Games on Trial

[JDKJ]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

While I realize that this was a New York Supreme Court Justice, this story pretty much sums up the state of the U.S. legal system.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20021342-504083.html

So, no. It isn't all that surprising anymore.

How so does it sum up the state of the U.S. legal system? You might have missed the all important fact that "and their parents" can also be sued was what the Justice decided. This reflects nothing more than the age-old legal concept of vicarious liability (i.e., a parent can be sued along with a child for the harms caused by the child even if the parent was nowhere around when the harm occurred). Despite the obvious spinning of the facts so that it reads as if the children are the ones primarily being sued, the more meaningful subject of the suit are the children's parents (the ones who I have to assume are in the position, unlike the children, to actually pay any monetary damages which may be awarded to the plaintiff). If you take the time to search for similar decisions among those of any Anglo-Saxon-based civil law system, including that of the UK's, I'll bet you'll easily find a number of similar decisions. This decision is neither unique nor peculiar and hardly serves as some sort of negative commentary on the state of the U.S. legal system.

It's generally a good rule of thumb to believe half of what you hear and nothing that you read in the news.

What I think is a much better commentary on the state of the U.S. legal system is the fact that the second the California Governor signed the law into effect, a lawsuit seeking to block it was filed and, by all accounts, looks as if it will succeed in shooting down what by any stretch of the imagination is nothing more than a foolish attempt at censorship. Say what you want to about the Americans, but you can't say that there isn't a vocal contingent of them who just happen to think that the right of free speech is an important right and who will go to any lengths to protect that right against government interference. For better or worse, many of them also feel that way about the right to own a gun.

No. I didn't.

I also didn't miss the part that CBS got the story wrong and that the woman died three months (not weeks) later. I also didn't miss the part that the woman died from unrelated issues according to her doctors. I didn't miss the part about the judge applying an artificial standard of "reasonable prudence" to a four-year-old. I didn't miss the fact that the judge concluded that the mother had no active role in the incident but he is still alowing the estate to sue her anyway.. I didn't miss the fact that, while it is true that this is being used as an avenue to sue the parents, the children will still be taken to court and have their lives turned upside down at an age where they'll need booster seats just to reach the witness microphone. I also didn't miss the part that CBS decided to expose 4-year-olds to media scrutiny by naming names.

I also didn't miss the part that, despite all this, the judge is letting the lawsuit proceed despite it being a completely groundless suit. By itself, it doesn't serve as a negative commentary on the U.S. legal system. The fact that this type of thing is increasingly the norm and is not "unique or peculiar" does serve as a negative commentary on the U.S. legal system.

Why, if the reportage is so unsound and unethical, are you even sharing it? As commentary on the sorry state of news reportage?

Why is "reasonable prudence" an artificial standard when negligence is defined at law as "the failure to use that degree of care that an ordinary person of reasonable prudence would use under the circumstances?"

Why shouldn't the court allow the mother to be sued despite having no active role in the incident when the law, by the well-established principle of vicarious liability, routinely and sensibly allows for such suit? If a parent leaves their child without any adult supervision to engage in conduct that likely will result in harm to others, why shouldn't that parent be sued along with their child?


Why do you think a four year-old will be called to the witness stand and placed before the microphone when it is well-established at law that a four year-old is too young to appreciate the oath and therefore can't give sworn testimony?

Why shouldn't a court allow cases to proceed if it determines that the legal standards for early dismissal of "failure to state a claim" or "summary judgment" have not been satisfied and regardless of whether or not you are of the opinion that a case is "completely groundless?" And if, in the absence of either of those standards being met and putting aside your opinion of the merits, why would a universal refusal to allow early dismissal be any sort of negative commentary on the U.S. legal system? Isn't the preference of the U.S. legal system, as reflected in its procedural and evidence rules, not to dismiss cases early in the litigation process but, rather, to give plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to make their case, if they have a case to make at all, and only to dismiss the plaintiff's case once it becomes abundantly clear that they have no case to make a positive commentary on that system?

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing where you're trying to go.

 

[concietedgrl]

I didnt really read ALL of the comments here so if i am making a point or comment that has already been made than I appologize. Has anyone ever seen the film The People VS. Larry Flynt? I hadnt until recently but long story short its based on a true story about larry flynt who is the hugh heffner of hustler magazine who goes to the supreme court over a tasteless satire cartoon. Anyways its a First Amendment case in which larry Flynt won which made me feel a little more secure about this whole silly california/video game first amendment case because it has to protect freedom of speech/expression NOT taste. The best line in the movie was after Larry one he says to the media "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it'll protect all of you -- 'cause I'm the worst," Lets all hope that statement holds true.

 

[JDKJ]

I didnt really read ALL of the comments here so if i am making a point or comment that has already been made than I appologize. Has anyone ever seen the film The People VS. Larry Flynt? I hadnt until recently but long story short its based on a true story about larry flynt who is the hugh heffner of hustler magazine who goes to the supreme court over a tasteless satire cartoon. Anyways its a First Amendment case in which larry Flynt won which made me feel a little more secure about this whole silly california/video game first amendment case because it has to protect freedom of speech/expression NOT taste. The best line in the movie was after Larry one he says to the media "If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, then it'll protect all of you -- 'cause I'm the worst," Lets all hope that statement holds true.

"The People vs. Larry Flynt" should be viewed by all if for no other reason than it stars Woody Harrelson, an unabashed pot smoker, opposite Courtney Love, an unabashed crack smoker. Ya gotta love it!

 

[SpidersLie]

I dont mind people limiting violent games 2 adults but i have 2 problems with this law.

A)Vague: How do you define ultraviolent? Watch Saw 4 or 5 and then play Gta4. which one is more violent, more unaccectable? i get wanting 2 restrict kids from violence and sex, but how do yu define it? will it set guidelines for each age? and will differnt courts be allowed 2 make different ruling on the same game?

B)Unlike a movie theater, where a ticket is usually a free pass, i have 2 actually obtain the violent game if i want 2 play it and veiw the content i shouldnt. this reqiures me 2 either: get it from a freind or buy it from a retailer who has a clause, and therefore, employees, saying they wont sell certain games 2 certain people. on top of those hindrances, parents are the only peoople the law should giving the power 2 prevent there kids from violent content.
For Example, when Gta4 came out walmart wouldnt sell it 2 me. my parents bought it for me with my money. however if i want 2 see a violent movie and im old enough 2 be dropped off but not old enough 2 purchase a ticket, I can( and have) simply bought a ticket for a different movie and then gone 2 see the violent one.

I geuss the real question is why Video games when movies,the internet, and books, Including the bible, are just as violent if not more so but thre protected?
And,for the record, I dont think any medium of entertainment should be censored more than the current laws. they seem 2 work fine 2 me.

 

[The Atomic Lamp]

Good to see that the sensible people getting upset about what actually matters. The western world rapes and pillages countries for oil, manipulate goverments for their ideological and financial gain support free trade zones to stimulate their own economy. But someone taken away their rather average video games. Oh no!

 

[lead sharp]

Censorships just a lazy way to avoid educating people.

 

[JDKJ]

Good to see that the sensible people getting upset about what actually matters. The western world rapes and pillages countries for oil, manipulate goverments for their ideological and financial gain support free trade zones to stimulate their own economy. But someone taken away their rather average video games. Oh no!

Ironic, I think, that you don't hesitate to voice your opinions while at the same time attempting to minimize the issue of free speech. That's a neater trick than riding a unicycle while juggling three bowling pins. Bravo!

 

[The Atomic Lamp]

Good to see that the sensible people getting upset about what actually matters. The western world rapes and pillages countries for oil, manipulate goverments for their ideological and financial gain support free trade zones to stimulate their own economy. But someone taken away their rather average video games. Oh no!

Ironic, I think, that you don't hesitate to voice your opinions while at the same time attempting to minimize the issue of free speech. That's a neater trick than riding a unicycle while juggling three bowling pins. Bravo!

Commenting on the apathy and sefl-involved nature of a generation or culture is arguably more important than all the things I suggested as it leads to the problems I suggested.

 

[JDKJ]

Good to see that the sensible people getting upset about what actually matters. The western world rapes and pillages countries for oil, manipulate goverments for their ideological and financial gain support free trade zones to stimulate their own economy. But someone taken away their rather average video games. Oh no!

Ironic, I think, that you don't hesitate to voice your opinions while at the same time attempting to minimize the issue of free speech. That's a neater trick than riding a unicycle while juggling three bowling pins. Bravo!

Commenting on the apathy and sefl-involved nature of a generation or culture is arguably more important than all the things I suggested as it leads to the problems I suggested.

Feel free to comment on the apathy and self-absorption of whoever all you'd like. But, in so doing, to take an issue of censorship and then try to twist it into nothing more than "someone tak[ing] away . . . rather average video games" may not be the best way for you to win converts. You certainly didn't win me over to your position. Rather, my first response was to conclude that you're more than a little bit of an idiot.

 

[Baron von Awesome]

I normally consider myself a centrist when it comes to politics in America. I try to avoid buying into either side's propaganda, and usually find little reason to support any of the major candidates. However, what is really pissing me off is how politicians on both sides are starting to try and restrict our freedom under the guise of "for our own safety." I think it's pathetic that politicians think they need to monitor what people are allowed to eat. It's like they think we're cattle who will just gorge ourselves til we explode.

What turns children into violent mass-murderers isn't violent media. It may give them ideas, but what turns children into mass-murderers is living in a stressful hateful situation during their childhood and having no recourse. Either ignored or abused by their parents, tormented in PUBLIC schools, or just altogether having a rotten childhood. Not saying that all people who have this kinda childhood won't be able to overcome it, but this is what contributes to school shootings. Watching violent media just glorifies violence and gives them an idea on how to act out against their sad situation. Is it really that hard for people to understand this? I feel like it would be the first thing that came to my mind when there was a school shooting, not "I wonder if he did it, because he played Doom."

The irony of it all is that a man who got rich and famous from being the protagonist in violent media is now arguing for censorship of it.

 

[Dreslough]

What sticks out to me is the comment that has been made that Obama is "the first nerd president". Interestingly, his two Supreme Court Nominees appear to be "the first nerd Justices". Kagan seems intimately familiarly with Mortal Kombat. And Sotomayor is going off about Human violence versus Vulcan violence. Nerds.

Honestly, having two nerds on the court should at least help this case get a fair hearing.

I am so proud to be an American.

 

[Dreslough]

Either ignored or abused by their parents, tormented in PUBLIC schools, or just altogether having a rotten childhood.

One can also be tormented in private schools.

 

[JDKJ]

I normally consider myself a centrist when it comes to politics in America. I try to avoid buying into either side's propaganda, and usually find little reason to support any of the major candidates. However, what is really pissing me off is how politicians on both sides are starting to try and restrict our freedom under the guise of "for our own safety." I think it's pathetic that politicians think they need to monitor what people are allowed to eat. It's like they think we're cattle who will just gorge ourselves til we explode.

What turns children into violent mass-murderers isn't violent media. It may give them ideas, but what turns children into mass-murderers is living in a stressful hateful situation during their childhood and having no recourse. Either ignored or abused by their parents, tormented in PUBLIC schools, or just altogether having a rotten childhood. Not saying that all people who have this kinda childhood won't be able to overcome it, but this is what contributes to school shootings. Watching violent media just glorifies violence and gives them an idea on how to act out against their sad situation. Is it really that hard for people to understand this? I feel like it would be the first thing that came to my mind when there was a school shooting, not "I wonder if he did it, because he played Doom."

The irony of it all is that a man who got rich and famous from being the protagonist in violent media is now arguing for censorship of it.

I gotta say that the repeated attempts to cast the Governator as the leading force behind California's law is, in all fairness, inaccurate. The real force behind the law and its leading proponent in Senator Leland Yee. True, Arnie did sign the law into effect once it passed the Legislature and his name does appear in the case's title (as it would for any Governor in all cases brought by the State of California) but beyond that, he hasn't said too much of anything either way about Yee's law. I suspect that he doesn't especially care about this issue.

 

[Cairo]

I find it interesting that the justices against the law were more specific in referring to video games, whereas those against offered nebulous critiques (which were startlingly imaginative in their violence).

 

[ReaperzXIII]

What's that Jimmy you want? Gears of War 2? Hmm...whats that number on it...ah screw reading the rating and why it has that rating, here you go!

