I had a fabulous experience this afternoon. Voting days are always special to me (especially coming from DC), and I never, NEVER miss voting--not primaries, not run-offs, and especially days when we had as many offices and judges to vote on as we did in Wake County, NC today. Voting to me is a right and a responsibility, a duty and a joy, an honor and a privilege, and a celebration and expression of what it is to be an American. And I feel that way whether or not my candidates are flying in the polls or, as is the case this year, looking like they won't be the winners this time around.
And ever since my son was born, he has accompanied me to every vote on every election. With the low numbers of young people voting (although that figure certainly went up in the last presidential election), I hope that I can convey to him what a gift it is to be able to vote, and that he will come to participate as whole-heartedly as I do. So we have tended to make Election Day kind of a party day, and we usually have a special lunch or dinner or something to make it a festive occasion (in addition to getting to stand in line, fill out our ballet, insert it in the machine, and proudly wear our "I Voted" sticker for the rest of the day).
But now that he is a middle schooler, he is beginning to think about these things a little more carefully. I showed him the voters guide and we talked about it some, but I think he was intimidated by the idea of making the right choice for all these different offices (and frankly, as at least of couple of us were discussing at a curriculum planning meeting tonight, we adults are too). So he was asking about how he would be able to understand all the policies and issues involved when he was older so that he could make an informed vote.
Our polling site is about a mile away from our house, and since it was a beautiful autumn day, I decided we would put our "school work" aside and walk over there. Walking is better for the environment (he did say that I should vote for the candidate who would protect the trees), better for our health, and better for making this a more memorable occasion.
What I didn't realize was that walking would be a better time for us to discuss the many topics related to today's vote. We discussed the branches of government, the rotating system of who gets elected when and how it is designed to always have some continuity and have some change, and the system of checks and balances build into the American system of government. We talked about the different levels of courts and why why we were voting for so many different offices--federal, state, and county (our town elections are held on off years). We reviewed some of what we had studied last year about the Constitution and explored what areas it covers and what it doesn't. We also brought up the fact that today the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors (a topic I discussed in a previous post) and what "free speech" really means. We walked by a sign in one neighbor's yard that was saying something derogatory about the national Speaker of the House, and noted that was covered by the free speech clause. But what if it said something bad about the U.S. President? What if it urged violence against the President? And how does the new technology effect the idea of free speech in general?
And to top it off, these dialogues were also interspersed with him pointing out various plants that he has been learning about in the nature hikes led by a local biologist that we've been taking this month.
In short, we put aside our work to enjoy this day of civic involvement. But I bet it also ends up being one of the most educational discussions we have all week. It's a great reminder, when we find ourselves caught up with curriculum planning and enrolling our children in educational programs and participating in extracurriculur activities, etc., that, to paraphrase John Lennon, sometimes learning, just like life, is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans.
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Should the Government Ban Minors from Buying Violent Video Games?
Next Tuesday, two wonderful expressions of our democratic government will take place. For millions of us, Tuesday will be the day we vote for our U.S. Congressional Representatives and a host of other state or local officials (the others, I'm sure, have already voted by early ballot). Meanwhile, in our nation's capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing arguments about whether or not the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution extend to video games.
On Tuesday, November 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), which deals with a 2005 California law that restricts the sale of certain violent video games to people under 18. The law was overturned by the California courts for being unconstitutional, but the US Supreme Court agreed to consider the matter when the state of California appealed the decision.
On one side of the issue are various parent groups, who cite studies that linke playing violent video games to actual acts of violence, and argue that we should restrict children's access to such dangerous items just as we refuse to allow them to buy cigarettes or alcohol. On the other side are civil libertarians and media groups, particularly the game developers themselves, who argue that with their ever-increasing ability for interaction and interconnectivity between players, video games are a growing means of self-expression for tweens and teens, and denying them access to that media runs counter to their constitutional rights, which have been re-affirmed in regards to books.
