Congress Sets Sights on Videogames

boarder8925 writes "According to CNET, Congress has set its sights on 'the purported problem of violent and sexually explicit video games.... A U.S. House of Representatives committee on consumer protection says it will hold a hearing on the topic later this month, with a focus on 'informing parents and protecting children' from the alleged dangers of those types of games.' " The article goes on to describe seven bills under consideration that either attach fines to the sales of Mature titles to children, or study "the effect of electronic media on youths." Five of them are sponsored by Democrats.

With regard to the editorial remark...

[paulthomas]

... the republicans and the democrats are two sides of the same coin.

It makes no sense to differentiate between the two anymore. Sure there are "polarizing issues" -- like them god damn queers and whatever else is on the docket today -- but for the most part it is fairly certain that regardless of a given particular cause, the cause itself seems to be a restriction on individual liberty.

Re:Get your nose out of my kids a..es!

[phopon]

No, you don't. The government has to be able to stop in and intervene when you "choose" to just teach them crap. Such as, oh, that having sex with their parents is OK. Or that there's nothing wrong at all with polygamy. Or that you can go ahead and eat human flesh. Or that it's OK to kill black people.

The government has a responsibility to not-step in, in these situations. In your example you say that government should step in when parents teach their children that polygamy is alright, or that eating human flesh is good... But there is no law against these things. These are morals, they are subjective and are up to the discretion of the parent not you or a politician. In the case of polygamy, not only is it not illegal to teach your kids that it's right, actually practicing it is also alright. The only part that is illegal is being "legally" married to multiple spouses, but having multiple spouses cohabitate a home is fine. You and I may agree that this is bad but it is not the government's place to stop people from doing these things that have no effect on others.

The government's responsibility is to protect its citizens from violations of its citizens rights. This does not include telling parents how to raise their child. Yes, children are not the "property" of the parent, but they are also not the property of the government. Laws regarding how parents raise their children should be restricted to making sure their rights are not violated.

Such things as sex with children as you stated are considered rape not because the government thinks it is (directly)wrong to have sex with children, but rather that the children don't have the mental capacity to consent to sex, so sex with children is inherently rape. This is the government protecting the rights of the child, not inhibiting the rights of the parent. Incest among consenting adults is not illegal(although gross and horribly wrong).

In respect to preventing children from buying video games, this should only be allowed if you can argue that the children's rights are being defended by protecting them from violent/sexual video games. If this defense of their rights outweighs the detriment to their first amendment rights, both I and the government think it is alright. This is the same argument behind protecting children from pornography.

Re:Damned if you do...

[Chowderbags]

Because a Constitutional ammendment would require 2/3rds of the vote by both houses of Congress just to be initiated, as well as 3/4ths of the states to pass. Currently, the Republicans are in control of 55% of the Senate and 53% of the House. It won't pass because there aren't the numbers.