Throughout the semester, we have been discussing civics and more specifically, our rights as American citizens. Now is your chance to voice your opinion on a subject that is very near and dear to most of your hearts. Are Violent Videogames a Threat to Society? Or Works of Art?
The California Supreme Court is expected to rule later this year whether to remove First Amendment protection from violent videogames that some critics say are detrimental to young minors. Read the Wall Street Journal article linked above and watch the video below for more information. Then leave a comment on this post with your thoughts.
10 comments:
I do not beleive this law would make much difference in younger children playing "R" rated video games, because there will always be parents out there willing to buy the game for their children. In addition games should be protected by the first amendment because I believe that games are just as important as a newspaper or magazine.
go video games idc how violent they are they ain't changing me
i think that the supreme court should keep the first amendment even they said its not harming minors theyre just like everyone else they think its going to cause us to be violent and thats not true.
Well, I think it is dumb. People should be allowed to make any video game they want, however minors should not be able to buy them. I think they should just keep it like it is and only allow parents to buy them. I truthfully play war games, I was never into Grand Theft Auto and games like that. I have played them before however and they are fun. In no way shape or form does it influence me to actually react violentley. If a person will use an excuse to blame video games for them doing something violent, it sounds dumb to me. So I do not think its bad to have games like this, I personally do not care.
~Logan
I do agree that some video games are a little over kill with violence, but some other games just show you like for enstance (call of duty) it shows you the meaning and the feeling of what it's like to be in the army.
I think that they are both a threat to society and works of art, because if you should not let a kid at least under the age of 16 play a violent game because they are to young to be doing anything that has violence because it gives them a better chance of growing up violent. Also I think that violent video games should have at least a 16 year old age limit and I think that parents should not allow there kids to be playing violent video games. They are works of art because the people that make the video games are trying to make kids entertained but then little kids are playing the violent video games and then the parents would complain to the people who make the video games.
I think nideo games is a way to get some anger and some fun without hurting anyone. Most people take it to far and react what they saw on the game. Some of the people who are doing so is adults and teens cause of boredom. I still think its just a work of art.
I think it should be up to the parents to decide.If they think there kids will become very violent dont buy them for them.
In my opinoun it could go both ways Yes I don't think kids under 18 should be aloud to buy rated M games but we allknow that parents are going to buy them anyway so pretty much in my opinoun its the parents fault so dont blame the video game companies kids will be kids.Also games are made with alot of art therefore I also think that it is a work of art because the people put alot of time and effort into them.
I agree, I don't think that violent games have to do anything with kids who runs amok.
In my opinion are those normal games like very other game.
You also don't jump around strange just because you play Mario.
So all in all I totally disagree with everybody who says that violent games support violence in real life.
Post a Comment