Slashdot Mirror
Parents Ask If Videogame Rating Bill Necessary?
Thanks to the Zanesville Times-Recorder for its article discussing why some parents are questioning recent moves to legislate on the availability of violent videogames to minors. John Sellars, a local Ohio parent, says of his children: "I watch what they play and I decide what they play. I don't think it should be up to the lawmakers to decide, it should be up to the parents." A local videogame store owner is also quoted as arguing: "The game manufacturers rate each game, like they do movies, and parents will tell their children 'No, that game's not for you'", in a relatively rare counterpoint to recent violent gaming-related legislation attempts.
Um... Then buy the games for your children. This isn't about banning the sale of video games. It's about banning the sale of extremely graphic/violent/adult video games to minors.
I'm all against censorship, but this is just a good idea plain and simple. Would you want 7 year olds being able to buy movie tickets to NC-17 movies?
Ok...here come the 16 year old fan boys with mod points to mod me down...But remember, parents are not responsible for what thier kids do. Its society in general.
But seriously, parents should be a part of thier kids life, if they cant, they shouldnt have kids. It always seems to be the womans responsibility for birth control, but a box of condoms is much cheaper than 18 years of child support.
I dont really care about the idea of censoring children from culture, but instead i much prefer using that as a learning opertunity. Then let them decide whats best for themselves. This applies to video games, violent movies, porn, etc.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
Parents should be asking if videogames are necessary.
These parents fail to realize that ratings are guidelines, not regulations. The ratings are provided for the purpose of helping the parents make informed decisions about what their kids are playing. It's like saying that there shouldn't be any movie critics, because I decide what movies I watch anyway.
While reading the article, I found this lovely excerpt:
Washington state Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, who sponsored her state's bill, said bans like this aren't censorship.
"There is a great deal of precedent for restricting dangerous things like alcohol and tobacco to minors," she said.
The last time I checked, alcohol and tobacco are restricted to minors because they posed large physical health risks. A video game's content does not cause physical health problems. If you're worried about their mental health, don't be. Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids. Kids mature at different rates, therefore it should be up to the parent to decide what is best for them.
Politicians like Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson should keep in mind that some people actually want to be parents of their own children, rather than have a whistle-stopper do it for them.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
... but it must've been the winds of change.
I think some parents are starting to realize that legislation of restriction is not often needed. The store owner and parents in the article are correct; the kids don't purchase the games, the parents are the ones deciding what games their children get to buy, and violence does not spring from video games but from the roots of bad and inadequate parenting.
Even when I was in my late teens, I stayed away from games which seemed morally offensive to me. I have avoided Carmageddon to this day because I don't like the idea of running over pedestrians for no reason at all. All of the 'good kids' I knew from childhood to my graduation from highschool either didn't partake in such things, played the games and watched the videos only sparingly, or moderately played and viewed but with the understanding that what they were looking at was not real, and retained both their sanity and morality.
The two teenagers in Tennessee who shot people from a moving car after playing GTA weren't unbalanced because of the game; rather, they were not quite sane before they played the game, and the game only inspired them to their act of violence. That is, if they'd not been playing the game, they would have simply found some other inspiration and acted in violence from it.
Some parents have begun to realize this, and have refused the sensationalist fear presented by news outlets which seek only ratings and readership. They're right to use this common sense, and those of us who have understood video games and their effects are relieved and delighted.
Good parenting is and always has been the duty and responsibility of the parent(s); if I ever have one or more children, I will be a parent with this reality in mind. Guides and the like (such as ratings) are good and accepted, though they are not always needed. (Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?) Restrictions on youth, on the other hand, take away a part of a parent's ability to be a parent, and therefore not only restrict the rights of the youth but the rights of the aged, as well.
Thank you for either patiently reading through my rant of the hour or skipping to the end.
~UP
Eat the Path.
Legislated ratings on video games ...on TV ...on books ...on radio ...on websites (ok, mebbe el tubgirl)
Or how about parents actually do some parenting?
If you let your 8 year old child play GTA, I'm willing to bet you're a horrible parent and your child is going to end up fux0red whether they play video games or not.
"I watch what they play and I decide what they play." If the rest of the parents in the US were like him, legislation wouldn't be necessary to keep nasty games away from kids. Unfortunately, lots of parents are lazy and/or stupid, and they need the government to do what they can't be bothered with.
The government should never take on the role of rating products or services of any kind. Independent organisations will always do a better job at that. It is then up to each retailer to choose their products, with or without an independent rating system, and each consumer chooses a retailer.
This isn't about banning sales and to argue that parents should monitor instead of having ratings is a false dichotomy. Many responsible parents give 'pocket money' to children to help teach them about responsible spending, and without having age restrictions this takes away the possibility of parents to prevent purchases. Minors can't buy pornography or watch violent films on their own, why should games be treated any differently? If a parent wants to let their child have a game then they can get it for them. This isn't a nanny state interfering and trying to ban games or micromanage people's lives, all it does is attempt to hand some control to responsible parents over what games their children can buy.
I wonder if anyone here has a problem with the fact that the government restricts the sale of Alcohol and Tobacco to minors... I mean, afterall, I want to choose what my kids smoke or drink, not the government.
/.ers are stuck with number one.. which in my opinion, is a problem with denial. Because of this, you guys will be surprised when the answer to number 2 is enforced... and it will be because you weren't in the debate.
To this, I would just like to ask one question.
Is there a time when enough parents are not policing themselves or their children in where society is forced to react?
There are numerous studies proving the effect of violent videogames on minors. There are, to my knowledge, no ligitimate studies proving the opposite... however, untold millions of kids have games like Grand Theft Auto, BloodRayne, Manhunt and what not. If we know it's bad... if society can be harmed by it (not just the child themselves), and if WE KNOW that many parents are not restricting their kids from these purchases, what else can we do?
Perhaps at one point, it was a good idea to let a parent monitor their child's alcohol usage. Afterall, a drop here and there won't kill anyone...or make them alcoholics. However, we've seen that this approach doesn't work (oh sure, I know it worked for you and your parents, but we have to generalize about some things). At some point, someone stands back and has to make the call that the current system isn't working... then we have to decide what to do about it.
Now, there are two potential answers.
1. There is no problem.
2. There is a problem, what can we do about it?
I'm afraid that most
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
Many people who see legislation proposed for video game ratings try to use the argument that movies have it and it works fine there. But movies don't have this type of legislated system. The government shouldn't be involved in setting community decency guidelines because then you've got a situation where political speech can be labelled as offensive and the general public can be prevented from seeing it. Video games are self-regulated and that's the way they should stay. Community groups can pressure EB, Walmart, etc. to enforce the ratings more stringently [although, I've seen employees at EB tell kids they were too young to buy a game without their parent's permission.] but the government should stay out.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Slashdot doesn't even trust us to judge posts without moderation, so I guess rating video games isn't any worse.
Well if you want to decide what your children can play then what is stopping them from playing those games behind your back. Parents aren't always buying games for their kids and so you would be okay with children lets say fourteen years old buying a playboy video game or games such as the GTA game series, where you can buy a whore and have sex with them which causes your health to go up, what kid of moral lessons do you want your children to learn. Parents that vote to not rate games should not blame incidents like colombine on vbvideo games but on themselves or when they try wrestling moves from a game and kill someone your willing to take the blame. If you are one of these parents then you are one sickmotherfucker and not meaning a twisted sister fan (SMF)
MonkeysKickAss
How does a 7 year old kid seeing a movie even affect me, granting that it isn't mine? How could I possibly know the situation, and why should I seek legislation to stop that from ever happening in any situation? I'm not the kid's nanny and I'm not the kid's parents' nannies, and neither is the government. Why do you feel you have to be?
BTW, kids aren't able to buy tix to NC-17 movies because theater owners won't sell them to kids. It isn't law, just common agreement among MPAA members. Fancy that, a solution that doesn't involve further curtailing free speech rights or imposing compelled speech on product sellers.
From the article (yes, I read it):
Gosh, there's no loaded language here, is there? Let's try that last sentence again:
Okay, editorial qualm aside, my mood on this is mixed.
On the one hand, it would be nice to keep the especially violent video games out of the hands of mental children. Note: not minors, but those people who lack the common sense to know that no video game should be used as a guide to life. Some minors show greater maturity and understanding of the world than people four times their physical age.
But on the other hand, open the door for them and they'll dive through and keep running. After they act to keep violent videogames out of the hands of minors, they'll question whether adults should have them, and then they'll question the rights of the manufacturers to exist. I don't want to live in a completely child-safe world. I went through childhood once already, thankyaverramuch.
