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.

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

[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!

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

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

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"?