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.

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: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?

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.