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?""

Comments

How, you ask?

[Lemental]

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.

Re:How, you ask?

[Cabriel]

It keeps those "R-rated" and "Mature" games out of the hands of children who shouldn't be playing them.

We've seen examples in the news, such as the GTA-graffiti and that really bad manhunt-connection where the victim was the kid with the game but it was still unsuitable for him. Also, consider Halo and Halo 2. Both of those games are M-rated, but there were still between thousands to millions of kids playing those games. Sure, it's only Microsoft's, but the games are still unsuitable for children. If they weren't unsuitable, they wouldn't have been given the M-rating, right?

Falling back to the argument that parents should be responsible hasn't worked so far because the parents grew up with video games being for kids, so many assume all video games are still for kids. That's just not true anymore. The games aren't all meant for kids, but the kids are still getting them. Why is this?

If you think all of this is bogus, then turn your attention to movie- and film-ratings. I mean, if a kid should be allowed to play any video game, he should be allowed to watch any movie, right? At least with movies, he's a passanger as opposed to the driver, right? Am I wrong?

Re:How, you ask?

[iocat]

Speaking as both a parent and a game developer, your post is total bullshit. The videogame industry does a better job than *ANY OTHER INDUSTRY* at labeling its content. You get content descriptors, you get ratings, you get posters with descriptions of the content descriptors and ratings at every store. Many big-box stores, such as Toys-R-Us have policies that prompt for age when you try to buy a T or M game.

At some point, parents have to step up and take some responsibility for what they let their children access. Unless you're literally blind, you cannot go into a game store or any other place where you can buy videogames without being advised of the ESRB ratings system. If you still buy an M game for your 10 year old, it's *your fault.* Why should videogames be held to a higher standard than movies?

The videogame industry has also taken significant steps in the past five years to address the situation of advertising inappropriate games to younger kids -- you'll never see a preview or ad for an M game in an E game box, for instance, and that didn't used to be case.

If I had any knock on games, it would be to see more use of the AO rating, to signify games that are really explicit -- I'm thinking of the difference between a Resident Evil game and maybe Vice City here.

Overall, the rating system has been great for games, because its enabled creators like Rockstar to create games that fulfill their vision without worrying that kids will inadvertantly be exposed to inappropriate material. But it takes two to tango. The responsibility cannot fully be just on the game industry, otherwise we'd be forced to only make E games, and we'd be letting down the adult portion of our audience who want to see more mature content.

Parents must take responsibility for the media their minor children consume, from videogames to movies to TV. The game industry is definitely doing its part.

Re:How, you ask?

[Rico_Suave]

Nonsense. It gives responsible parents additional tools to help them. It's not a *replacement* for parenting, it's a *resource* to help parents monitor what their kids are playing.

If parenting is such hard work

[ShawnMcCool42]

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.

Re:If parenting is such hard work

[orangesquid]

[sarcasm]
It's quite obvious why the State needs to step in and put restrictions on video games to help parents. I, for one, am an inept parent incapable of taking responsibility for my own child. I'm incapable of policing myself and depend on the State to make sure I behave, and I want to raise my children to be just like me.

Violent videogames shouldn't exist anyway. There's plenty of violence on the evening news, why can't kids just watch that instead?
[/sarcasm]

Re:If parenting is such hard work

[sgant]

I also belive that everyone would be required to wear helmets 24 hours a day, 7 days a week...without exception!

I can't understand why the government doesn't enforce this...as thousands and thousands of lives each year could be saved and countless injuries could be avoided.

How many people slip in the bath-tub and die each year from head trauma? How many people slip on the ice on a street and die? Dr. Atkins of the Atkins Diet died in this way...he simply slipped on the ice and hit his head. If the mandatory helmet was in place, he would probably be alive today!

something overlooked

[boisepunk]

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.

Re:something overlooked

[trueneutral]

The lefties? You believe that the left-winged are the ones telling us that videogames are bad? Why do you say that?

Re:something overlooked

[BlueCodeWarrior]

Why is there so much opposition to laws that stop kids from buying adult material?

Here in America, such rating systems are voluntary...it's not illegal for a 15 year old to go to a rated R (17+) movie or buy a rated M(17+) video game. A lot of stores will refuse to sell to kids, but it's not written into the law.

Ratings are just there as a help to parents so they don't have to keep up with every single movie and video game little Johnny wants to watch.

This leads to an argument where Mr. Jones decides (as he can... it is his kid after all) to let his 7 year old play GTA but Mr. Smith won't let his youngster. Smith wants to make it illegal for his kid to buy a game but Jones doesn't want it to be for his.

Anyway, it seems you have a good grasp on this, but here's your dilemma: Just because Smith doesn't think kids playing M rated video games is okay, is it right to not let Jones raise his kids the way he wants?

