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.
Goth_SkunkAnd just to be clear, that remark is firmly tongue-in-cheek, while also echoing statements made by those critical of GamerGate.06/30/2015 - 4:43pm
Goth_SkunkA fair point Andrew, and you are a very reasonable feminist. Though I would suggest that if you don't wish to be associated with the toxic elements present in feminism, I recommend disassociating yourself from them. Maybe call yourself something else? :^)06/30/2015 - 4:42pm
Andrew EisenGoth - By the by, you know how GamerGate doesn't like being painted with a broad brush? Well, I hate to speak for anyone but myself but I'm pretty confident in saying we feminists don't care for it much either.06/30/2015 - 4:10pm
Andrew EisenWell of course. Being a feminist doesn't mean rape can never be depicted in fiction.06/30/2015 - 4:03pm
InfophileIn fiction, it depends on the context. It's very easy to get "wrong," but there are cases where feminists have approved of how it's been shown (eg. the scene with Honor Harrington in the new compilation comic)06/30/2015 - 4:02pm
Andrew EisenThat would be an interesting alternate film though. Ray became a Ghostbuster to get rid of the spooks that had been sexually assaulting him.06/30/2015 - 4:00pm
Andrew EisenHe's not powerless against ghosts. That's very firmly established by that point in the movie.06/30/2015 - 3:57pm
Andrew EisenSo, if in the new movie, McCarthy or one of the other Ghostbusters has a dream where a pretty ghost goes down on her, I don't predict outrage (other than from those silly random no-name numbnuts on Twitter).06/30/2015 - 3:56pm
Goth_SkunkDream or not, it's still a scene that depicts a victim powerless to stop his attacker from engaging in an act of sex upon him. Even if he enjoys himself, it's technically rape. Hypothetically, he could feel traumatized afterwards.06/30/2015 - 3:55pm
Andrew EisenWell, he could always, you know, grab a proton pack and bust that rapey ghost! But again, it's still pretty clearly a dream.06/30/2015 - 3:53pm
ZippyDSMleeSo what dose GG stand for if its not been taken over my bigots??06/30/2015 - 3:52pm
Goth_SkunkI am assuming he's powerless to stop it, yes. I have no reason to believe a ghost would find itself in any way obligated to obey laws of corporeal beings. And it's not just about consent, but also about the means to stop the person engaging the sex.06/30/2015 - 3:51pm
Andrew EisenRape in real life? Absolutely (though "tizzy" isn't the right word). In fiction? Depends on how it's used.06/30/2015 - 3:50pm
Infophile"...it's rape. And that tends to send feminists into a tizzy." You say that as if rape isn't something to get into a tizzy about.06/30/2015 - 3:48pm
Andrew EisenBesides, it's pretty clearly a dream. Ray and the ghost are in some unknown bedroom. Then it cuts to Ray and the other guys in the firehouse beds with Ray rolling over in his sleep and falling off the bed. Looks like Egon is having a weird dream too.06/30/2015 - 3:46pm
Andrew EisenYou're assuming he's powerless to stop it. Maybe saying "no" or something would have stopped the ghost. Anyway, so, in your opinion, sex (oral or otherwise) is rape unless there's explicit consent?06/30/2015 - 3:44pm
Goth_SkunkBut, to be completely fair, that fact never dawned on me until 15 minutes ago.06/30/2015 - 3:43pm
Goth_SkunkAbsolutely. He doesn't consent, and is powerless to stop it because his attacker isn't corporeal. The fact that he's enjoying himself does not change the fact that it's technically rape.06/30/2015 - 3:42pm
Andrew EisenAlways came off as a dream to me.06/30/2015 - 3:40pm
Andrew EisenThat scene really reads to you like Stantz was being raped?06/30/2015 - 3:39pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician