Something didn’t feel right to Andrew and Tracey Hyams when they entered the rest stop in Charlton on the Massachusetts Turnpike on Christmas Eve with their 12-year-old son and saw another boy absorbed in an arcade game.
The youth was firing a machine gun replica at the screen, licking off simulated rounds with a rapid-fire rat-tat-tat that reverberated off the walls. “You could even hear it in the bathroom,” Andrew Hyams, 58, of Newton, said in a telephone interview Thursday.
Comments
I see all it takes is a complaint by a goody two-shoes couple from Newton to cause censorship at a state rest stop. People like them, much less the state officials involved, are a danger to a free society. The first amendment is only important when expression is controversial, and this is one of those cases.
It has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Responsible parents did some actual parenting: paying attention to what their child was exposed to. The Commonwealth makes money off of these roadside concessions, and it is fully within their purview to determine what games, restaurants, etc. are at the rest stops.
They have a right to pay attention to what their child is exposed to and raise their kids as they see fit. I don't believe they have a right to arbitrarily dictate what everyone else is exposed to.
In my mind it is definitely a First Amendment issue when the state is involved in censorship. This was not a decision by a private business.
I predict an uptick in road rage now that there is no other outlet for aggression during long car rides.
@who-cares:
How is this a First Amendment issue?
In my opinion it's a 1st Amendment issue because the state is doing the censoring. If it was a private business I would think otherwise.
Those games are legal and have only been removed because 1 couple made some noise about it. I repeat: 1 couple.
Do you really think that's right? Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam are pretty violent too.
P.S. - I'm a liberal who is very much opposed to excessive "nanny state" restrictions.
Violence, real of otherwise is offensive, just us some who claim religous teachings are brainwashing. Good for this couple for showing sensitivity and civility to those who have suffered from violent acts. In my opinion, the State acted most efficiently and appropriately.
Its more like, lets do everything but change the gun laws because those laws are ok. It is similar w/ state budget,, instead of analyzing where to reduce cost they just raise taxes cause its easier than doing the right thing!
Yes, the gun laws are ok. Your statement is exactly why many gun owners do not want the laws changed. If we followed your idea, everytime a tragedy occured, we would need to tighten up those gun laws. Unlike you, many of us are not willing to be left defenseless. Furthermore, it is incidents like this that convince us the government is not to be trusted, ever.
Everytime a teenager gets into an auto accident the state adjusts the laws to make it more difficult to have it happen again, seems to be the same mentality here. If you accept more restrictions on teen and elderly driving after every accident then you should accept the same adjustments in restrictions after each mass shooting. It's not every teen or elderly driver causing problems but we need to "prevent" the next one.
So two people express an opinion and get their way.
That is so ridiculous.
They look so smug.
Beverly, Mass., by the way, besides being in a different state, is 175 miles from Newtown.
Actually it's 140 miles as the crow flies. And you make a great point, since that state line is like a magic bullet-proof shield! They look "Smug?" why are gun guys so insecure? or is it the insecure are usually gun guys? Grow up.
Bill In Upstate: Are you surprised? Our Federal government is doing the same thing. Biden invited anti gun groups, hunter groups and the NRA to "discuss" solutions that will be presented to the President to advise him on a course of action. The NRA has stated the meeting was worthless, they did not want to hear anything other than more restrictive laws, the hunter groups will only be interested their hunting interests. Anyone else (people who own guns for self defense) is not represented.
Of course, the real problem with all of this is that it completely circumvents our constitutional processes. But, according to anti gun groups, those are not really meaningful. The 2nd Ammendment was written to protect duck hunters, afterall.
The anti gun groups are dangerous. They are looking to punish anyone who owns a gun for what happened in Newtown. It is mob mentality and portions of our government are going along with it.
People with guns kill other people. Video games do not.
Just because I'm opposed to censorship of video games doesn't mean I agree with obsessed gun nuts who only use self-protection as a rationalization for their mental disorder.
"The anti gun groups are dangerous. They are looking to punish anyone , blah, blah, blah..." Lordy, lordy, you people are both paranoid and deranged.
Thank you to the Hyams for taking the time and making the effort to speak up. Sometimes, surprisingly, it takes only one person!
I, too, thank you Tracey and Andrew Hyams, not just for what you accomplished but for reminding all of us that change is possible and speaking up is worth it.
To the complainers, you really can play any game you would like in your own home. This is a case of business owners deciding what to carry or not. They have their rights, too. And neither they nor the people who want to play the games at reststops have any first amendment rights in play.
It's not a case of business owners deciding anything. It was a *state* decision. At least be accurate in your characterization.
It's also interesting that you think a single couple should dictate restrictions that affect many others. What if they didn't want candy in the rest stops because it rots your teeth?
You clearly want to blame the Hyams for something that was just a business decision made by people who, unlike you,realized these machines in that space were a real dumb idea.
Give me a break - this is neither a first nor a second amendment rights' issue. The state contracts with vendors to provide services at rest stops. One of them is arcade games. If they stopped pulling in money or started breaking down too frequently they no doubt would be replaced with new games. In this case, a customer suggested that the games weren't appropriate for the context. State employees actually exercised good judgment and agreed. They didn't rip newstands out of the rest stops or prevent the delivery of newspapers. They replaced an arcade game. Unless the second amendment guarantees your right to bear fake guns that fire at a screen, your rights weren't violated. As a free speech "issue" - the state removed a game the state provided. This is no more a free speech issue than the state deciding to rearrange the portraits in the statehouse.
In fact, the state has no obligation to supply arcade games at all at rest stops, and frankly I'd prefer it didn't.
And what if 10 people protest and want them restored? Do those people get their way?
I believe when you ban something because of its content, it's a 1st amendment issue. If you remove it because it's not making money, it's another issue. It's not just newspapers protected by the 1st amendment. Supreme Court rulings long ago expanded free speech to encompass other forms of expression -- movies, for example.
My main objection to this whole affair, though, is that one couple from a well-heeled town are allowed to dictate what's available to everyone else. If nothing else, it's a violation of democratic principles.
"My main objection...is that one couple from a well-heeled town are allowed to dictate what's available to everyone else." While you may have exposed your personal prejudice against the "well-heeled", you also misinterpret what happened: the couple didn't 'dictate' anything, they lodged a complaint, something people do every single day. The people with the power to make the decision then acted on that complaint, not because the Hyams are from a 'well-heeled town', but because within a few days and a about a hundred miles of of a spot where 20 little innocents were slaughtered by a gun wielding madman, profit generating violent games in a public owned space seemed just a tad, shall we say, insensitive? inappropriate? insane? all three?