I don't know how you feel about violent video games, but I have observed a child get so lost into blowing things up on a television screen. With each new bomb his interest in going to perform these similar actions in a foreign country wearing the uniform of a United Sates soldier increases.
As you know, I don't support the unconstitutional wars we are fighting overseas. I fear this imperialistic attitude that is growing not only in the neocon ranks for the Republican party, but within the hope and change machine known as Barack Obama and company too. War has become the American way, and our founding fathers preached against that setting up a federally funded military for a common defense for the union of the States.
So why am I not surprised the United States government isn't more concerned about the violence in video games. From a Constitutional standpoint, I understand they have little authority in the matter. Perhaps they could justify it with the over extension of the Interstate Commerce clause if they wanted to get involved. You have to look at other instances.
To keep children out of movies that have sex and nudity, there is the rating system--R, NC17, X. Kids can't go buy cigarettes or booze. They can't buy pornography either. But they can buy video games that have all of these themes in them, and of course the theme of war.
States cannot ban the sale or rental of ultraviolent video games to children, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting such limits as a violation of young people's First Amendment rights and leaving it up to parents and the multibillion-dollar gaming industry to decide what kids can buy.
So why is it kids don't have a First Amendment right when it comes to the latest Jenna Jameson movie or the next time Pamela Anderson poses naked in Playboy? It seems like a contradiction to me, event though I am not trying to advocate for children to get this material in their hands.
I have to think it comes down to this, video games are now government/military rhetoric that glamorize war pushing kids closer to recruitment. They serve a tool of indoctrination that desensitize the realities of war.
I served in the Army, but my decision was heavily weighed on the fact that I might not come back home if I was given orders to fight. That's a huge decision for any 18 year old to make. Given the ability of video games to extend multiple lives and health points, that factor is reduced, and kids see the military as one big video game these days. I have seen this in my own home as I share my thoughts.
It just seems the government needs to be consistent. If they allow video games like Vice City, with it's collection of rape, prostitutes, and violence to be played with kids citing the First Amendment, then shouldn't all things be available to children too. These laws obviously show a contradiction when it comes to protecting kids.
Honestly, the bottom line here is this should be the parent's decision and not the governments. Parents should be vigilant with what their children have access too.
You also have to wonder how much these video games are having in making decisions on the battlefield as exemplified by the controversial video "Collateral Murder" where US soldiers fire upon innocent civilians in Iraq. Obviously, the loss of life in video is similar to the loss of a life in a video game, and the soldiers' reactions after shooting them is even more concerning. As you can see in the video, there appears to be no weapons despite the soldier's claims, which was proven as this video became mainstream. The soldiers are given the orders to engage on a van that was picking up the bodies. This isn't supposed to happen in the United States military.
No comments:
Post a Comment