Slashdot Mirror


Government Pressure on ESRB

Alex Blonski writes "There is new CNN coverage on the recent pressure the government is putting on the ESRB to crack down on mature-rated titles, after the Grand Theft Auto Debacle. ESRB President Patricia Vance says that 'It is very important for people to realize that this game is rated " for mature,' Vance said. 'This game is not a game that was rated for children. Regardless of what if anything was modified, it's a game that the ESRB has made as clear as it can that it was not intended for anyone under the age of 17.'"

19 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. Put the blame where it belongs. by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA:
    And these games are having a real, detrimental inpact on young minds, Baca said -- "In a video game, you're actually pursuing and simulating a person. You're under hypnosis. You're a person that is dramatizing, that is living the example of what is going on."
    OK, who else is sick of this shit? Hands?
    If a child decides to emulate the antics of a character in a video game, it is not the game's fault...it is the fault of the child's parents who have failed to instruct the child in the fundamental differences between fantasy and reality. They are the ones who should and must be held accountable for the misdeeds of their progeny.
    When parents use their televisions and consoles as nanny and babysitter, they shouldn't be too surprised when their children begin using them as role models.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by fkamogee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about, for starters, parents pay attention to what their kids are playing? Check the damn label. You don't let them go to NC-17 movies, do you? The ESRB cannot be held responsible for your lack of parenting.

    2. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by KamaDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Kids play it and think its the real word, thus they go out and shoot people thinking they can get away with it like they did in the game.

      I don't believe that for a second. I grew up playing games, so did my friends. We're not violent killers. We're not dumb enough to think that shooting someone is okay just because we did it in a game.

      This whole epidemic is just lousy parenting. People needed someone to blame after Columbine, and it was so easy to claim that it wasn't *my* fault for being a lousy parent, it was those *games*. Politicians jumped on the bandwagon because it absolved parents from all responsibility. That makes the parents feel good, so the parents keep voting for the politicians. It it totally backwards.

      The real problem is that people are having kids because they think they're supposed to. They don't understand what being a parent is or what kind of responsibility they have, and so you get kids who are out of control. So blame everyone but yourself. When it comes down to it, some people are just messed up in the head, too.

      "For some things, there is no solution. For everything else, there's parenting."

      --
      -KD
    3. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by netruner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [Raises Hand]

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the game in question already rated "M" and still needed modification to produce the behavior in question?

      I have to wonder how much hubub there would be if someone wrote a patch that put a similar "easter egg" into Word. Face it, this game has always had a bulls-eye on it as far as the self-rightous are concerned (just as Doom before it). This incident was just the most convienient excuse to attack it.

      Frankly, I'm just sick of the self-rightous political nonsense assumption that it's ok to tell the rest of us what is "ok" and what's not. This used to be primarily the domain of the "right", but it seems to be spreading like a nasty rash.

      --



      DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    4. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by mahdi13 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sorry, anyone who produces and sells something which contributes to the normalization of violence in the minds of the young must also take some of responsibility for the problems it causes.
      With that thinking we should be going after the US Army for all their TV commercials that basically say "It's cool to be a part of war"

      The people that make games put right on the friggin box that it's not suitable for children. If the parents are not taking notice to what their children are doing or (somehow) buying in their own home, the game companies can not be held responsible for the actions of someone else's kids!

      For crying out loud, it just takes a little bit of guidance from someone to teach their kids that DEATH is not fun or cool! If teenagers do not understand this very basic concept then something was fucked up in their education process and the people to blame for that is their parents (if any blame other then the child's is needed, which shouldn't be but everyone has to blame something) and NOT the people that make games/movies for adults

      Try talking to your children about good/bad right/wrong and become the one responsible for them and how they treat others.
      The children are only as fucked up as their parents.
      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    5. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by endus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "This used to be primarily the domain of the "right"" I agree with your post but disagree with this statement. The left has *always* been on some "think of the children" garbage whereas the right used to have a respect for things like freedom of speech and personal responsibility. I suppose the difference is academic at this point because now all of our politicians, left and right, want to have a hand in forcing their morals on you, but I do think it's an important distinction that conservatism is supposed to respect market forces and personal responsibility, not foisting Christian morals on other people.