Re:something overlooked

[KDR_11k]

It's not like the law would stop a parent from buying the game for their child if they approve of the sale. Smith says the child cannot buy the game, unless Jones gets the game for the child Smith's decision counts.

Now imagine we have Mr. Miller who doesn't want his child to get the game. Now, both children go to the store and want to get the game. Both get denied. But Jones's child goes to his daddy, daddy coomes with him and buys the game. Jones is happy. Miller's child could try to ge his daddy do that for him but all he'd get is a speech on why violent games are bad for him. Jones is happy, Miller is happy and Smith is happy.

Without the law, both children go to the store, get the game, come home and start playing. Jones sees his kid doing nothing wrong and is happy but Miller comes home, realizes his child is playing a game he does not approve of and gets angry. Of course he cannot return the game because it's opened already and the child was already exposed to its content.

Bad parenting you say? A part of good parenting is to give your child freedoms to make them learn about independance and responsibility. Of course, you could teach your child these games are bad but seriously, who's the child going to listen to, his dad or his peers who al claim he must have that new, cool, ultra-mature game?
Besides, it's impossible to watch your child 24/7 and it shouldn't be that dangerous to leave your child alone for a few hours.

Besides, how is it good parenting when, instead of going with your child and making a case-to-case decision, you tell the law "No! I don't want to have to go with my child! Don't introduce those laws"?

Re:something overlooked

[iocat]

To be fair, Joe Lieberman has been pretty complimentary of the videogame rating system. In fact, he is probably one of the best allies that videogames have in Washington, especially because he's really taken the time to get educated on it, so he doesn't just spit out media platitudes about games. Because he's basically claimed games as "his issue" it keeps less informed senators and congressmen away from the issue. This isn't to say that he doesn't continue to criticize games and the game industry to some degree, but I'd much rather have Joe Lieberman focused on this than some other senators.

Re:something overlooked

[RosethornKB]

With a law preventing Miller's and Smith's children from buying the game, they children just go over to Jones' house to play the game and the parents never even find out what they are playing and never have the chance to discuss the ethics and morality of the video game with them since they are ignorant of its existence. Jones' on the other hand has a chance to sit down with his child and the video game and go through it, talking about it in a very real, very honest way and making an impact on his child. It's just another way of addressing socially right and wrong behaviors. Now say Smith's child goes out and breaks a law or does something stupid he sees in a video game -- what will Smith blame? Himself for being an uninvolved parent who didn't know what his child was doing or the video game? He'll blame the video game that he didn't even want his child to play and he'll point to the law stating obviously the government agrees. Giving that kind of fuel to parents who should be responsible for the actions of their children is just another way to avoid taking responsibility for actions. It's a common trend in this country, though. Why not just add video games to the list of excuses people can use? That is *all* this law will accomplish.

Re:something overlooked

[realityfighter]

I think that one thing the older generation doesn't get is that everyone plays video games. It might be windows solitaire, or Bejeweled, or it might be Vice City, or it might be DDR. Everybody plays something these days, just like everyone listened to the radio in the days of the rock n' roll drug scares. Of course, in any crime you're going to find that the perpetrator played video games. But that's about as significant as the shocking revelation that a violent criminal was into "grocery shopping", or he had a history of getting his "hair cut."

This is new?

[rueger]

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.

Re:This is new?

[HeavyK]

Pornography is meant for one thing and one thing only, sexual arousment and titalation.
There is also no artistic, literary, scientific, political or historical merit when it comes to pornography.

Re:This is new?

[Frobnicator]

No, each of those are regulated. Movies are a bit of an exception since it isn't government regulation, but they are still regulated.

Movies are self-regulated, but only after repeated threats from government that it either self-regulate or be regulated by government. This has happened many times, with major events in 1909-1915 (several states wanting to regulate), 1950-1965 (more threatened regulations), and 1983-1991 (introduction of more ratings and more threatened regulations). They are regulated, just self-regulated with threats of governmental regulations. The same thing recently happened with music: they were told either to put together their own regulation system or have one forced on them.

Cars are regulated. You can't just build your own car and drive it on the roads without having it pass various legal requirements. The car must be registered and pass roadworthy requirements, or have a waiver of the requirements. Minors either cannot hold drivers licenses, have graduated restrictions, or are otherwise regulated for minors.

Sex. This is actually heavily regulated. Rape and statutory rape, molestation, prostitution, and many other sexual acts are all legislated. A few studies have found most teenage pregnancies are due to underage girls with adult males. Those are all covered under statutory rape and/or prostitution laws. In most US states, children under age 16 cannot legally have consentual sex, basically for the same reason they can't sign contracts (as you mentioned in your post). After age 16, things get a bit tricky, but as you can see, it *IS* regulated.

liquor and tobacco, obviously regulated by the ATF in the US.

marriage. Many states have legal definitions of marraige, requirements on who can get married, what constitutes a commonlaw marraige. For example, some people seem to think of Utah as a home of polygamists, but one requirement Congress made for Utah's statehood was to have and enforce laws preventing polygamy. After 110 years, they are still enforced, and sometimes make national news. That's all regulation.

Looks like 6/6 to me.

frob

Hrumph

[NanoGator]

"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.

Will someone please think of the parents?

[MrHanky]

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, parents can let their kids control their own money without fear of them spending it all on booze, cigarettes and GTA: San Andreas. That's one compelling reason. Parents have greater freedom, and kids can have greater freedom, since parents can let them keep their own money. And if parents really want their children to learn how to survive in the ghetto, they can buy the game for them.

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?

Re:Will someone please think of the parents?

[DAldredge]

Damn near every house hold cleaner can kill you if you eat/drink it. So can batteries, OTC drugs, most automobile oils/fluids, food in glass jars and almost all toys are potentially harmful to kids.

Perhaps you need to rethink what you are saying as your lack of thinking things out makes you a dangerous person.

Re:Movie ratings, can you find them?

[ElleyKitten]

People like the movie rating system because they're used to it. It's been around for like 60 years, and everyone knows what "PG13" means, even though that's a lot more complicated than "Teen". Of course, if they spent five seconds and looked at the box they'ld realize that the game rating system is rather self-explanatory. But that takes too much effort.

How you ask?

[WasteOfAmmo]

perhaps the same way that making laws prohibiting the sale of certain items like tobacco and alcohol helps parents raise kids.

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

keepe suggesting....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Limiting != Good

[downlo]

Limiting a child's exposure does ensure that they will become good people. A perfect example of this was a few people I knew in high school, who would not drink because of fear of their parents finding out. 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. 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.

GRAMMAR nazis

[IshanCaspian]

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.

Corollary:

[Seraphim_72]

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

How? More likely parent will be invovled ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

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.

Gaming License

[TheAdventurer]

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.

Re:Unfortunately....

[Unordained]

... or on French TV, the green circle, yellow triangle, and red square that appear in the bottom-right corner of shows/movies (during the entire thing, as opposed to the black/white notices before shows in the US) ... designed to let parents stroll through a room, glance at the TV, and just *know* if something is inappropriate or not. It's doable in video games. And it could easily be a private thing -- companies wanting to have it as a seal of good will / parternship / whatever: parents might automatically consider any game that doesn't have a symbol in the lower-right corner of the screen to be worthy of more attention for lack of rating. Or not. Whatever.

Laws are about protecting society from harm -- does that include harming yourself voluntarily? I'm not sure I understand your definition.

Game Sales, not Game Industry.

[Frobnicator]

The article deals with sales of games, not what the game industry is doing. I have watched young kids buy M-rated games before. With no incentive (or punishment) for making sure the ratings are followed, stores will be guided by The Almighty Buck, and sell to anybody.

The videogame industry does a better job than *ANY OTHER INDUSTRY* at labeling its content.

Yes, they do. But the stores generally don't care. That's why the law is needed.

At some point, parents have to step up and take some responsibility for what they let their children access.

But by the same token, the retailers shouldn't just sell to anybody. For example, what good is it to rate a movie R or even NC-17 if the theater would sell a ticket to any 10-year-old with cash? The same holds true for kids, except that the 10-year-old is more likely to buy that cool M-rated game than to try to sneak into an ultra-violent movie without their parents.

you'll never see a preview or ad for an M game in an E game box, for instance, and that didn't used to be case.

Yes, the INDUSTRY is doing great. Many STORES are not. It isn't uncommon in my area to see M-rated ads all over the walls of game stores, or to even see an m-rated FPS on the big screen at one local store.

Overall, the rating system has been great for games, because its enabled creators like Rockstar to create games that fulfill their vision without worrying that kids will inadvertantly be exposed to inappropriate material. But it takes two to tango. The responsibility cannot fully be just on the game industry, otherwise we'd be forced to only make E games, and we'd be letting down the adult portion of our audience who want to see more mature content.

Agreed, and that's a good thing. But that's not what the issue is. The law isn't to restrict the games industry, it's to make the stores follow those ratings.

Parents must take responsibility for the media their minor children consume, from videogames to movies to TV. The game industry is definitely doing its part.

Exactly. The GAME INDUSTRY is doing it's part. The STORES ARE NOT. That's why the state is getting the law, to help parents by helping prevent kids from sneaking behind their backs to get adult games.

frob, professional game developer and parent.