For our particular family, this matter is not really an issue; we don't own any game consoles, my son doesn't play many video games, and he doesn't enjoy violent games or activities in general, so I can't see him getting into such games whether or not they were banned. And I can certainly understand the arguments of the proponents of the law. I highly recommend the book Stop Teaching Our Children to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria Degaetano, which makes a chilling case that time spent on violent video games (some of which were adapted from military sharpshooter training materials) not only numbs children to violence but gives them the skills to shoot with deadly accuracy, and was a factor in the mass school killings such as Columbine.
However, while I can't speak from personal experience, it also seems that the video games industry is evolving and has created some interesting games that lead players through the consequences of such violence. The game industry puts forth examples of more-nuanced violent games as "Darfur Is Dying," where the player tries to avoid being killed by militias while in a refugee camp, "BioShock," where the game deals with genetically modified people being used in a bad system that players can choose to either profit from or rebel against, or "Fable 2," where players face the ultimate ethical dilemma--whether they will save only their immediate family from death, or sacrifice their family to save thousands of innocent lives. Such games, according to game developers, actually allow teens to confront the moral issues surrounding violence and give them better coping skills if faced with violence in their real lives.
So in the end, I have to come down against the proposed law. I think it would inhibit the free speech that mature middle schoolers and teens should be having about these issues. And I am always reluctant to restrict civil liberties, which I think are already under seige with the threat of international terrorism.
So if Chief Justice Roberts were to ask my opinion as a parent, I would say the Supreme Court should uphold the lower court decision ruling the law as being unconstitution. What would you say if he were to ask you?
On Tuesday, November 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case of Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), which deals with a 2005 California law that restricts the sale of certain violent video games to people under 18. The law was overturned by the California courts for being unconstitutional, but the US Supreme Court agreed to consider the matter when the state of California appealed the decision.
On one side of the issue are various parent groups, who cite studies that linke playing violent video games to actual acts of violence, and argue that we should restrict children's access to such dangerous items just as we refuse to allow them to buy cigarettes or alcohol. On the other side are civil libertarians and media groups, particularly the game developers themselves, who argue that with their ever-increasing ability for interaction and interconnectivity between players, video games are a growing means of self-expression for tweens and teens, and denying them access to that media runs counter to their constitutional rights, which have been re-affirmed in regards to books.
For our particular family, this matter is not really an issue; we don't own any game consoles, my son doesn't play many video games, and he doesn't enjoy violent games or activities in general, so I can't see him getting into such games whether or not they were banned. And I can certainly understand the arguments of the proponents of the law. I highly recommend the book Stop Teaching Our Children to Kill by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria Degaetano, which makes a chilling case that time spent on violent video games (some of which were adapted from military sharpshooter training materials) not only numbs children to violence but gives them the skills to shoot with deadly accuracy, and was a factor in the mass school killings such as Columbine.
However, while I can't speak from personal experience, it also seems that the video games industry is evolving and has created some interesting games that lead players through the consequences of such violence. The game industry puts forth examples of more-nuanced violent games as "Darfur Is Dying," where the player tries to avoid being killed by militias while in a refugee camp, "BioShock," where the game deals with genetically modified people being used in a bad system that players can choose to either profit from or rebel against, or "Fable 2," where players face the ultimate ethical dilemma--whether they will save only their immediate family from death, or sacrifice their family to save thousands of innocent lives. Such games, according to game developers, actually allow teens to confront the moral issues surrounding violence and give them better coping skills if faced with violence in their real lives.
So in the end, I have to come down against the proposed law. I think it would inhibit the free speech that mature middle schoolers and teens should be having about these issues. And I am always reluctant to restrict civil liberties, which I think are already under seige with the threat of international terrorism.
So if Chief Justice Roberts were to ask my opinion as a parent, I would say the Supreme Court should uphold the lower court decision ruling the law as being unconstitution. What would you say if he were to ask you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)