I'm more surprised this even needs to be argued, don't buy the game for your kid if you dont want him playing it, simple as that, works pretty well in England.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

It clearly isn't universally applied if if you can't "shout fire" in public, as this is simply creating the potential for short term rather than long term harm to others. As for obscenity, that is also tyranny of the majority and censorship, and an incredibly clear-cut case of it. This is the same censorship, just different justifications for it. I think it's far more obscene to allow Nazi's to run around preaching their crap than it is to have naked woman running around in a video game, but the censorship of both is simply the difference in values between our two countries. The U.S. is deeply religious, Canada is deeply anti-racist. "I may not agree with a thing that you say, but I will defend to the death you're right to say it." Apparently this doesn't apply to the great societal harm of nudity. In Calgary, we had white supremacists running around, and there was wide-spread condemnation of it. They weren't stopped by the law, and were in fact loaded onto buses and evacuated from downtown away from anti-racist protesters.

When did I ever say the US was perfect? I would have thought my position on the obscenity rules would be clear, given that I obviously oppose this law, and it is the obscenity rules that California is trying to use to get the law's repeal overturned. I think the obscenity rules should be done away with just as I think Canada should do away with the ambiguity in its guarantee to free speech. The "shouting fire" restriction is a different matter, though - the key difference here being that in this case you are deliberately using your words to inflict harm on others in a criminal capacity. You can be a racist in public and not cause physical harm to someone: that's the difference here. The restriction against inciting a panic is there to prevent people from infringing upon the right of another person to their own safety and well-being, which means restricting it falls well under the purview of the government. Hurting someone's feelings, though, is not justification to restrict speech. Neither is the claimed "long-term" prevention of violence against those who hateful speech is targeted at, because the violence and discrimination that they might be subjected to are already prohibited by law, making the censorship redundant.

So yeah, get rid of them both, is what I say. There's no excuse for any country to make exceptions on this matter.

 

[hitheremynameisbob]

One word, Michael Akiston (however you spell his name). Bloody stoping R18+ in Australia, why I outta....
But the point is that regulation of ALL media is needed, not censorship, but regulation. As in 10 year olds shouldn't be allowed to buy GTA4 from the store anymore then SAW III etc. You can't blame the parents all the time if the kids go behind their back and buy the item and hide it, by regulating it then it gives the power to the parent to decide if their child is ready and mature enough to watch/play/read/listen to whatever media tital they want. Right now the kids can buy it without the parents say so in the USA.
It wouldn't effect whats on the shelves at all, if the stores are already upholding the ratings then theres no difference, if their not then the law is clearly needed.
And I'm against censorship 100%, however this isn't censoring free speech from the public, its stopping kids from seeing things they shouldn't since their not ready, no different to alcohol etc, theres an age at which it's appropriate.

You're playing with semantics here - regulation and censorship are one and the same. If you make it illegal for some people to buy something, that is by definition censorship. No ifs, ands, or buts. "Stopping kids from seeing things they shouldn't," as you say, is basically just putting it in a nicer way. The problem here is that you're using YOUR values to determine what "kids should see," when this is a matter left strictly to the parents and the kid him/herself in this country. By saying that someone else will decide what is okay for the kid to see, you're implementing censorship, pure and simple. Now, if you want to make the argument that censorship of all media is required, that's fine, but I'll still disagree, and so would the supreme court. The only reason they're trying it with games (and only games) is because they know they'll lose if they expand it any further (and in the case of at least movies there's already precedent that guarantees they'll lose).

I don't blame the parents at all - if kids want to game the system they'll always find a way, but you're still missing the crux of the argument here, which is that this is censorship no matter how you cut it, and I oppose it on that basis alone. You're also missing the point about why it may affect what is on the store shelves. Really, just read the article, it makes this very clear. Enforcement will not achieve 100% no matter what - now it's at about 80%. If a fine is added as a penalty for failing, this guarantees that retailers will have to pay it at some point. How much they'll have to pay I can't say, but it's irrelevant for now. Thus, they will have an incentive to not carry these games, which MAY translate into an actual refusal to carry them. Even if it doesn't, it will place some pressure on game developers to make less violent games because they'll be worried that at some point stores will stop selling them. That's why people are saying that it may lead to these games being removed from stores, and that even if it doesn't, it will certainly still serve as a censoring pressure on game developers, even if it's only a small one.

