Ok now this is sad, but it made me burst out laughing. This is an org that allows actual gambling with actual money on actual gambling machines in a sports game rated 3+, while having a cards minigame makes a game 17+ otherwise. These guys want to make sure a person is old enough to… Do what, exactly? It’s titties, isn’t it? They always only go after the titties.
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”
Justice Stephen Breyer*, somehow arguing the opposite of what you’d think this paragraph means.
A lot of people just can’t cope with the completely normal interest in sex that starts at puberty, and they want to bend the world backwards to pretend that this is a switch that flips on people’s heads exactly at 18. I get that it’s a complicated matter to handle, but it’s also a fact of life.
There are right and wrong ways to protect kids and teens, but banning tits is just a display to appease parents who don’t really want to think about it. If they did care about their well-being they’d focus on being more watchful towards creeps in online platforms rather than policing raunchy fictional content and convincing themselves teens aren’t figuring out how to get it anyway, as they always have.
Meanwhile gambling for children makes a lot of money, so why would they care about the psychological issues that it causes on developing brains.
Ok now this is sad, but it made me burst out laughing. This is an org that allows actual gambling with actual money on actual gambling machines in a sports game rated 3+, while having a cards minigame makes a game 17+ otherwise. These guys want to make sure a person is old enough to… Do what, exactly? It’s titties, isn’t it? They always only go after the titties.
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”
I could see him take that to argue either way with no clear winner. Which direction was it?
I assume he wanted to ban both sexual content and fictional violence.
According to Wikipedia, that quote is from Justice Stephen Breyer but yeah I got a chuckle out of your comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association
Yep, my original source got it wrong, confusing the two dissenting opinions
A lot of people just can’t cope with the completely normal interest in sex that starts at puberty, and they want to bend the world backwards to pretend that this is a switch that flips on people’s heads exactly at 18. I get that it’s a complicated matter to handle, but it’s also a fact of life.
There are right and wrong ways to protect kids and teens, but banning tits is just a display to appease parents who don’t really want to think about it. If they did care about their well-being they’d focus on being more watchful towards creeps in online platforms rather than policing raunchy fictional content and convincing themselves teens aren’t figuring out how to get it anyway, as they always have.
Meanwhile gambling for children makes a lot of money, so why would they care about the psychological issues that it causes on developing brains.