18 February 2005

The Video Game Case

Here I go again, I'm climbing up on my soap-box about video games. Today on Dayside With Linda Vesser the opening topic was the video game case from Alabama. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the plaintiffs in this case are suing the wrong people. The attorney who was on the program representing the plaintiffs' point of view, was obviously stretching his remarks. Sounding like a "everybody is a victim" liberal, arguing that repetitive play of a violent video game promotes teen violence. That's bull. He actually said that when the initial thrill of the game wears off that the kids have to go out and commit the violent act for real to get the same thrill. This guy needs locked up because he obviously has lost touch with reality. First off, how could Sony Computer Entertainment (the maker of the Sony Playstation 2) have prevented the killings of those three men? I want to know where the responsibility of the teens actions gets transferred to the hardware maker. Because if Sony is guilty in this case, every computer manufacturer that made a computer on which child pornography has been downloaded is guilty of child pornography. And what about the game distributor? Take-two Interactive is the distributor. So, if a drunk driver kills three people in a car accident, it's the distributor who sold the beer or liquor to the bar that's responsible? I think not.
Now down to the two stores. I have personally purchased games from both. And they do follow the rating system. I had to accompany my 14 year old nephew to GameStop when Halo:2 was released to pick up his game because it got a rating of M. But his mother allows him to play it. Which is ok, because the kid know it's just a game. GameStop will not sell a M rated game to anyone under 17 years old. WalMart's POS system actually reminds the seller to verify the buyer is of age. So where is the beef in the Alabama case? The parents. The parents and the teen. It's the parents who are charged with raising that boy with a sense of right and wrong. And if he was so deluded that he needed to act out the game, than he shouldn't have been playing it in the first place. Therefore, it's the parent's fault. Not Sony, not Take-two, not WalMart, and not GameStop. A company should not be held responsible for engaging in the legal trade of their business. As long as all laws, restrictions, and guidelines that may exist in the sale of the game to the teen, or his parents, were followed, there is no fault anywhere other than the home of the teen. Mom and Dad are responsible for his actions.
We have become a society of victims. The vast influx of attorneys in America has produced an idea that no one is responsible for their actions if they at all can place blame, warranted or unwarranted, on someone else. We are a "He made me do it" society. And it's sickening.
Wictory Wednesday asks that you help pass the Social Security Reform package. This week you can help by signing the online petition. http://www.preservingsocialsecurity.com http://www.blogsforbush.com/


Post a Comment

<< Home