    6. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "Sorry, anyone who produces and sells something which contributes to the normalization of violence in the minds of the young must also take some of responsibility for the problems it causes."

      Again, the problem is...these games are NOT made for children. They are rated as Mature. Parents should take the time and responsibility to see what they are purchasing for their kids.

      This is nothing wrong with Adult content...for Adults. Hell, there is a TON of children friendly material out there. When is the last time you even SAW a NC-17 movie released?

      The bottom line is, there is nothing wrong with Mature and Adult entertainment. It is the parents' responsibility to screen and filter out what is appropriate for their kids....apparently a job they are neglecting. If you have kids...there are a FULL time job...you signed on for it when you had them, take the responsibility and raise them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Put the blame where it belongs. by RWerp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember reading a Newsweek (it's mainstream, not liberal) piece about soldiers in Iraq. When they saw an Iraq guy running away from their guns, they literally begged their leader for permission to kill. It's shocking, but being a soldier now means being trained to love to kill. Google 'killology'.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  2. Legislation vs. Self-Education by TPIRman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From TFA: Critics say the board's guidance is toothless and does little to help parents trying to protect impressionable children from questionable content.

    It's like clockwork. After "Won't somebody please think of the children!" comes "Won't somebody please think of the parents!" After all, kids can't vote, so it's important that the demagoguery focus on the most politically valuable "victims."

    My question is, what do the parents want? Of course the ratings are toothless. They're just a guide. The "Mature" rating tells parents that a game labeled "M" is considered by the ESRB to be potentially inappropriate for people under 17. The ESRB is basically saying: "If you're in doubt, and your kid is under 17, don't allow this game in your home." If a parent is really in conniptions over video-game sex, violence, whatever, then they only need to exert minimal effort to convert their fears into action.

    For parents that care to be more nuanced and/or involved, there are strategy guides in every game store that present the content of games in great detail. And there's also gamefaqs.com, which is free and convenient. Parents don't have to be gamers to avoid being totally oblivious. Now, I certainly don't expect every parent to be this savvy from the get-go. But the parents who claim to give a shit could educate themselves with what I think is a reasonable amount of time and effort.

    But no, let's legislate the fuck out of the video-game industry because Hillary Clinton is running for president.

  3. Ratings only as good as the child's environment by Bazuul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to the article itself, the "unlocked nude sex scene" only applies to the PC version of GTA. That means that any kiddies that get exposed to it must first find and download the mod off the internet, then apply it to the game. If the child can/will do this, then he is already being potentially exposed to all the pornography on the internet. In other words, whats the difference between downloading and applying this mod and just downloading porn off the internet? Ratings are meaningless when children have unfettered access to the internet. It all comes back to parental oversight. Government is not a substitute for parenting.

  4. Isn't it funny.. by PaxTech · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it quite telling that when GTA only allowed you to pay for sex and then murder the prostitute in cold blood to get your money back, it was commented on but there was no big push to governmentally censor games.

    But now that you can actually see yourself engaging in consensual sex with your in-game girlfriend, we need to "protect the children".

    Doesn't this seem a little backwards? Apparently violence and murder is completely fine, but a little sex and the pols all go batshit.

    --
    All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  5. Hilary lost my vote by NineNine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just have to say that I would've voted for Clinton if she made a run for President before she had diarrhea of the mouth and brought up this unrelated shit. She made a completely wrong (as we all know), completely uneducated statement, and based on factually *wrong* information called for a revamp of the whole system. That was a bad move on her part if she was expecting any of the geek vote. We all know what game mods are, and they've been around since the early days of computer gaming. Her statement was ignorant, and irresponsbile.

    1. Re:Hilary lost my vote by ari_j · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hillary is just another modern American liberal. The contrast between that and a classic liberal is that a classic liberal wants everyone to have the same rights and liberties, while a modern liberal wants to decide for you which rights you should and shouldn't have, with an emphasis on being hypocritical.

      Modern conservatives also want to decide for you which rights you should and shouldn't have, but they make their selections using different criteria. Conservatives shoot for traditional moral values, whereas liberals shoot for progressive think-of-the-children moral values. They're both wrong, and the classic liberals and libertarians (lowercase ell) have it mostly right. Your rights and liberties are yours to choose, as long as they don't actually and directly harm those around you.

      Classic examples: Legalize marijuana, but make it illegal as hell to drive while intoxicated by marijuana because it's the intoxicated driving that directly injures other people, not the actual intoxication. Or let me own whatever gun I want, but punish me severely if I shoot someone with it other than in legally justified defense of myself, my property, or others. The list goes on, but just these two work to show that modern conservatives and modern liberals are guilty of the same hypocritical, self-important decision-making about which liberties you and I should have.

  6. The rating systems are stupid. by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why 17 and not 18, or 21? Deciding by committee for every child in the US is stupid. They should use a system that lists the 'level' of sex, violence, dirty language or whatever and let parents choose appropriately for their own fears.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  7. I'm rather tired of all this finger-pointing. by sc0ttyb · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This videogame violence/sex/adult-oriented business has gotten incredibly stale.

    It's really quite simple. This game was rated M, for mature players 17 and older. I'd like to talk to the parents of under-17 children playing GTA. I mean, COME ON. The name of the game is GRAND THEFT AUTO. It has a big ol' M on the front of the box. Who in their right mind thinks this is made for kids?

    Parents are ultimately responsible (and held accountable!) for what their children do and are exposed to until the age of 18, at which point they become personally accountable. That's part of being a good parent. Read the ratings and use them in your purchasing decisions. Keep up on what your child is into and does with his/her time. BE A FUCKING PARENT, for God's sake!

    If little Timmy played GTA at a friend's house, bitch to their parents about the game and then explain to your child why they shouldn't be playing Mature-rated games. You have the ultimate say-so in what your child does, so use that to RAISE THEM!

    The way I see it, this is a complete and total non-issue. The ratings are there, broken down into the actual reasons why the game got that rating. Use them. End of story.

    --
    "Apparently so, but suppose you throw a coin enough times. Suppose one day, it lands on its edge."
  8. So who is buying the games? by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the ESRB has already rated a game as Mature, what is it these rabid parent groups expect everyone else to do? It is up to the parents to ensure their children aren't buying these games. It is up to the parents to ensure their relatives aren't giving these games as gifts. It is up to the parents to ensure their children's friends aren't bringing the games over to play.

    It is not society's responsibility to censor such content just in case some parents are too lazy or inept to keep an eye on their own kids.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  9. Please, Oh powerful Goverment..... by polaris20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Parent my children for me, for I cannot do it myself. Protect my children from my laziness and unwillingness to do the 5 minutes of Google research it takes to find out the contents of a game rated M. While you're at it, let's get rid of R rated movies. I know, it has the R rating on there, but somehow my kids are going to see it. After all, I don't keep track of their whereabouts, nor take an active role in their daily lives. Also, get rid of profane music. Tipper was right; the kids will still get their hands on it, and it'll scar my little babies even more than my completely incompetent parenting skills.

  10. The Army by potpie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as you can be drafted at 18 and shipped off to a foreign country to shoot strangers, I think you can handle a videogame with an M rating.

    --
    Esoteric reference.
  11. Fascinating by mcc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It never ceases to fascinate me the way that "liberal" is a word whose definition is created and defined by absolutely everyone except whoever the liberals themselves are supposed to be. Ever notice that? Practically no one ever stands up and says "I am a liberal, because I believe this". We just get people going "you are a liberal, because you believe [blah]". The word is starting to be like "commie" or "nazi"; it isn't a political category, it's an insult.

    Also fascinating that Bob Dole and George W. Bush are apparently "modern liberals". Who knew?

    Why not choose some less ambiguous terms to describe Hilary Clinton, like "socially conservative"? Or why not just ditch the idiotic "liberal/conservative" dichonomy altogether, stop playing shell games with words that may or may not mean the same thing to different people, and discuss things in terms that actually describe what is going on? Here, I'll give you an example:

    Hillary Clinton supports media censorship and is not worthy of anyone's support. If anyone looks at this in terms of "she's just lost my vote", then this means they weren't paying attention 10 years ago, because she's always been like this.