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.
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.
"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.