Law - Vyoos Editorial

Vyoos

follow this blog

32 followers

251 daily readers

rank of 26

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

Cold arm of the law

May 3rd 2011 03:49

: Vyoos news

Roads less travelled

VYOOS EDITORIAL
You'd think Alaskans would be a little more tolerant of the spirit of adventure.

An 18-year-old got himself into trouble at the weekend when playing with friends on ice at the edge of the Chena River, in the state's main city of Fairbanks.

When a large piece of ice detached itself from the riverbank where the boys were, 18-year-old Michael Poland, in a fit of youthful enthusiasm, jumped onto it and rode off down the river.

The floe, with the teen aboard, floated through the middle of town. At some point the exuberance must have waned - the river was far too cold to contemplate a swim for the shore, and soon he would be into the suburbs, and then out into the wild.

Someone called the fire brigade, which rescued the boy. As soon as they got young Michael to shore, they handcuffed him, took him to the station, locked him up, read him the riot act, and discussed whether to charge him with disorderly conduct or creating a hazardous condition for fire fighters.

In the end they charged the boy with both.

When he comes before a judge to face these charges, I hope the judge remembers that we are talking about an 18-year-old boy whose crime involves giving in to a spirit of adventure and a sense of freedom and who acted his age, which happens to be an age when derring-do comes naturally.

It is part of both the psychological and physiological make-up of 18-year-old boys to be adventurous of spirit. It is the same spirit which helps humans survive in Alaska and other inhospitable environments.

The judge should be wise. I suggest the case be dismissed and the fire fighters instructed to thank the boy for reminding them what fun is.

Alaska Dispatch

Vote

Comments (3)

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: Bureaucracy, Crime, Fun police, Law, Vyoos Editorial

Email this Post to a Friend

Lolly pops and violent video games

November 3rd 2010 08:14

: Vyoos news

VYOOS EDITORIAL
They are trying to make the sale of video games containing graphic violence illegal in California to people under 18.

Plenty of people are pushing the process, saying kids of all ages play video games these days and who in their right mind could be comfortable with a legal system which condones eight-year-olds having unfettered access to games which contain violence?

Who could dispute that?

Well, one group which is isn't convinced, and which is putting up some interesting counter-arguments, is the judges who comprise the United States Supreme Court.

They don't like the "vagueness" of the proposed California law, which sounds like something which can be discussed and addressed. But secondly, and much more crucially, they fear the law conflicts with the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it this way, "If you are supposing a category of violent materials dangerous to children, then how do you cut it off at video games?''

Justice Antonin Scalia said, "You're asking us to create ... a whole new prohibition which the American people never, never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment.''

What the judges are concerned about is an apparent free speech double-standard, in that the California law appears to limit violent video games while ignoring the violence minors experience in other media such as online, in movies, in music and in books.

Justice Scalia repeated a crucial point: many children's books use violence to demonstrate that being bad doesn't pay. "Some of Grimm's Fairy Tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth,'' Scalia remarked.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed to a study said that watching a Bugs Bunny cartoon had the same effect on minors that playing a violent video game did.

"So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?'' she asked.

Think also comic books. Think kapow! Think comeuppance factor.

As often is the case with these debates, there can be legal, political or social mandates on both sides, and common sense can get squeezed out the back door.

There aren't enough headlines in common sense.

So let's let common sense have a say here. Is it common sense to leave violent video games around for kids to find? Of course it isn't.

Is it common sense to think kids will access violent video games despite the best efforts of parents, teachers, politicians and police to prevent them doing so. Of course it is. The more you hide something, the more attrractive it becomes.

Is it common sense to do everything you can, including legal imperatives, to ensure that any underage kid can not access violent video games? No, it isn't.

Apart from the legal arguments above (and in the US anything that might compromise the First Amendment is a very serious legal argument indeed), and apart from political self-agendas from the Our Kids Are Pure and Sacred lobby, one has to ask what a law banning access by minors to violent video games would achieve.

It certainly won't prevent access by minors to violent video games. The games will still be out there, legally accessible by parents, older siblings, and anyone with an internet connection who knows where to find free copies on the net. Which is, like, you know, every teenager.

Then there's the life lesson argument. If this law is passed, and we somehow effectively prevent every individual viewing video violence until the day they turn 18, we are going to have some shocked and shaken 18-year-olds walking around. Is this the way to prepare kids for the rigours of the real world?

Kids are tougher than many people give them credit for, and they need to be. Surely it is common sense to let them learn some of life's harsher, uglier lessons in their time and in their space.

If an eight-year-old is old enough to find a violent video game, he or she is old enough to start learning perspectives associated with it. The first lesson, that the world isn't full of lolly pops and mum can't, in fact, kiss everything better, can be a hard one, but it's better learned sooner rather than later.

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: Children, Law, North America, US, Politics, Vyoos Editorial

Email this Post to a Friend

Getting to the bottom of the graffiti problem

March 8th 2010 06:35

VYOOS EDITORIAL
Sometimes, the best decisions in law are innovative moments of colour splashed on grey areas of inefficacy.

The ideal judicial system is one which protects both the citizens of a community and the rights of those citizens. But the law can be a platform of social justice made of quicksand. It can never cover all eventualities, and if people try to make it do so, the law can be an ass.

An example surfaced in San Juan del Rio in Queretaro state, central Mexico, late last week, when police caught a 13-year-old boy spray-painting graffiti tags on municipal property. They took the boy to a municipal official whose job it was to deal with petty offences.

The official decided that, in this case, a lesson about vandalism and the sanctity of other people's property might be learned if he spray-painted the boy's buttocks.

So he did.

The San Juan del Rio mayor promptly fired the official, saying he should have played it by the book and informed the boy's parents, who would then be responsible for paying for the graffiti to be removed.

In today's carefully sanitised and correct world, the mayor was right. Informing the parents, and forcing them to pay for the damage, was the legally mandated and sensible thing to do. It is interesting, however, that this action would in no obvious way have given the boy a demonstration of why his behaviour was considered unacceptable.

To be fair, the official went too far. You can not pull down the pants of anyone, let alone a 13-year-old, and spray-paint their bum to make a point. But perhaps the point could have been made anecdotally imagine how you would feel if I violated your property, to wit, your bottom, by taking this spray can and ...

If, next weekend, the 13-year-old boy decides after consideration that he is no longer inclined to spray-paint graffiti on municipal property, do you think we will have the mayor, who still has his job, to thank, or the official who no longer has his job?

Vote

Add Comments

[ Link ]

Posted By: Chris Champion - Category: Mexico, Human nature, Law, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Vyoos Editorial

Email this Post to a Friend

[ Vyoos Home ] [ Create A New Post ]