 

[LordSnakeEyes]

Something I have a mouthful to say about:
I see arguments to both sides... (Although, as per the number of arguments per side, my opinion is obvious)
- For the Californian side: To be fair, gamers are a sinister and macabre bunch... We do kind of revel in death and gratuitous violence from time to time (notable examples; Teabagging, playing manhunt, playing God of War, I'm sure some people enjoyed that scene with Andrew Ryan in Bioshock... you know the one)
- For the Californian side: Another noteworthy point that was brought up is the "special nature" of games, more specifically in its interactive nature as opposed to the non-interactive mediums which are protected by the 1st amendment. I will concede videogames are, in fact, open to much greater extents of imaginative leeway of violent release than its non-interactive counterparts. However, movies (and many, MANY books) often delve into the darkest recesses of human imagination. Authors such as Edgar Allan Poe, Stephen King and Patrick Senecal (to name 3 of a very long list) often go into graphic, detailed and much more emotionally relatable (and empowering) depictions of violence (or even rape). When playing a game, the emotion one gets from performing an evil act is entirely subjective. Personally, I always play the "evil" side because it releases my anger or negative emotions onto pixel-based characters so I may later avoid unloading on real people. I have, however, two examples that demonstrate how one can "go too far" these games are Rapelay and MW2 (watch as I dextrously unravel the conundrum I just wrote myself in).
Rapelay is a disgusting example of rape glorification and I will simply put this one thing out there; it?s Japanese Porn. While that does not excuse the game's content, let us be fair, the Japanese are a weird bunch when it comes to porn... Lolis, tentacles, train groping... they have a whole genre that delves into the more taboo elements of sexual intercourse (called Eroges) so if you want effective laws against weird porn, ban Japanese porn exclusively (not a heavy loss for westerners in the cultural sense).
COD Modern Warfare 2 only truly ever ?goes too far? in the ?No Russian Level? in which the player is asked to gun down civilians. This was, however, a deliberate attempt at going too far (somewhat akin to the psychological thriller Funny Games) which, at the moment of it?s happening, makes most players get introspective and ask themselves where the fun in such violence is. Both the level and the quoted movie aim to break the fourth wall to call for a moment of personal analysis, begging the question ?When did you stop being a hero? When did you become the sadistic evil of the story?? This level, does, however, offer a potentially troubled individual with the capacity to exercise his/her sadistic tendencies in a consequence-less setting.

Against the Californian law: To begin my arguments, I will point out that when using examples where a murder due to a videogame occurs, people aren't looking at the bigger picture. If someone commits murder after reading a book or watching a movie, people will logically assume that person was insane and thus fit for the asylum or prison he/she ends up in. When the situation includes a videogame, people suddenly go off on a tangent and blame games. That is where they lose credibility; a well-adjusted individual (IE most gamers out there who play Halo and yet have never really shot another human IRL) won't take away from a game a lesson like "killing is fun, I should try it" nor will he/she let the violence of the game seep into his/her real life actions.
Statistically, at least a few hundred thousand (maybe a million) people will play your average game. Again, statistically, on one hundred thousand people, at least one or two of them are bound to have a few marbles missing.

-Against the Californian law: The ESRB, a strongly thought of, well-rounded system, covers most of what this law is trying to accomplish. If parents don't want their child to play violent games, all they have to do is read the ESRB sign. But because most parents don't want to take the blame for their poor parenting aptitudes, they shift the blame on an outside source; videogames. The trick to the ESRB is that it works; it's the parents of the children in question who are unfit to raise a child (otherwise they would take some time to research what they are exposing their children to).

-Against the Californian law: Nowadays, some games teach you fundamental lessons; the bad guy will always have it harder in the end. My examples for this are 2 games that few people would believe I would use; GTA 4 and Red Dead Redemption.
Sure, both games make it abundantly fun to go on a pointless killing spree and allow you to ignore inhibitions and moral boundaries, but in the end, you do see a pattern evolve.
Go on a killing spree too long and you will die. You just will. GTA4 really teaches us this one, no one can tell me they always get away from a 4 or more star rating (once out of like 10 times, I may believe) without cheating. This also contrasts to the obvious fact that in real life, even if you are wearing the best bulletproof vest, a bullet will knock you cold (and hurt like hell). Red Dead Redemption, however, makes being a bad guy absurdly difficult to keep up. People no longer like you (as in real life), the cops chase you every time you wake up from sleep (to save the game, but in RL it's the same equivalent, you need to sleep) and you die most of the time in hails of gunfire by sudden attacks by a local sheriff.
The point being, any sane individual will see and understand that the game presents some elements that are different from reality, for the sake of fun. They will also understand the most basic lesson a child ever learns; Death is FINAL. So unlike the game, you only get to fail your GTA4 killing spree once.
- Against the Californian law: Children aren?t stupid. This is where American censorship and I will never get along. First off, it is more acceptable to see murder in a game than it is to see sex (which speaks very little for American parenting skills). Secondly, children should be exposed to the word and concept of death early on. I remember, in my childhood, the animated series Dragonball, characters would often say something like ?I?ll send you to the next world? instead of simply stating ?I?ll kill you?, I vividly remember knowing what death was and thinking that it would be better if they made it clear that they were fighting for a reason; for survival. Using the former statement only seemed to trivialize the threat from the bad guy. The point behind this digression being: If children understand early on the finality of death, they will begin any thought process with death as an inherently permanent state. Causing them to think at least a bit more on the value an individual life holds.
Secondly, sex, as well, should be brought up early on (not too early, granted...) in the sense that it is a perfectly natural, very pleasurable and often costly endeavour. I say this because, let us be honest, every guy noticed women?s ?attributes? earlier than puberty. But at that point in life, the pleasurable nature of sex is foreign and often isn?t associated to being a costly endeavour. If children were told it feels good, only to be told that it will (in the case of girls) make you pregnant, (in the case of guys) will cost you half your worldly possessions or your arms and legs in alimony payments or (in the case of both sexes) possibly make you permanently and incurably sick, tie you down to someone you will later hate/ a child you never wanted or simply open you up to blackmail or some such. (To quote Dragon Age?s Morrigan: In my experience, everyone pays for sex.) So if Americans want to get fussy about violence, they?ll have to loosen up about sex (because without both, even a book or movie ends up being a bit shallow or just boring, a good story is born from adversity, adversity is born from sex or violence (or poverty, but that isn?t a relatable problem to a country that lives in abundance, thus strikes no true chord with an American audience).
All in all, (although I?m probably preaching to deaf ears) violence isn?t a problem unless you have a problem; justifiable violence should be encouraged if anything (self-defence-wise).
I have more... But this post is getting long...

 

[The Atomic Lamp]

Good to see that the sensible people getting upset about what actually matters. The western world rapes and pillages countries for oil, manipulate goverments for their ideological and financial gain support free trade zones to stimulate their own economy. But someone taken away their rather average video games. Oh no!

Ironic, I think, that you don't hesitate to voice your opinions while at the same time attempting to minimize the issue of free speech. That's a neater trick than riding a unicycle while juggling three bowling pins. Bravo!

Fair point on the average video game thing. I said it as more to do with my own issues with the unimaginative nature of current game developers and I retract it as it has nothing to do with this issue. However, while accept it is a freedom of speech issue I think the greater will come of this which is to shield children from being exposed to violence. I think adhereing stringently to hundred year old laws is a bit misguided and that every situation should be treated on its own merits.


Commenting on the apathy and sefl-involved nature of a generation or culture is arguably more important than all the things I suggested as it leads to the problems I suggested.

Feel free to comment on the apathy and self-absorption of whoever all you'd like. But, in so doing, to take an issue of censorship and then try to twist it into nothing more than "someone tak[ing] away . . . rather average video games" may not be the best way for you to win converts. You certainly didn't win me over to your position. Rather, my first response was to conclude that you're more than a little bit of an idiot.

 

[The Atomic Lamp]

Feel free to comment on the apathy and self-absorption of whoever all you'd like. But, in so doing, to take an issue of censorship and then try to twist it into nothing more than "someone tak[ing] away . . . rather average video games" may not be the best way for you to win converts. You certainly didn't win me over to your position. Rather, my first response was to conclude that you're more than a little bit of an idiot.[/quote][/quote]

Fair point on the average video game thing. I said it as more to do with my own issues with the unimaginative nature of current game developers and I retract it as it has nothing to do with this issue. However, while accept it is a freedom of speech issue I think the greater will come of this which is to shield children from being exposed to violence. I think adhereing stringently to hundred year old laws is a bit misguided and that every situation should be treated on its own merits.