Printable View
A free speech dispute over a California law banning sale of violent video games to children will go to the Supreme Court for review.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/rss/...?d=yIl2AUoC8zA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/rss/...?d=7Q72WNTAKBA http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/rss/...M0:V_sGLiPBpWU http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/rss/...?d=qj6IDK7rITs http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/rss/...M0:gIN9vFwOqvQ
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/rss/c...~4/O3XuUDZo1p4
More...
[way to copy/paste]
I think it should be perfectly allowed. I mean, seriously, that's what the rating system is for. If parents feel like buying the game for their children then they can buy it. If they try to buy it themselves it might mean their parent doesn't want them playing it, and therefore they shouldn't buy it. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Are they insane? If you look at the instances of video-game related violence, the only serious one, and I mean really serious, was the Columbine incident.
Take it from me, parents shouldn't try making stuff as 'forbidden fruit' unless they want to make their children try getting hold of it through questionable sources. The only problem I might see is addiction, but a sensible parent should know when to nip it in the bud.
Just because the games are violent doesn't mean that they're in and of themselves bad.
It's up to the parents to decide honestly. People can say "These games are very graphically violent" and "Therefore children should not buy them." If the parent feels like that's ludicrous and doesn't mind their child playing the game, they can go to the store and buy it themselves. It's not stopping children from playing violent videogames, it's stopping them from playing violent videogames behind their parents' backs.