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.

Lack of Understanding ...

[lake2112]

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.

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.

I thought I felt a draft...

[Undefined Parameter]

... 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

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.

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