Reply With Quote
Your preference for slap fighting over topical discussion is also duly noted.
Your concession is duly noted.
Your preference for slap fighting over topical discussion is also duly noted.
I think it's rather obvious that video games should be protected, as many have artistic merit.
I think the larger question is, what decides whether or not a piece of art DOES have artistic merit? (Thinking of the old "comic code" here and how they banned pulp comics in the 40s/50s.)
The Court has been pretty good about staying as far away from that question as possible. They try and do so by saying what is not en led to protection as opposed to delineating what should be protected. It's like they have an easier time defining what is "not art" as opposed to what "is art."
But that's a slippery approach - and there are going to be some determinations of what counts as art when determining what isn't covered by the First Amendment. Nature of the beast I suppose.
But that's also not to say that conceptions of what is protected vs. not-protected can't change. If I remember right, the unprotected "fighting words" in the Chaplinksy case were something like "you're a goddamned communist." That 's said like 20x a day on Fox News now ...
exactly. block websites, don't buy them an x-box, etc. if you do buy them an x-box, monitor what they're playing. it's easy to do all that.
What's not easy is monitoring what's going on when they're not with you (ie at school). And that's the part that really worries parents.
Part of parenting is knowing who and what's around them. It isn't easy, but at the same time generations of people turned out ok without requiring a ban of violent art forms, etc.
nm
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-23-2012 at 04:12 AM.
https://www.examiner.com/video-game-...2-million-billA bit over half a decade ago when California legislators felt en led to protect children across their state by restricting sales of violent video games struck me as deeply amusing from the onset. Not because it would end up costing the state roughly $2 Million in legal fees after a failed appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court nor out of the sheer disregard for the First Amendment. But because the sheer bureaucratic arrogance on the parts of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, the Governor of California and State Attorney during this time in believing it was their responsibility to discern what content children should or shouldn’t have exposure.
yuppers.
Anyone interested in gaming should watch this:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits
Based on your statement, I would guess you would probably like it.
They takle all sort of thorny issues in a sensible, mature manner.
The one on free speech is here:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/free-speech
That said, there are some games where the violence is just gratuitous. When my boys get old enough, I am going to have a serious discussion with them about violence and so forth, and am laying the groundwork already.
At some point all that violence is, I think, unhealthy.
A little is all good fun once in a while, but a steady diet of it is like too much of anything, i.e. probably not good for you.
Video games as art:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode...pposite-of-fun
FWIW, vy65 misconstrued my facetious initial post and hence my tone. I think the law was silly and a waste of money.
Speaking of video games that are slightly more than being about violence, I'm looking forward to Mass Effect 3.
And the whole "video games as art" has taken huge steps lately with games like Braid.
So the word or the slang phrase "that's gay" can be in a video game? If that's true, Grant Hill will be heart broken.
lol bragging about your gaydar
Why do you want fun banned, Winehole?
that's a misconception
Yah I overreacted and didn't get a sense as to your facetiousness. My bad, dog.
eh, my bad for attempting to "have fun" with it. the cues can be pretty hard to pick up online.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions