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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
NeenekoSo "worked" vs "failed" really comes down to who you think is more important and deserving04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoThough I am also not sure we can say NYC failed. Rent control helped the people it was intended for and is considered a failure by the people it was designed to protect them from.04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoIf they change the rules, demand will plummet. Though yeah, rent control probably would not help much in the SF case. I doubt anything will.04/15/2014 - 1:35pm
TheSmokeyOnline gamer accused of murdering son to keep playing - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/04/15/21604921.html04/15/2014 - 11:50am
Matthew Wilsonyup, but curent city rules do not allow for that.04/15/2014 - 11:00am
ZippyDSMleeIf SF dose not start building upwards then they will price people out of the aera.04/15/2014 - 10:59am
Matthew Wilsonthe issue rent control has it reduces supply, and in SF case they already has a supply problem. rent control ofen puts rent below cost, or below profit of selling it. rent control would not fix this issue.04/15/2014 - 10:56am
NeenekoRent control is useful in moderation, NYC took it way to far and tends to be held up as an example of them not working, but in most cases they are more subtle and positive.04/15/2014 - 10:24am
PHX CorpBeating Cancer with Video Games http://mashable.com/2014/04/14/steven-gonzalez-survivor-games/04/15/2014 - 9:21am
Matthew Wilsonwhat are you saying SF should do rent control, that has never worked every time it has been tried. the issue here is a self inflicted supply problem imposed by stupid laws.04/15/2014 - 8:52am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, Government created price controls don't work though. They may keep prices down for the current inhabitants, but they are the primary cause of recently vacated residences having astronomical costs. Look at New York City as a prime example.04/15/2014 - 8:50am
NeenekoI think free markets are important, but believe in balance. Too much of any force and things get unstable.04/15/2014 - 7:25am
NeenekoWell, the traditional way of keeping prices down is what they are doing, controls on lease termination and tax code, but it will not be enough in this case.04/15/2014 - 7:24am
Matthew WilsonI said that already04/14/2014 - 4:22pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, The could also lower prices by increasing supply. Allow high rise apartment buildings to be built to fulfill demand and prices will drop.04/14/2014 - 3:48pm
Matthew Wilsonthe only way they could keep the price's down, would be to kick out google, apple, amazon, and other tech companies, but that would do a ton of economic damage to SF, but I am a major proponent of free markets04/14/2014 - 2:54pm
NeenekoThe community people are seeking gets destroyed in the process, and the new people are not able to build on themselves. Generally these situations result in local cultural death in a decade or so, and no one wins.04/14/2014 - 2:09pm
NeenekoWell yes, that is the 'free market', but the market is only a small piece of a much larger system. The market does not always do the constructive thing.04/14/2014 - 2:06pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician