Young Voices Speak Out About Video Game Violence

November 9, 2010 -

The Charlotte Observer offers a regular feature called Young Voices, that polls the youth of the wonderful North Carolina city on the hot button issues of the day. The latest column asks teens age 14 - 18 if violent videogames should be sold or prohibited from people under the age of 18. The answers may surprise you. Some kids think that it's okay for kids to play mature-rated games, others think they should have to wait until they are 18, and some think it is up to the parents.

First here is the question that was asked of these young people:

Q. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether selling violent video games to anyone under age 18 should be prohibited by law. What do you think? Should persons younger than 18 have the right to buy video games? Why or why not? Should restricted such access be left up to parents and not the law?

Now here are some of the answers:

Adam Kiihr, 18, UNC Chapel Hill: Anybody that is willing to pay for a game should be able to purchase it. If kids should not buy it then their parents will control it. Parents are most aware of what is best for their children and will only permit what is acceptable for their particular situation.

India Mackinson, 13, Randolph Middle School, Charlotte: I think that parents should have the decision on whether or not their children can purchase and play violent video games, and not the law. It should not be restricted by law and I believe it is unconstitutional. I believe it violates the right of free speech if it becomes a law that anyone under 18 cannot purchase a videogame. People should be free to make their own choices and raise their children they way they want to. It should be the parent's choice and not the decision of people that have probably never played a video game.

Andrew Apostolopoulos, 16, East Mecklenburg High School, Charlotte: I think we should keep things as is. Stopping kids under 18 from playing violent video games will do nothing. Most children play violent games anyway, and they are by far younger than seventeen which is the current minimum age for purchasing them. In short, parents will still buy their kids these games, even though they shouldn't.

Michael Kreager, 17, East Mecklenburg High School, Charlotte: I think the Supreme Court should ban violent video games but only up until the age of 16. Then the buyer has to show identification to prove they are of legal age to buy the game. People should not have the right to buy violent video games unless they are above 18. Violent video games can include games like Grand Theft Auto 4, Manhunt 2, God of War or even Dead Space. In these games, a person takes control of the protagonist and he kills people to obtain winnings and get to the next level. Let the parents choose if they should play the game or not. In my mind, kids should not be allowed to play the games.

Read the entire article here.


Comments

Re: Young Voices Speak Out About Video Game Violence

The question they posed was poorly worded.  They mention that the SCOTUS case is about violent games, but then don't include that qualifier in the actual question they ask.  And that omission is reflected in the responses.

On a personal note: I feel bad for Sierra and Tierra Moody.  Parents should not do that to their kids.

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: Young Voices Speak Out About Video Game Violence

Wait, what's this about the Moodys?

--------------------------------------

"When the Dream Of Zeal revives, the rage of the ages ignites into an Eternal Inferno."


-------

"When the Zealous Dream revives, the
rage of the ages ignites an Eternal
Inferno that consumes the world...
"

Re: Young Voices Speak Out About Video Game Violence

Of course, critics are just going to call bullsh*t, say the kids were raised wrong, or insult the intelligence of their parents, etc. No one will accept it, even though it's true.

--------------------------------------------------

"When the Dream Of Zeal revives, the rage of the ages ignites into an Eternal Inferno."


-------

"When the Zealous Dream revives, the
rage of the ages ignites an Eternal
Inferno that consumes the world...
"
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameAndrew: Im not sure Im the one to be explainging this really, Im not sure im articulating it right07/31/2015 - 9:20pm
Big PermI got to around 30 in tera before giving up. I liked my sorc, but I need better motivation to grind07/31/2015 - 9:14pm
Andrew EisenAh TERA. I made a video about TERA censorship. One of my more popular ones. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO26h9etTbw07/31/2015 - 8:52pm
Goth_SkunkI've been playing TERA all day. Just took a break to barbecue some chicken. :3 And Andrew: I'm using Cabal to suggest a group of people secretly united in some private views or interests within a community.07/31/2015 - 8:50pm
Andrew EisenI'd love to but I'm at work. But once I get home... I'm going to work out for a while. But after THAT... I'm going to shower. Then eat. Then prep tomorrow's meals. And THEN play video games! YEAH!!!07/31/2015 - 8:38pm
Big Permlol, ya'll are still going back and forth? Take a break and play some video games07/31/2015 - 8:37pm
Andrew EisenGoth - Are you using "cabal" to describe a group of writers or to suggest they all worked together in secret to publish those articles?07/31/2015 - 8:30pm
Andrew EisenMatt - That doesn't disprove the general premise of the various articles as that's not what they're about. Unless, again, he's talking about a different batch of articles.07/31/2015 - 8:28pm
Goth_SkunkThe difference between one voice being offensive and a cabal being offensive.07/31/2015 - 8:22pm
MechaCrashFunny how "you're offended, so what" flips into "we're offended, retract everything and apologize."07/31/2015 - 8:18pm
MattsworknameIts not the only argument he points out ,its just one of them07/31/2015 - 8:06pm
Mattsworknameidea that Gamers as the articel puts it, the "White male sterotype are dead, essentially was compltely false07/31/2015 - 8:03pm
MattsworknameThe video actually shows that the shaw study actually disproves the Premise of the artices by showing that the "Gamer" dentity, has no actual meaning to thsoe who use it other then "I play games", its not connected to race, gender, or orientation. So the07/31/2015 - 8:01pm
Andrew EisenWith the exception of a brief mention in Golding's Tumbr post. Even so, he's talking about gamer identity, not desire for diversity in gaming.07/31/2015 - 7:50pm
Andrew EisenI'm not calling his examination of the Shaw study into question. I haven't read the study nor seen his video. All I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with the Gamers Are Dead articles I've been referencing for the last year.07/31/2015 - 7:49pm
MattsworknameSome times sargon just goes off on tangents but in this case he was pretty direct and went through teh research in detail, did the whole first video about the shaw study itself07/31/2015 - 7:45pm
Andrew EisenWell, unless it's disingenuous twaddle but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.07/31/2015 - 7:42pm
Andrew EisenGotta be. The argument you describe makes no sense otherwise.07/31/2015 - 7:40pm
MattsworknameThat is a possibility, they looked like offical articles but its possible they are different from the articles you mentoin07/31/2015 - 7:28pm
Andrew EisenNot unless he's referring to a completely different set of Gamers Are Dead articles.07/31/2015 - 7:19pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician