• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Lawsuits, parents, and the media

Status
Not open for further replies.

Falco&Victory

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 28, 2006
Messages
2,544
Location
South Hill, Washinton
Ok, I know the title intrigued you, admit it. While reading the thread on gory games I was about to make some huge in-depth post, but I decided to make a new thread that does not entirely relate to the old topic, so if you're not into long reads then too bad.

Now, I'll start with my original point on gory games. Gaming industries, like it or not, are being sued for 'foul language', or 'too much violence', right? Now, if a parent bought a T or M rated game for little 10 year Robby, then how is it in any way the fault of the gaming industry? Same with movies that revolve heavily around discrimination and racism. Did the producer sit you down with a gun to your head and FORCE you to watch the movie? No, they didn't, you wear to lazy to read the review and realize the movie had unsuitable content for your children. To cover up for bad parenting, many parents are starting to sue media industries for foul content.

The internet is also a very controversial source. Parents have sent hate-mail and may even have started lawsuits against Nintendo and Sony for their internet browsers allowing children access to porn. How is it <i>any</i> different from a computer allowing access to porn? The systems come with a much simpler and more persistent parental control program to stop unauthorized access to the internet. Why not go sue companies that create computer monitors? Maybe it's because parents just want someone to blame, and maybe it's because the parents are over-protective(which is found to be socially unhealthy in a developing teen).


Skipping past the media, I'll be moving on to extreme sports. I love parkour(look it up on youtube, it's the best thing the French ever invented). Parkour is the best thing to ever happen to me. It is the best workout you will ever get, it is exhilarating, and it helps you get past yourself mentally. The problem with it? If you try something over your head you will most likely sustain an injury. The reason there aren't any parkour parks in America is because there would be so many lawsuits that the park would end up in debt. How is it that park's fault if a stupid kid tries to make a 20 foot-jump without sufficient practice and breaks his leg? I suppose the state should also be sued for allowing the growth of tall, climbable trees, right? I understand why the parents would be concerned, but in extreme sports safety is the number 1 priority. The people who do the sport are more concerned about their safety than the parents, unless they're just plain stupid. How come my local skate park hasn't been sued yet, but the local populace fights the creation of a parkour park? Without one I've been forced to practice my jumps and rolls off of a swingset/fort thing in my backyard, and I can tell you that the wooden beams won't be lasting more than another few years. With the park in too practice I'd be much more safe.

My point is why do parents insist on blaming someone else for their child's or their own stupidity? It's at the point now where the government is starting to side with those over-concerned parents. I feel that those parents make up the minority, but as they are the ones to give the government the most bother, they are the ones being taken seriously. The media, gaming industries, and sporting professionals are not the ones to lay the blame on here, it's the parents. I would understand if a kid was skateboarding and the ramp they were on collapsed, but that is almost never the case. It seems that parents don't realize that the media and everyone else is taking children's safety in mind. There are ESRB ratings for a reason, if you take a 10-year old to a PG13 movie then you have no right to sue, and if your kid attempts to fly like superman, yeah well you should get sued for giving your child stupidity genes.



Ok, I might have bashed a little bit, but I only speak the truth. Discuss.
 

applejack

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
491
Location
where there is no broadband
People sued (sp?) McDonald's for having hot coffee. Not the mod, just for serving HOT COFFEE. And they won! I bet they'd have sued for being served cold coffe too. In todays society everything you do that negatively affects someone, or anything that happens on your property, or on your watch, someone can sue you for. And they stand a 50% chance of winning, or higher.

Thousands of years ago, to please gods or to ask for forgiveness, some cultures would offer up a sacrifice. This is also called a scapegoat. Now, after millenia, we haven't changed. Rather than accept responsibility for our actions, we blame the people who gave us the chance to do wrong. Eve blamed the Serpent for giving her the apple, Adam blamed Eve. A mom blames a company for creating a game. What is the difference? Everything is a choice, the parent chose to buy the game. Chose to let their son/daughter play a sport. How are kids supposed to learn of consequences if everytime they do something wrong, someone else pays the price?

If you get a splinter on a deck, do you sue the carpenter?

"Monkey see, monkey do". I hope your kid, or you, is smarter than a monkey.

"It is easier to look outward, than inward". People don't want to blame themselves.
 

Digital Watches

Smash Ace
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
778
Location
The People's Republic of Portland
People sued (sp?) McDonald's for having hot coffee. Not the mod, just for serving HOT COFFEE. And they won! I bet they'd have sued for being served cold coffe too. In todays society everything you do that negatively affects someone, or anything that happens on your property, or on your watch, someone can sue you for. And they stand a 50% chance of winning, or higher.
For the record, I'm fairly certain that the coffee was actually DANGEROUSLY hot, the woman only sued for medical bills and legal fees, and the jury awarded her some ludicrous sum of money. Honestly, I don't get why we as a country hasn't realized how terrible an idea our current jury system is, but that case is way over-sensationalized by people making this argument...

Not that I disagree. Frivolous lawsuits are a ridiculous phenomenon.

However, the occurances aren't always attempts to lay blame. It's a very lucrative venture, suing someone in America, where we don't set limits on the money one can be awarded, and juries of like-minded idiots can decide what's illegal. Lawsuits can also be used to push agendas, due to the nasty business of legal precedent. It's not all black-and-white scapegoating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom