Slashdot Mirror
The Law as a Parent
RosethornKB writes "KillerBetties.com has an editorial about the continuing attempts by the legal system to pass laws regulating the sale of video games. From the article: "The latest is one coming out of Illinois. Governor Blagojevich is proposing legislation and his explanation says, among other things: "Parenting is hard work, and the state has a compelling interest in helping parents raise their children to be upstanding men and women." How does passing laws to restrict the sale of violent games and put tight restrictions on the industry's labeling systems help parents raise their children?""
It doesn't.
Legislating computer games means parents have to spend less time with there kids and so can spend more time doing important activities like drinknig beer and watching TV
:P
lazy parents rejoice!
why doesn't the government enforce by legal mandate the purchase of nutritionally appropriate foods for our children's digestion?
Surely you can recognize that the mass number of parents feeding their babies MCDONALDS FRENCH FRIES is a much larger problem than video games.
What about Bratz the toys for little girls? Or the little girl sized mini skirts at your local X-Mart.
Ah, we touched on a very important part of the of the big witchhunt against videogames. Parents raise children, not videogames. Go ahead and take a look at every single case of school shootings. Each case has bad or missing parenting. And the lefties that control the media would have us believe that the videogames are the problem. I, for one, am not going to believe the crap they tell me, and that includes playing every goddamn game I want to play! Videogames are not the cause. They are not even the solution or a byproduct. They are simply a part of some kid's lives, and if you don't like these games, go fuck yourself and leave law-abiding citizens out of it. We have the freedom to play and play we shall.
main(0)
Please set aside the geek outrage. Many, many things are already age regulated - movies, cars, sex, tobacco, liquor, marriage.... the list is long.
Limiting access by age to some things is already a long established practice in this country, so why on earth would it be a surprise that video games also fall under that umbrella?
It may be pointless or of questionable merit, but it's hardly newesworthy. If it bugs you that much go and bootleg some games to your neighbour's kid.
Three Squirrels
Although I agree with what the author has to say, I find it annoying in its construction. Some of the sentences could have benefited from some editing. He has some good ideas, but he never explores any solutions it's mostly complaining. Superior examples of gaming journalism need to be used to argue points against gaming legislation than this.
"How does passing laws to restrict the sale of violent games and put tight restrictions on the industry's labeling systems help parents raise their children?"
Well....
Actually I think there is a legitimate answer to this question. Part of being a parent is knowing what it is they're allowing their child to be exposed to. I think few would argue that if a McDonald's store hired a stripper to entertain for a day that a parent bringing their child in for a happy meal wouldn't have a right to complain. A ratings system, for example, (and I do mean this hypothetically) would let the parent know at a glance if they'd approve of the game being sold.
I'll be honest, I don't mind a ratings system. There are far too many games out there to assume the parent is going to stay up on what each title is and what it's about. Giving them a little help is okay in my opinion. But... restricting the sale of video games... Ugh. You know, I understand the thought behind it'. I wouldn't call it 'evil'. I mean, if a parent goes with their child to buy a game because they HAVE to, then it's hard to argue that the parent could be all that shocked if something bad came as a result of it. But man, now we're interferring with parenting. What if you, as a parent, think your 16 year old is old enough to play these games? I mean, he can drive a car. He's got a job. But you have to accompany him to buy Grand Theft Auto? Lame.
I'm also worried that this really doesn't solve any problems. Potentially, it could cause parents to be lazier in their duties. Do we really want parents to feel like the world should be safe for their kids? I don't feel that way. I don't think I could raise a well adjusted child if I didn't take the time to teach them about the dangers of life in general, or what right and wrong is. Should we stop using heat to cook food because a kid could stick his hand in an oven?
Maybe I'm a little biased. I grew up with video games. I don't have a criminal record. I stayed in school. Never did drugs. I have a good career. I grew up with kids that all played these games as well. They're all doing fine, too. I can't speak for them, but I know that cartoons caused my parents and I to have a little chat. They basically taught me what right and wrong is, and that TV is meant to be silly. There are, for example, no such things as talking dogs. And if there are no talking dogs, why should I expect that I inherent their laws of physics? (it's worth mentioning that I have never broken any bones. Never attempted to 'fly'. Worst I ever did was rack myself with a pair of Ninja Turtle style nunchucks.)
Would my parents have had this discussion with me if everything was made 'kid safe'? What would happen, at that point, if I did walk past an arcade and saw Mortal Kombat going on?
I don't mind helping out with the job of parenting. I don't mind putting labels on games. Restricting them, however, is going too far.
"Derp de derp."
Why the fuck should stores have the right to sell potentially harmful things to children? Parents can't -- and shouldn't -- look after their children all day long. It's better for children if they have some time without adult supervision, and I'm all for passing laws that make this possible. It's not like anyone is defending childrens' right to drink alchohol and smoke pot, so why do we need to defend their right to buy computer games behind their parents' back?
I keep hearing about how bad the rating system is for games. But have you ever tried to figure out the rating for a movie? It's usually really really small, on the back of the box at the bottom. It doesn't tell you anything about mature content on it. I find that the only good descriptions for movie content usually comes from the video stores themselves. Stores like Rogers Videos usually has a very extensive description of questionable content. So how come we never hear the movie industry getting slammed for their rating system?
We hear the "parents should take responsibility" mantra. Sound advice, no doubt. But at what level do children have rights and responsibilities themselves and at which do parents have them over the children?
I read in this discussion "leave law abiding citizens alone." Watching hardcore pornography is certainly law abiding. Would you allow parents to let their 8 year olds watch hardcore pornography?
Even watching people have sex is legal, if they want you to watch. Would you let parents let their children watch them have sex? Extremely disturbing, that's how you make a sociopath, but the parents should have the right, right?
Self-mutilation is legal, within people's rights. Would you allow parents to let their children watch them as they mutilate their own body? Or on that note, would you allow parents to let their children mutilate themselves?
I don't think cannibalism itself is illegal in the U.S, I could be wrong, it's not in Germany I know that! Would you let parents feed their children human flesh?
Do you want to give parents total responsibility and rights or take away some like ones mentioned here?
Ok, Ok, after reading that half of you pounded on your keyboard, yelled obcenenties and started writing the greatest flame ever seen... but keep the mouse away from that Submit button for just a moment.
There is no doubt that any legislation like this (be it for R rated movies, cigarettes, alcohol, games, etc.) will *not* work all the time. We all know that if someone is determined enough (and sometimes it doesn't take much effort) you can find/aquire just about anything you want on the streets. But I suggest that total compliance (although it may be a dream) is not the point of these laws. No law enforcement official in there right mind will tell you that any law has been 100% complied with.
Where these laws help in parenting is assisting parents in teaching their children what is good and bad for them (I will purposefully stay away from the terms 'right' and 'wrong' here) as well as aim the child down a path to the "good life". Take alcohol for an example. Typically the laws prohibit (at least in Canada and the US) the sale of alcohol to minors (ages vary). If alcohol was freely available to persons of all ages think how difficult it would be to teach your kids responsibility with alcohol. Again... I stress freely availalble including in vending machines in schools, etc...like pop currently is. Certain products seem to require a certain level of maturity before true responsible use is taken on and demonstrated. The age for alcohol seems to be close to 20. Below that it proves difficult to get a person (let alone a young child) to "drink responsibly".
The idea here is that it is very difficult as a parent to assist your children in making good choices for their own well being. It is far more difficult if the environment around your kids is suffused with a product or activity that you deem to having a negative impact on your childs healthy (mental and physical) growth.
Don't get me wrong here. I am a parent (ages 4 to 12) and am not a "bible thumping luddite" or what ever other stereo type label you want to apply indicating that I believe *all* the horror stories the media tells us about raising kids. In fact when I started down the parenting road I put little to no weight in the stories of TV, TV violence, etc., and the affects on childrens personalities and was considerably more libral (and perhaps idealistic). Then I started watching and dealing with my first child growing up. Based on the hurdles we (he, his mother, and I) have had to overcome in dealing with his challenges I have somewhat changed my mind. I now do limit how much TV, computer games, etc. that my kids have access to. I do limit the amount of violence that my kids are exposed to in games and activities.
Do I think this is necessary for all kids....no. Every kid is an individual and requires his or her own boundries. I still believe in giving my children every opportunity to try new things and to show me what they are capable of. At the same time, I insist that they show the appropriate level of responsibility as the situation demands. If they show that they can handle it I let them fly with it, if not I put on limitations.
Back on the subject... laws like this help me show my children what are the better choices. With respect to games, right now I have to deal with the fact that a large number of the kids at school (including those younger then my two oldest; let say down to grade 3) either own, or have access to, and regularly play the "latest" FPS and other combat related games. It seems that the suggested "teen" or "mature" ratings on these games mean little to the parents of some of my kids friends (if they even know what games their kids are playing). This makes it very hard for me to justify telling my kids that these games are not suitable for them at their age and that they are not allowed to play them.
If a law was in place prohibiting
to find geeks putting aside geek outrage.
The Democrates are just as involved in your personal lives as the Republicans are if not more so. Look at all the politians who propose these anti-gaming restriction laws. Leland Yee - Democrat, Mary Loe Dickerson - Democrat, Joe Lieberman - Democrat, Joe Baca - Democrat, Rod Blagoveich (sp?) - Democrat.
It's the Democrats who want to regulate every aspect of our lives and our children's lives. I've never seen any Republican try to pass laws like these.
Oops, i meant to reply to the guy under you.
Stupid ways to keep goverment busy and hence raising our taxes, if you don't want to be a parent there a lots of way to avoid it.
If you want a lesson on parenting there is a great south park episode on that, is the one about sex education, if you want to get the message skip everything and listen to the chef at the end.
There you go.
The point is, had these people partied in high school, they would have learned to control these desires. The same is true for just about anything. Violence, sex, drug usage, and most importunely the emotions that cause these urges and come from images of these acts.
Protecting children is a job of the parent, not the state. But preventing exposure to violent, sexual content and mature games is a band-aid on a bullet wound. It does not help "raise upstanding citizens" it creates unbalanced ones.
Well, not to flame or anything, but Republicans are always saying things like we should ban gay marriage and keep abortions banned.
These things seem a lot more serious and life-altering than playing GTA before you are 17.
The Democrates are just as involved
Umm...grandparent said vote Libertarian, not Democrat.
Yes, there is indeed a big difference.
I would much rather the state use it's influence to affect a major decision like whether or not to kill an unborn child than little "problems" like what games I play, when I eat breakfast, or what color shirt I wear today.
The fact that somebody's so oblivious to concerns as awful as poverty but still finds ample time to shove their noses into my personal business is appaling.
Dude....you wrote "grammer nazi's." It's correctly spelled "grammar," and the plural form of "nazi" is "nazis." Wow, talk about asking for it.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Unfortunately, you miss the point. True, the law does have the benefit of making it easier for parents who think as you do about the situation to prevent their children from acquiring violent video games. However, it makes it impossible for parents to allow their 16 year old child to purchase whatever video games he or she wants. Your position, while reasonable, is very, very far from being some kind of enshrined truth. While we are all very glad to hear that your viewpoints happen to agree with this paternalistic law, you must agree that your right to raise your children how you see fit overrides the desire of some vocal minority to have their particular interpretation accepted as the norm.
Look at it this way: the US has always only made restrictions where there is some kind of clear universal harm associated with allowing a freedom. If we allow people to buy cocaine at the grocery store, drug abuse is going to go way up, and society suffers because this large block of people are unable to function. With regards to religious belief, on the other hand, although there may people who believe strongly that Christianity has advantages over Satanism, the government makes no restriction at all. The problem with this situation is that parents are FORCED to restrict their 16 year olds from buying violent video games even though there is no clear universal harm associated with it. The government is making a decision on this matter, and there are clearly many parents who would not choose to parent their children in this fashion otherwise.
Regardless, it's always possible for parents to buy whatever games they want for their children, or allow their children, so the practical harms of this legislation are not terribly great. However, it still is very annoying to see the government choosing one answer to a question FOR parents, when it should really be up to them.
In short, you should think about this question not simply in terms of "How does this affect how I parent my kids?" but rather "How does this affect how any reasonable person might choose to parent their kids?" If you think about it in those terms, you'll see that this law is unnecessary.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
It also means that they get to complain about a regulated industry instead of being parents. ala - "My child committed suicide, it is the fault of Rock and Roll. (~not~ my failing as a parent to listen to them and see what they are going through)
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
How does passing laws to restrict the sale of violent games and put tight restrictions on the industry's labeling systems help parents raise their children?
It makes it more likely that a child will not be buying that game without a parent present and the labeling will help the parent be better informed. How could you not see this? Or does the fact that it is not a 100% effective solution somehow make it not worth trying in your view?
When I was a kid I ran out of glue when building a model airplane. I tagged along when my mom went shopping and I went to the toy department and tried to buy some glue. The clerk said that some kids are sniffing glue so they stopped selling it to kids as young as me. I found my mom and brought her back to the toy department and she told the clerk it was OK. She thought that it was a very responsible thing for the store to do and she thought it was very helpful. You doubt that some of today's parents won't have similar opinions?
As someone who was a teenager when Al Gore and Tipper were on a similar crusade with respect to music I find all this hysteria greatly overblown.
I've always found it interesting that people compare the regulation of video games and other entertainment to cigarettes and alcohol.
The fact is, cigarettes and alcohol are drugs; chemicals that are toxic in approprate doses. If an adult drinks a case of beer, they probably pass out; if a ten-year-old child drinks a case of beer, they very likely die. Thus, it is quite appropriate to control the sale of such chemicals.
I've yet to see any study that shows what the fatal doese is of Doom 3. In fact, I don't think I've seen any studies that prove conclusively that consistent and extended exposure to video games does anything at all to a child.
You cannot compare cigarette sales to video games; they're most definately not the same sort of fruit.
As much as I am torn to agree with this concept, I have to. What the law is designed to do is prevent kids from going out and buying adult video games without their parent's knowledge. If you have a middle school aged kid and both parents work, the kid has at least 3 hours a day in which he can play said game without any knowledge of his parents and it's not even really their fault, no matter how good of parents they are. Now, if the parents feel that the game is okay for their child to play the game, they can go and get it for their kid, just like for R rated movies, a kid can go see the movie with his parents, meaning they feel it is okay (yes I do know that this if virtually never enforced but it is the same concept). So basically, as long as the law is designed to simply regulate the sale of video games to minors and not to prevent them from playing them, I feel it is okay. Just my 2 cents.
Don't you hate pants?
I don't care that there's a rating system, but I think it is highly innefficient to make the parent come with the kid EVERY TIME they want a mature game. The parent should be able to sign a form and get a license for the kid that he/she can show at the game store, making it clear that he has parent permission to buy whatever he wants.
When they graduated, and went to a university, the lack of parental supervision gave way to the partying that they avoided in high school. Low a behold they ended up doing poorly in higher education, one even lost an academic scollorship. The point is, had these people partied in high school, they would have learned to control these desires.
That is naive, had they partied in high school they may have merely become failures at an earlier age. At least they were adults when they became failuires and had already graduated high school. I don't know about your HS but at mine there was no shortage of former A students who turned into "academic losers" when they started heavy partying in JHS or HS.
I live in Illinois, and Gov. Blago is generally considered an idiot. He got the job only because he married the daughter of a powerful politician (yes...he was elected, but the Chicago political machine can get *anyone* elected, wink wink).
I wouldn't try to explain too much of what he proposes or tries to do. He just does idiotic things quite often. He's pretty much considered a one term-er. Let's hope this law doesn't pass until after the next election.
i voted for badnarik!
Frankly, the sale of some games should be regulated. Just like R rated movies, stores and other businesses have a responsibility to parents of a community to "look out" for the kids. Games like GTA or Doom 3 should not be able to be purchased by a 13 year old...much like you'd expect the corner store not to sell your kids porn.
The way I see it is this... If you can't take the time to go to the store with your kid to pick out latest game then you've already made a HUGE mistake. All laws like these do is force parents to "tag along" with their kids for a day to get latest game. I've got 3 boys and I'd pity myself if I didn't keep up with what they were doing. There's no way I'd give a kid $50 for a game and not at least see the box...let alone let them have an unattended PC in their room. There's some things parents need to look into...if the state needs to "force" the parents hand by not allowing kids to buy certian things then go for it.
there's prolly examples in both directions, but i think a sort of graduated system (like graduated cylinder? its a pun!) would be better than the whole sudden-freedom-of-college model.
Lets keep video games unregulated, make the drinking age 21 and let people get married at 16 ^_^!!!!! *Goes and gets married
Which is why of course everyone ELSE also became a failure in high school...oh wait...they didn't.
I guess I should have put the "may" in "... they may have ..." in bold. Partying does not necessarily lead to failure. I partied heavily in HS and College, held part time jobs, and eventually earned a Masters. My point is that the folks who have a predisposition to take something to a self destructive excess are probably not going to ease into it. Starting in HS is probably not going to help them.
Which is why of course everyone ELSE also became a failure in high school...oh wait...they didn't
;-) No one said partying inevitably leads to failure in school. See longer response to the other followup.
Were you stoned the day they taught the phrase "may have" in school?
Sorry, my bad...It's been a while since I slept ;)
The thing is, it's normal for teenagers to want to do things that their parents don't want them to. Not to mention just having fun...the idea is to do these things while you're still a kid, before you move on to other things, and when it may have more effect on the rest of your life.
Children should not be allowed to handle guns (even virtual) untill they get enrolled in the army... I mean terrorists may be out of the geneva conventions protection, but virtual aliens? They have rights you know! -WaZ-
Perhaps more people should just start listening to what the Politicians say instead of voting for one party only. Even though the basic party concept of a party is okay does not mean that their candidate in your area isn't a total madman. This is a problem in most democratic countries around the world which leads to the 2- or at most 3-party systems most of them have.
Linux is not Windows
Accusing your readers of vehement flaming does not incline them to read further.
A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
frob, professional game developer and parent.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
How about spray paint? Broad-tipped markers? Spray paint nozzles? Or even toilet paper? In many cities, you can't sell them to minors because they are considered a vandalism tool. We had a young-looking coworker get ID'd when buying a case of markers.
How about ammunition, or even pellets or BB's? I mean, you certainly would have had to have an adult's permission to buy the weapon, so why shouldn't the 12-year-old be able to buy the ammo? It's the same argument; the potential harm is too great.
Of course, some chemicals like alchohol or tobacco are regulated, since they are harmful.
When I was a teen, one of the big things was to buy almond extract or other high-alchohol flavorings from the grocery store (some have up to 90% alchohol content); the county has made those illegal for minors to purchase.
Some cleaners can be concentrated and inhaled. I have heard that as they became more popular at rave parties, our local government restricted sales of certain cleaners from minors.
You mention that toys that are potentially harmful to kids aren't really regulated. That's untrue. There are hundreds of toy recall notices every month, and occasionally class-action lawsuits for shoddy toys.
So, I'll quote you and say, "Perhaps you need to rethink what you are saying as your lack of thinking things out makes you a dangerous person." It is good advice.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
We should probably go ahead and force every computer and video game console to install a v-chip device so that we can protect the children from violent/sexual content on these systems. After all it worked so well on TV.
I am so sick of people in this world, particularly the United States, expecting and wanting the Government to be the supervision for thier children. At the rate we are going it would probably just be easier to have a goverment agency set up to raise children, and then just let humans be baby making machines and have no responsibility, that is after all what people obviously want.
Parents today, most of them, don't deserve to be parents in my opinion. Arguments like, we can't watch them 24/7 are complete bullshit. If you don't know what you're kids are doing you are not being much of a parent, especialy if you are the one giving them money to go spend on video games. I don't know about the rest of the population but I certianly wasn't carrying around $50 (enough to by most video games) before I was working for the money myself. Also once you are old enough to work for a living you should be able to buy what ever you want.
If we spent a little more time on educating parents, and parents spent more time teaching their children how to be decent human beings we wouldn't have any of these problems. Not every kid that picks up a mature game goes on to be a bad person, that all depends on how they are raise.
Sorry about the rant, but people really need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, like having children, and giving them money and not watching them...
i am wondering. do people here have any limit to what they believe is "okay" content for a video game that will be played by a child? or even an adult? i mean, seriously. the frontier is in a constant state of expansion - that is the nature of things. what is the limit? will we eventually be able to push a button, which will scan the whole household and replicate it in a virtual world, in which we may then go on a virtual rampage? have you asked yourself "what is the limit?"? is there one? why or why not?
Data, data, data.
That's what's missing from all these articles discussing the effect of video games on children( read teenagers). Obviously the perpetually outraged and frantic will say OF COURSE playing GTA will turn my child into a monster. OF COURSE games are profoundly effecting my child more than TV advertising and church. OF COURSE my precious doughnut's failing are due only to [INSERT OUTSIDE INFLUENCE HERE] and are in no way a reflection of my own shortcomings.
Can anyone actually prove such statements? Can anyone show me one single study undertaken to show that playing (violent) video games will seriously damage a childs mental state and/or development to the same extent or greater than TV, advertising, movies, church and/or copying their parents. I mean, is there a single shred of verifiable scientific evidence out there that shows that teenagers playing video games are in fact scarred for life.
Here's a blatently unsubstanciated statement for you. I personally think that people who have played RPG's like Final Fantasy VII, become better people because of it. Do I have evidence? No. Should you believe me? You can if you like. Should the government pass laws requiring everyone to play Final Fantasy VII based only on my unsupported hearsay? Why yes! OF COURSE they should! Think of the children!!
May the Maths Be with you!