Resolving the Sandy Hook dilemma

[punkndisorderly]

I've found that whenever someones initial thought is "There ought to be a law..." someone elses rights are about to be trampled. We have 20,000 gun laws and yet we still have people misusing them on a daily basis. That should be evidence enough that adding more won't solve the problem.

Yes, there are good laws yet written, but far more common are bad ones that cause more problems or worse problems than tthe problem they seek to solve.

[baldeagle]

I'm suggesting the same approach we hold as correct for analyizing restrictions on the 2A be used for other Constitutionally defined rights, such as the 1A. No, we certainly don't allow child pornography -- atrocities being forced on minors. If children were forced to watch porn, attend strip clubs, or play violent games, maybe that would be a fair analogy. There is a major difference between not restricting certain content for adults and risking that under age children may see it (age restrictions in strip clubs and porn, R ratings on movies, and M ratings on games) with forcing minors to consume (or in your example participate) in the same.

Wouldn't a parent who took a child to a strip club be guilty of a crime? How is that different from bringing the strip club home to the child? I'm struggling to see the distinction. Parents provide the venue, pay for the product and allow their children to access it. How does the activity taking place in the home make it different than if it occurs in public?

BTW, we're not talking about banning the activity. We're talking about fines and/or jail time if you get caught and it's proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

[hpcatx]

I've found that whenever someones initial thought is "There ought to be a law..." someone elses rights are about to be trampled. We have 20,000 gun laws and yet we still have people misusing them on a daily basis. That should be evidence enough that adding more won't solve the problem.

Yes, there are good laws yet written, but far more common are bad ones that cause more problems or worse problems than tthe problem they seek to solve.

TAM recently recommended the Patriot Post and here's an excerpt from an email I received from them today.

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be to-morrow." --James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788

Thanks, TAM; I have been enjoying their insights.

[hpcatx]

I'm suggesting the same approach we hold as correct for analyizing restrictions on the 2A be used for other Constitutionally defined rights, such as the 1A. No, we certainly don't allow child pornography -- atrocities being forced on minors. If children were forced to watch porn, attend strip clubs, or play violent games, maybe that would be a fair analogy. There is a major difference between not restricting certain content for adults and risking that under age children may see it (age restrictions in strip clubs and porn, R ratings on movies, and M ratings on games) with forcing minors to consume (or in your example participate) in the same.

Wouldn't a parent who took a child to a strip club be guilty of a crime? How is that different from bringing the strip club home to the child? I'm struggling to see the distinction. Parents provide the venue, pay for the product and allow their children to access it. How does the activity taking place in the home make it different than if it occurs in public?

BTW, we're not talking about banning the activity. We're talking about fines and/or jail time if you get caught and it's proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that we have more common ground than initially realized. While my initial comment says I would be for allowing minors access "in one word," that was more for rheortical emphasis. Banning would be a restriction which I could never support and if we have to choose between banning content such a violent video games or deregulation, I would opt for the latter every time.

In reality, however, we are not faced with such black and white distinctions as we are in the gun debate -- and my response was attempting to draw parallels between our examination of first and second amendment rights. Where do we draw bright lines on other, lesser restrictions on objectionable content? I'm confident that you and I have similar beliefs on what is morally acceptable behavior, but at what point do we codify our thoughts about what constitutes good parenting into law and penalize those who do not meet these standards? I don't know the answers to these difficult questions, but I do feel that it is better to risk underage access to morally questionable content than legislate it away for adults. The exact same statement can be said about underage or unqualified access to guns and I firmly believe we ought to be consistent in our application across different types of rights.

Just because I don't consume pornography or want my child to play violent video games, I understand I may have to tolerate others that do; I don't want someone who doesn't like guns or certain capacity magazines (or claim that a few parents are negligent in how they secure firearms in their homes) to be able to restrict my rights based on a similar rationale. A few bad apples, and I use that term loosely in the context of murderers, ought not to determine such absolutes for the law abiding.

ETA: We can be better than the ACLU, when it calls for the prevention of 1A rights infringements, and not advocate trading one right for another to save our 2A.

[03Lightningrocks]

Something to think about. The very statement that you have grown up playing violent video games and you still believe they aren't repulsive, proves that you have been desensitized to the violence in the games.


Again... I never even came close to saying the games should be banned. Which nullifies any and every argument made, concerning violating 1st amendment rights. I simply said that the rules that are already in place concerning violent video games should be enforced. Parents who are allowing children access to material deemed graphic and suitable for mature audiences only, are making a serious mistake. Making a law that penalizes a parent for intentionally exposing children to this material is no more of a violation of constitutional rights than penalizing parents who give alcohol to children.

[hpcatx]

Something to think about. The very statement that you have grown up playing violent video games and you still believe they aren't repulsive, proves that you have been desensitized to the violence in the games.

You're missing a critical nuance in my response. I never said that playing violent video games would or would not desensitize the player to other violent video games. I said these games do not inhibit the players from separating the violence in the simulacra from actual, real world violence. And I'd further argue that the sick kids who have perpetrated these crimes have all been discussed to lack the core empathy and socialization skills required to function in a community... and that this is independent of any predilection to violent video games, or correlative at best.

Your characterization of my attitudes towards these games makes several critical assumptions and is, also, correlative at best; how do you know that I still don't find these games to be repulsive or how do you know that the very first time I had played one of these games I wasn't already accepting of its content and didn't find it repulsive? This is a short coming in logic that opponents of certain content need to address. What is often touted as causal can only be shown statistically to be correlative. I'm open to a review of studies that take these factors into account, but everything I've seen to date misses this when establishing rigorous methodologies.

Again... I never even came close to saying the games should be banned. Which nullifies any and every argument made, concerning violating 1st amendment rights. I simply said that the rules that are already in place concerning violent video games should be enforced. Parents who are allowing children access to material deemed graphic and suitable for mature audiences only, are making a serious mistake. Making a law that penalizes a parent for intentionally exposing children to this material is no more of a violation of constitutional rights than penalizing parents who give alcohol to children.

I'm glad we can agree that violations of the Constitution are to be avoided. My concern is that you're opening up a slippery slope: Underage age alcohol consumption can lead to serious health problems and developmental impairment and can be unequivocally, causally shown; the parents are directly damaging the health of the child. The evidence for video games is not so clear cut. The rules that are currently in effect are recommendations for parents, whether they be R rated movies for M rated video games, for this very reason. Taking those recommendations and criminalizing parents for not following them is taking this to a whole new level.

[baldeagle]

The evidence for video games is not so clear cut.

Actually, there is scientific evidence that the frontal lobe is negatively affected. There are long term effects indicating a reduction in frontal lobe activity accompanied by a reduced emotional control and increased aggressiveness.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1284 ... ioning.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/ ... ession.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://web.clark.edu/mjackson/anderson.and.dill.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi ... text=wlulr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Arc ... y/EMES.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/n ... young-men/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hpcatx]

Thank you for the links. I look forward to reviewing the research.

Out of curiosity, what do you propose the threshold should be for criminalizing this? If long term television exposure were shown to result in reduced frontal lobe functionality, which as you pointed as is associated with reduced emotional control and increased aggressiveness -- not to mention correlate with increased incidence of ADHD, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia -- should we regulate and enforce criminal sanctions against the millions of parents who let their children watch? I'm not saying it doesn't "rot the brain," in layman's terms, but what's the threshold?

Moreover what about the epidemic of juvenile diabetes and weight related illness in our country? We don't currently prosecute parents for making poor choices for this children's meals. It's well documented, though, so should we criminalize this behavior, too? You get my point, as there are examples ad nauseum. I'm not suggesting that we should condone these choices either, but at what point will we wake up and find ourselves living in the paternalistic state we rail against when it comes to gun control policy?

[baldeagle]

I think if a child commits a crime, and it can be shown that the parents allowed the child to be exposed to violent tv or video games, sexually arousing material, drugs, etc., that the parents should be held culpable for the child's conduct until his or her age of maturity. I am not in favor of having "the games police" running around inspecting what people are doing, but I do think parents should be held responsible for a child's conduct if can be shown that they contributed to that behavior by exposing the child to "bad" influences.

[K.Mooneyham]

While I understand what baldeagle is trying to get at, I also easily see what hpcatx is getting at...which is how to draw the line. I grew up watching a LOT of war movies with my dad. I played "army" in the woods with my friends quite a bit. We constantly had firearms in our home, including a shotgun that was kept loaded by my parents bed. A few times, I got bullied at school (probably because we were poor and moved around quite a bit). But I NEVER had any thought of taking any firearms to school and using them against anyone (though I did get into a scuffle or two). I think its more about "home training", values and parenting far and above what material kids see, though I do agree that some is most certainly excessive, and in the extreme. I play video games and have for years, and have "shot" who knows how many zombies, bandits, Nazis, terrorists, mutants, and aliens...because I know they are just pixels on a screen and I haven't hurt anyone doing so...to me, its just like a computerized version of playing "army" with my friends in the woods as a kid, only this way I never leave the comfort of my home. Its just entertainment, period. SOME games are TOO violent, even for me as a gamer and I won't buy them...just like I won't watch graphic horror movies like those "Saw" things...but I most certainly watched "Saving Private Ryan" among other modern war movies that are very violent. I guess for me, its if the violence in the movie or game is GRATUITOUS, that's what makes the difference. The biggest question is at what point does it become gratuitous, and how do we make that call? And at what age is a certain level of violence acceptable to be viewed? I've talked to my kids about this kind of stuff, and explained my views to them. In the end, it comes down to parenting, and THAT is something that I think many of us will agree is sorely lacking in our nation today...and I am the first to admit that I have no clue what the fix for that is, or if it can be fixed.

[hpcatx]

In the end, it comes down to parenting, and THAT is something that I think many of us will agree is sorely lacking in our nation today...and I am the first to admit that I have no clue what the fix for that is, or if it can be fixed.

Well said. And welcome back!

ETA: Every night when I hold my infant son as he's drifting off to sleep, I pray that the world in which he will grow will be safe and secure... that as he ages, he need not fear his classmates and not dread attending school. At the same time, I pray that he will know the freedoms with which we were raised, albeit ones that are slowly being eroded. I want him to be proud of his country and strong in the fact that he can speak his mind, write his beliefs, and practice religion without wearing a yellow star on his clothing. I know these dreams seem like a far cry from the discussion of regulation on obscene movies or violent video games, but the road to tyranny is paved with small stepping stones -- and each increment is often traversed with good intentions. Our society may always have had these types of tensions between individualism and security, but I fear we are at a unique crossroads and that our country, or even our world, is at a precipice the likes of which is larger than most realize or have ever faced.

[talltex]

The arguement for taking doing away with violent video games and gangsta rap is just as flawed as the arguement for doing away with the civillian ownership of firearms.

Taking away law abiding, normal citizens rights because a handfull of people cannot use them responsibly is wrongheaded. Whether it be firearms, video games, or fast food.

Crazy people do crazy things. Evil people do evil things.

Aside from locking up the evil and treating the mentally ill, I don't see anything that will have a real effect.

I don't play video games now or in the past (do have some skill with a pool cue, which might be considered evidence of a mispent youth), I can't stand rap music, but if someone else does, that is THEIR choice and they have the RIGHT to engage in it. The last thing I want to see is the government passing more laws to regulate individual freedoms. We have plenty of laws on the books to handle those FEW who commit violent crimes for WHATEVER reason. We don't need to start passing laws against things just because "it MIGHT lead to" some criminal behavior. Once you do that for one thing, that slope becomes way to slippery for comfort. The same goes for holding any individual liable for the conduct of another without overt participation on the other person's part. If a parent knowingly gives an unlicensed driver use of a car and that driver hurts someone in an accident, there is a clear issue of liability. If that same kid goes out and steals a car and gets involved in a wreck, I cannot see blaming the parent period...but especially not under the theory that they are culpable because they allowed access to a violent video game. I have some friends with two kids...good family...the boys are 3 years apart in age...raised the same...one was valedictorian, full ride scholarship to private university, currently in grad school...the other son did well in school, voted "most popular", star athlete and one night, near the end of his senior year, he got into an argument with another kid over a girl, and he picked up a baseball bat and broke the other boy's arm and leg. His parents were devastated, their son went to jail for HIS criminal act, and rightfully so. HOW can you consider them guilty of anything and hold them criminally responsible for the actions of their son? Let every individual accept responsibilty for their own actions, and don't pass laws to infringe on the rights of those who haven't done anything wrong.

[talltex]

In the end, it comes down to parenting, and THAT is something that I think many of us will agree is sorely lacking in our nation today...and I am the first to admit that I have no clue what the fix for that is, or if it can be fixed.

Well said. And welcome back!

ETA: Every night when I hold my infant son as he's drifting off to sleep, I pray that the world in which he will grow will be safe and secure... that as he ages, he need not fear his classmates and not dread attending school. At the same time, I pray that he will know the freedoms with which we were raised, albeit ones that are slowly being eroded. I want him to be proud of his country and strong in the fact that he can speak his mind, write his beliefs, and practice religion without wearing a yellow star on his clothing. I know these dreams seem like a far cry from the discussion of regulation on obscene movies or violent video games, but the road to tyranny is paved with small stepping stones -- and each increment is often traversed with good intentions. Our society may always have had these types of tensions between individualism and security, but I fear we are at a unique crossroads and that our country, or even our world, is at a precipice the likes of which is larger than most realize or have ever faced.

There ya' go

[longtooth]

hpcatx wrote, "our country, or even our world, is at a precipice the likes of which is larger than most realize or have ever faced."

You are correct sir. I really fear for my Grandones.

[handog]

The evidence for video games is not so clear cut.

Actually, there is scientific evidence that the frontal lobe is negatively affected. There are long term effects indicating a reduction in frontal lobe activity accompanied by a reduced emotional control and increased aggressiveness.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1284 ... ioning.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1742" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.classification.gov.au/Pages/ ... ession.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://web.clark.edu/mjackson/anderson.and.dill.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi ... text=wlulr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://ww1.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Arc ... y/EMES.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://communications.medicine.iu.edu/n ... young-men/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"video games cause aggression but the effect is small"

"But in the media it’s difficult to say ‘oh yeah, video games cause aggression but the effect is small’. No one want to hear that, it’s not sexy enough. It doesn’t sell newspapers"

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ial-advice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Going after video games is for theatrics. Anything in excess is bad.