It's yet another slippery slope, liberally lubricated with morality and insecurity, which a third of the population wants to climb, a third wants to hold a particular position on (though no two people in that third can agree where on the slope that position should be), and a third wants to ride to the very bottom (shouted "wheeeeeeeee!" optional).
Much as I'd like to join the group that wants to climb out of that particular hole, until someone successfully passes a ban on idiocy, I feel a line needs to be held somewhere.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
It should be up to the parents? Is that right? Well then, it's pretty hilarious that you're complaining when that's exactly what's going on. A parent can choose exactly what their kids should be exposed to. If it weren't for this ban, the kid could go buy something the parent wouldn't want. This is one of the most non-sensical arguments I can recall seeing.
I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
Yes, I know that this isn't a popular opinion here, but I really think that there are two types of games that should be banned.
1) Bad, boring, unfun games. Nobody likes these, not even me.
2) Satanic/sinful/sexual games. OK, stick with me here. A lot of games today touch on these themes, which I see some people defend staunchly. But, I would argue that these types of games are harmful in their effect on society. If something is readily available in society, it's difficult for a parent to keep their kids away from it. This is the answer to those people who will fill the streets with filth and sin, and tell me to "just parent my own kids." It's practically impossible for me to keep my children away from demonic images, since they are everywhere. I also see these demonic images as a crutch. Imagine two games on the shelf - one with a firey image of a demon chewing on a naked body of a woman, and the other with a little bunny rabbit. Which one will sell better? The sinful box of course. It doesn't matter if the little bunny rabbit game is 10 times better than the boring demon game. Demons sell, sex sells, sin sells. Ultimately it's a crutch that allows bad games to be sold. Who needs a good game when you've got the devil to sell your game for you?
--Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics kill people.
The parents quoted in the article the the right idea. Prevent clearly unconstitutional laws that mandate who can sell or buy games for the mature gamer (read: old like me).
... they didn't have the family nucleus in place.
To the parents that control the video games in your house, that's a very good idea. But it's only a starting point. You clearly can't ask your kid not to play games at his friend's, because that's indirectly imposing your will on other people's children--possibly contradictory influence. You have to accept they'll be out of your direct control a lot, and moreso when older.
Children and teens are very resourceful. They, dare I say it, copy video rental software and just keep the copies hanging around until the parents aren't around. They borrow friends' games. They use their own money to by that killer game.
The concept is getting your children to understand the use of fantasy and to separate it, like the first guy does. And, if you educate your children properly, which is another tall order, they won't find the explicit games as "taboo" and can make their own opinions.
As for violence, quoting from article:
"I'm against any ban like that," Hartman said. "It's cutting in on your rights. It takes a lot more than picking up a controller to a game to make you violent. Violence is a long thing brewing. I'd say if you'd look at the kids who are violent, they come from broken homes
He's right, too. However, some violent tendancies are mental illnesses. Those kids may easily come from nice homes with a family nucleus. You have to listen to the children or teens to hear if they're troubled or not. You also won't have a family nucleus in the typical sense if you're a single parent.
I offer up these observations just as a reminder that aberrant behavior, whether it be violent or not, is not from a single cause. Rather its an extremely complicated problem with lots of social interactivity taking place.
Are video games necessary? Maybe not.
Are Books necessary? I would say no. Young kids are very unlikely to read anything that's really going to enrich their minds. They'll be stuck reading "See Spot Run" instead of reading some book with some actual information. And like it or not, don't say "The Classics", because for the most part those are just as unneeded as anything.
Are computers necessary? Nah. There are plenty of jobs that you can get without any computer experience. If computer experience is necessary, then all computer time should be in instruction, not in usage.
But it's not what the point is what is necessary. It takes more than just information to make a well rounded person. VGs are actually very good for a young person these days. It's an easy point of reference, a way for someone to get social contact in this closed off world.
What... who... where... is Zanesville. I live there, and I'd never in my life think to see anything like this from there. I'm truly surprised that they didn't mention the "Y Bridge" in their article. Seriously though, parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids watch, play, say, and do. We all know that once the hammer comes down once, it will surely be followed by more restrictions and regulations. fyi: :)
Zanesville is located in South Eastern Ohio, and is a very small city that is made fun of by all, including it's on residents, and me
sorry i havent really read too many of the comments, but if they took this away then games would turn into the big fights like the super bowl half time..
these things should stay rated and are rated for a reason. if ratings were took away how many companies would be sued?