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.

Comments

Whats the problem?

[profet]

"I watch what they play and I decide what they play"

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...

Re:Whats the problem?

[Fallout2man]

Most laws go much farther then just simply restricting sale to minors, as well there's also the fact that the majority of game purchases for minors are made by parents. In effect you'd be enacting a useless ban that'd take up taxpayer dollars just to give you that "warm and fuzzy feeling when you go to sleep at night." I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my tax dollars spent on something more useful, maybe enforcing existing laws that make sense.

A parent is in charge of keeping track of their child and what their child does. If the parent lets their 16 or 17-year old have a job and have money of their own, then they should either keep track of what they're buying or realize the things they might get. A 7-year old isn't going to have cash to get into a movie or buy a game unless he/she stole it, or the parent was extremely irresponsible. If a parent isn't responsible, punish the parent, not everyone else.

I also fail to see how seeing the human body or violence depicted on the screen will cause any real harm to anyone.

Re:Whats the problem?

[Rick the Red]

Some people fear that this is the camel's nose under the tent flap. What do you think the legislators who pass this will dream up for the next election year? "It's illegal for a minor to buy this game, therefore it should be illegal for a minor to play this game." Forget the legislature, all you need is a DA who feels this way and suddenly it sucks to live in your county.

As for the movie ticket analogy, I have no problem with allowing seven-year-olds to waste their money buying movie tickets they can't use. That would teach them a lesson. Who cares how the kid gets the ticket; any theater that admits a seven-year-old to an NC-17 movie deserves to lose their business license.

Re:Whats the problem?

[krymsin01]

Also, any bill that a majority of the population is for gets lots of tagged on clauses on it that have nothing to do with the actual law. This makes it a lot easier to get your pet law passed if most people wouldn't support it. After all, it's not like the voting public actualy READS the bills, is it? It could say "u r teh small gas" in section 1.5.8.a.ii for all most people know.

Re:Whats the problem?

[Radius9]

Ummm, 7 year olds CAN buy tickets to NC-17 movies. Movie ratings aren't law, they are self-enforced by the movie theatres and movie companies.

somebody is talking sense

[Datasage]

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.

Thank Heaven for Politicians

[illuminata]

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.

Re:Thank Heaven for Politicians

[(trb001)]

Banning violent video game sales to minors imposes on a parent's right to choose what's best for their kids.

How so? If a parent wants their kid exposed to something, they'll buy it for them. This is to prevent the use of inappropriate material by kids without their parent's permission or knowledge. If a parent thinks an R rated movie is appropriate for their kid, they'll rent/buy it for them, but the kid can't do it themselves. Likewise, if a parent thinks a kid is ready for pornography, they can buy that for them. We only make items illegal that have physical reprecussions associated with them...namely drugs and alcohol.

I think your argument is flawed, a parent still has all his/her rights in this matter, it's the kids whose rights are being infringed. Since kids don't have all the same rights as adults anyway, I don't see the issue.

--trb

Re:Thank Heaven for Politicians

[illuminata]

Parents rights are indeed being infringed. If this was to be made into law, a parent wouldn't be allowed to decide whether or not their kid can pick up violent games on their own, thus imposing on their right to choose what's best for their kids. If a parent wants to let them buy a violent game on their own, that should be their choice. If a kid wasn't allowed to do so by their parent, then it's up to the parent to find out about it and punish them for it. The government should not be able to decide that for the parent. Parents have different ways that they want to handle things, so one way of doing things doesn't work for everyone. Therefore, the government should stay out of those kind of decisions.

Here's a common example; this would be a huge pain in the ass for a family that has teenagers that are considered minors in the eyes of the law, because most teenagers are indeed able to handle violent games. The teenager keeps having to make a parent tag along with them or go pick up a game for them. Some parents might not have the time to go pick them up, some might get tired of having to. In fact, they might get so sick of it that they choose not to pick them up anymore. So, even a kid still could obtain an M-rated game with the help of a parent, these politicans still have their intended result of keeping violent games out of the hands of children, whether or not that's the way the parent sees things.

Other than certain exceptions (Manhunt, possibly GTA), most M-rated games would be the equivalent of a PG-13 movie. Therefore, they're really not that dangerous in a kids' hands anyways. Not to mention, hiding games would be harder than hell for a kid. A parent is bound to notice that the kid is missing some of their money and that they're hiding something from them. If they cannot, then there's probably some negligence issues going on.

I would assume that this bill goes after all M-rated games rather than blacklisting certain ones, simply because it's easier and still accomplishes more of what this politician wants. Does anybody have information that says otherwise?

I'm of the opinion that the government is greatly overstepping their boundaries when they try to control what video games a kid can purchase on their own. That's for the parents to decide and the parents to enforce, not the government.

Now, if a store was to decide what should be sold to minors, I wouldn't have a problem with that. If they don't want to, it's their choice because it's their store. I just don't want them to be forced by the government to do so.

Re:Thank Heaven for Politicians

[illuminata]

Good to see such a well-reasoned argument! You've obviously researched the subject thoroughly and your in-depth answer will go a long way to assuage people's concerns.

My point is that it's not the government's place to do so, it's the parents'. That's what my last two sentences in that paragraph implied. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned maturation rates.

So why can't the parents just buy the games for the kids? Believe it or not, and I know it's shocking but trust me on this, kids don't always obey the law, obey their parents, do what's best for themselves, etc. Ban the sale of violent games to kids and parents can still choose to buy those games for their kids. I, uh, think that's the point...

Of course kids can be bad, no shit. But not every parent wants the government enforcing values upon their children that they either don't agree with or want to enforce themselves. I couldn't care less what "the point" might be, my point is that their bill is too invasive. Let the parents decide whether or not their kids can buy them. Let the parents punish their own kids if they disobey them. Quit trying to act like the government should be a minor's nanny, it's not what they were meant to do.

Re:Lack of Understanding ...

[Rick the Red]

The ratings are provided for the purpose of helping the parents make informed decisions about what their kids are playing.

The ratings suck. We own several "E for Everyeone" games that are shockingly violent -- Spider-Man comes to mind (the point of the game is to kill the bad guys). As a parent, I've found I cannot trust the guidelines, and in fact my son uses them against me, saying it's not fair for me to ban the violent games because "it says on the box it's for Everyone." Further, I don't need the rating system to see that the "T" or "M" games are clearly not for a five-year-old. As a parent I can tell you the rating system adds no value for me. I really have to try a game to tell if it's OK for my kids, and suddenly video game rental makes a lot of sense.

Re:Lack of Understanding ...

[eliza_effect]

As a parent I can tell you the rating system adds no value for me. I really have to try a game to tell if it's OK for my kids, and suddenly video game rental makes a lot of sense. You DO have to try a game to make sure it's OK for your kids. I would have thought that much was clear. Just because a movie (to take the popular analogy a bit furter) says it's "PG13," it still my have content that YOU may find personally offensive without giving the Ratings Board enough insentive to bump it to an "R" rating. So watch the movies, and play the games. What's the problem here?

My opinion

[AtlanticGiraffe]

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.

Re:He's a freak

[shadowcabbit]

Exactly. "I watch what they play and I decide what they play"? No, you didn't. If he did this law wouldn't be necessary. This whole goddamn discussion wouldn't be happening if parents hadn't abdicated their duties to television and pop media twenty years ago.

Alcohol and Tobacco

[pudge_lightyear]

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.

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 /.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.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Come on, the guy that doesn't understand that the movie ratings system isn't law is modded to +3 and yet someone who clears up the lie is left at 1? This is injustice.

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.

It wouldn't end there...

[Crash Culligan]

From the article (yes, I read it):

These days, some parents and lawmakers are taking aim at the video game industry by trying to ban sales of violently or sexually graphic games to minors. Since there are varying degrees of violence in the games, lawmakers are targeting only the most graphic -- where players vulgarly target and kill human beings.

Gosh, there's no loaded language here, is there? Let's try that last sentence again:

...where players vulgarly target and kill computer-generated replicas of human beings.

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.

Re:Giving power to parents

[Sylver Dragon]

Minors can't buy pornography or watch violent films on their own, why should games be treated any differently?

I don't think you realize it, but by making a law which prohibits the sale of 'M' rated video games to minors, you would be treating video games differently. There is no law which prohibits the sale of R rated movies (NC-17, movies, and Playboy for that matter) to minors. The only reason no one does is because, if the MPAA found out about it, that store would never be allowed to carry movies again. (Funny, for all the bad stuff they do the MPAA did good on that one; I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.)
I think the thing most of us, who are against this type of law, fear, is that this will be the nose of the camael in the tent for the Government restricting free speech. Sure, this piece is innocuous enough, but it sets a very bad precident. What is next? Giving this type of game to a child becomes "contributing to the deliquency of a minor" much as alcohol and tabacco are now? So this would effectivly allow the government to block children from access to anything that it deems is "inapproriate".
Ok, so the above might be a bit of a slippery slope fallacy, but I don't want to take that chance. If the above does happen, its very bad. If this type of law doesn't get passed, then the worst we get is little Jimmy seeing some violent images before he is deemed ready, which hasn't been proven to cause violent behavior. Not exactly the same scale of problem.