad. Perhaps the parent could watch their teenager now and then and gauge the teenager's reaction to the violence. It would probably also be good to discuss violence in general with your child before allowing them to even play the game. Like I said, I know the difference, but some children don't because they haven't been taught or really been given an opportunity to understand the differences. This is why some children become violent - because they just don't know.
Some parents and opponents of the Supreme Court's decision will cry foul and hope that they could find another way to get their law in place, but despite their efforts, no law will outweigh the power of parents talking to their children constantly about how the real world and the world of video games and television are different. And that just because something is possible in a game, or that a player can get away with in a game, does not mean that someone could do such a thing in real life.
Until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment