Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Editorial Entertainment Games

The Law as a Parent 161

Posted by Zonk from the well-obviously-the-parents-can't-make-decisions dept.
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?""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Law as a Parent More

The Law as a Parent

Comments Filter:

  • How, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lemental ( 719730 ) on Saturday January 08, 2005 @10:23PM (#11301164)
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cabriel ( 803429 )
      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
      • Not like many who reply to me are going to see this but, I must apologize for my rash assumption that movie-ratings are enforced by Law. I assumed it would fall under corrupting minors, but I guess I would be wrong.

        Anyway, the older generation grew up with movies not meant for kids, so they know what movies to not allow children in to see. It's far from the same with video games, however. My parents grew up in a time when video games _were_ meant just for kids. That's not so, now. That is why children are

        • Re:How, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by iocat ( 572367 ) on Sunday January 09, 2005 @02:24AM (#11302296) Homepage Journal
          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.

          • OK, Mr. or Mrs. Parent, why are you against this then? Its not stopping content from existing. Its keeping kids from being devious about getting games that you might want to have a say in them getting. You can't watch them 24/7. Exactly, what is the negative impact of this?
          • 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 responsibi

    • 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 tag

    • Re:How, you ask? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Rico_Suave ( 147634 )
      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.
    • okay... well here's the theory on how it would work anyway. Ratings and regulation are a good thing. They help parents understand what's in a game and make educated decisions about what their kids play. The "problem" as lawmakers see it (i.e., as it's explained to them by anti-smut anti-violence lobying groups) is that stores are not enforcing these industry imposed restrictions. Putting legal sanctions on the sale of "violent" or "sexual" games to minors would surely give "incentive" for stores to enfo
  • 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

    lazy parents rejoice! :P

    • Corollary: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 ) on Sunday January 09, 2005 @01:47AM (#11302159)

      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

  • If parenting is such hard work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShawnMcCool42 ( 557138 ) on Saturday January 08, 2005 @10:31PM (#11301202)
    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.
    • [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 (Score:4, Funny)

      by sgant ( 178166 ) on Sunday January 09, 2005 @09:02AM (#11303416) Homepage Journal
      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!
    • Are those bratz the "be a good little consumer" dolls they're selling these days that come with minature gucci handbags and such? If so I totally agree, they're the most blatant attrocity I've seen in a long time, it's the kind of things you'd see on the simpsons in the ad breaks of the "Mattel Choco-bot hour". Those kinda toys make it really clear why so many people don't want us infecting their culture and want us to stay the hell away from their countries.
  • 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 solutio
    • The lefties? You believe that the left-winged are the ones telling us that videogames are bad? Why do you say that?
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:something overlooked (Score:2, Interesting)

          by iocat ( 572367 )
          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 d
    • Damn right! 12 and 13 year olds should be allowed to play and buy R18 games if their parents are too stuid or ignorant to realise the content could be harmful. Furthermore, kids should be allowed to buy and watch porn. </sarcasm>

      Why is there so much opposition to laws that stop kids from buying adult material? It's illegal to supply minors with R18 media, be it games or porn or violent movies, here in NZ. What's you fucking problem? What excludes video games with "adult themes" from being classified

      • Re:something overlooked (Score:4, Insightful)

        by BlueCodeWarrior ( 638065 ) <steevk@gmail.com> on Sunday January 09, 2005 @12:48AM (#11301933) Homepage
        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 (Score:4, Interesting)

          by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Sunday January 09, 2005 @02:21AM (#11302282)
          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"?
          • You make good points. All that I can tell you is this:

            I'm 18. When Goldeneye came out waaay back on the N64, I wanted to play it so bad, but my mom had a very strict 'no killing people' policy with video games.

            Of course, this made me play it as much as possible. In-store demos. At people's houses. Borrowing it and playing it when she wasn't home.

            I think a much better parent would (for something as harmless as video games, not something that'll kill you like drugs) let their kids make their own choices, b

          • So basically, your kid has the $40 for a new video game on him, and if he goes against your will and buys it, he knows he won't be punished and the game confiscated and returned?

            Watch out: Without your permission, the law will also allow your kid to be sold markers (to write on the walls with), bottled water (fun to pour on electronics), scissors (great for cutting up clothing), and even spoons (entertaining to stick in outlets)!

          • 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.
      • Furthermore, kids should be allowed to buy and watch porn

        I hate to break it to you, but we all just get it for free off the internet anyway. It *REALLY* doesn't make any difference what laws say.

    • And the lefties that control the media would have us believe that the videogames are the problem.

      Hey thanks for making this a partisan issue, because I am sure that the only the right cares about raising thier children. Oh, and if you look a little deeper you will see that most [mediaweek.com] of the fire comes from the right not the left. Keep your hate to yourself, the rest of us cant stand your brand of hate anymore.

      Sera

    • 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

  • This is new? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rueger ( 210566 ) * on Saturday January 08, 2005 @10:34PM (#11301224) Homepage
    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.
    • If it bugs you that much go and bootleg some games to your neighbour's kid. I already DO do that. =) And I'm proud.
    • Movies and music are not regulated by law. They are self regulated, same as video games. Why should one form of speech be any different from the other?
    • to find geeks putting aside geek outrage.
    • Movies, Music and Books with the exception of pornography are not regulated by the government. The movie rating system in America is a voluntary one and isn't inforced by law. Why should different rules apply to video games.
    • "Many, many things are already age regulated - movies"

      Nope, not regulated. Voluntary labeling.

      "cars"

      Nope. Maybe you meant driving licenses?

      "sex"

      Nope. Minors can have sex with each other.

      "tobacco"

      One right!

      "liquor"

      Two right!

      "marriage"

      Not exactly. You can't enter into a contract until you're 18. Marriage is a contract. Half right.

      2.5 out of 6.

      • Re:This is new? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Frobnicator ( 565869 )
        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 [ufl.edu], 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, ju

      • Ah, minors generally cannot have sex with each other. As strange as it sounds, statutory rape laws deal not only with adult/minor sexual relations, but also minor/minor sexual relations. The idea of mutual rape is a little strange, to be sure, but that's the way it works.

        Of course, statutory rape laws and ages of consent vary from state to state, but generally speaking and in most locations, sex involving a minor is illegal, regardless of the age of the other partner.
  • 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.

  • Hrumph (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Saturday January 08, 2005 @10:49PM (#11301321) Homepage Journal
    "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.
    • I don't mind a ratings system either, although it informs more design decisions and headaches than you may know. (Games are frequently altered to fit into a lighter ratings bracket) However, I also don't mind the idea that if a 10 year old wants to buy Manhunt, or the Playboy Mansion game, they will need their parent with them. It's not parenting for them unless the state refuses to sell the games to parents for their children's use. 16 is probably old enough to make informed decisions for themselves an
    • I mean, he can drive a car. He's got a job. But you have to accompany him to buy Grand Theft Auto? Lame.

      Parents *should* have to accompany their minor children to buy a game like GTA. The question is whether the policy should be voluntarily implemented by retailers or enforced by law.

  • Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrHanky ( 141717 ) on Saturday January 08, 2005 @10:49PM (#11301322) Homepage Journal
    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?
    • 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.
      • Sure, but that's a different market. Toddlers.

      • 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.

        Lots of cleaners and household things are regulated.

        How about spray paint? Broad-tipped markers? Spray paint nozzles? Or even toilet paper? In many cities, you can't sell them to minors becaus

    • Well, parents can let their kids control their own money without fear of them spending it all on booze, cigarettes and GTA: San Andreas.

      If parents are afraid their kids are going to spend their money on booze and cigarettes and anything else the parents don't want the kid to have, then either the parents shouldn't let the kids have money or they have bigger problems than the kid is playing San Andreas.
    • I think that's a very good point. It baffels me that parents will buy their 6 year old an XBox and all the M rated games they whine for. I think a lot of parents are stupid about the rating system. I truely believe that kids are very infulential at earlier ages. For example, my Dad was a hacker and look at me, I'm all into technology as an adult. In the same way, if we give children games that allow them to act out murdering and picking up hookers, they'll be the pimp daddy at age 14. They'll grow up
    • 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?

      Kids already drink alcohol and smoke pot as it is. Laws like these really just make more criminals.
      • I agree alcohol/drug laws are often stupid (though not entirely; see my posts further down for an explanation.)

        Your argument, however, is unsound. Keeping only the logic: "People already commit murder as it is. Laws like those really just make more criminals." Just because people break current or proposed laws does not mean those laws should be abolished or abandoned before being passed. We don't need laws to record our current culture for us, we already know what it is.
        • The difference being most people don't commit murder...my point was that current laws have not been effective, and have not gained us anything except more prisoners.

          I mean think about it...you're making laws which you know most people don't follow. If most people don't follow them, why do you think they want them?
          • So you don't mean simply "some" people do, but "most", that is, "more than 50% of the voting population" does? In that case, voters should mobilize to demand that their congresscritters (at whatever level) actually obey them, and if they don't, vote them out of office the next time around (unless, of course, the alternative is worse.) The fact that our congresspeople do things we don't agree with is a separate matter, though one worthy of discussion. Our system has no solution; so long as the politicians in
            • Most people don't seem to really care about all these laws, unless they KNOW they are going to hurt them directly.

              That would account for the Patriot Act, the anti-drug laws, etc. etc.

              Also, let's face it...no-one is able to compete with corporations and their bribes that they use to get all these laws passed (DMCA, etc. etc.).

              But still...it's not much better here in Australia. At least most of us KNOW that the US is sending everyone it can to Cuba. Which doesn't seem to be the case in the US. The sy
    • Well, parents can let their kids control their own money without fear of them spending it all on booze, cigarettes and GTA: San Andreas.

      I personally don't think that the purchasing restriction does a great deal of good. I was volunteering at an elementary school earlier this week when they had a current events lesson about the issue of restricting video game purchases. The teacher asked how many of the students had played San Andreas. Nearly all of the hands shot up. She asked how many of them actually
      • Of course. But that doesn't contradict my point. If kids can buy the game without parent consent, no parents need to buy the game, and still everyone will be able to play it.

        I agree that parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children (duh!), I just don't think a parent should work as a Benthamite Panopticon. Children need some slack. They can buy comics and books, but not pornographic magazines, and they should be able to buy Sims, but not GTA.

        And parents should know that if they buy GTA to
  • 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 slam
    • 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.
  • 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 child
    • You cite some pretty disturbing situations, and I suppose you're to be commended for drawing the argument to its logical conclusions. But:

      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

  • How you ask? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WasteOfAmmo ( 526018 ) on Saturday January 08, 2005 @11:34PM (#11301557) Journal
    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

    • 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.
    • 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 pa
      • Erm, the parent can just go and buy the game, no?

        Also I object to the claim that nothing without harm is restricted. Why is porn restricted, then?
        • Parents can go and buy the game, yes. Just like you could (if it weren't for extra laws) go and buy cigarettes and alcohol for your kid, if you were so inclined. What the grandparent is complaining about is that now kids have to go whine to parents even if the parents have a policy of "do whatever you like" -- there's no mechanism to short-circuit this. It's an annoyance, at least.

          You're right; a lot of no-harm things are restricted; masturbation is even illegal (crime against nature) in some US states. Se
          • I prefer porn as an analogy to violent video games as it is also a medium (as opposed to a substance or something) designed for entertainment.

            As much of an annoyance it would be for a liberally-inclined parent to go with their child when they want a new game, it's a far greated annoyance for a not so liberal parent to watch their children's every step to prevent them from buying violent video games. How often is a child going to be able to afford a new video game? The liberal parent's child would buy one g
            • Heh, come to think of it, in the near future all our children will be RFID tagged anyway and parents can just program the tag to show what they want their child to be able to buy. Would at least settle these debates...
            • I actually wouldn't mind the hassle, personally. I was just explaining why someone would think this a bad thing. But I doubt you finished reading my post, because you clearly ignored all other situations where parents (non-liberal, in your post) might want their children restricted from something, because it's easier on them. Or should it be based simply on how many parents care? If 40% of parents want their kids not to have access to buying peanuts, should it be law? Should we make laws every time parents
              • Actually I ignored the other settings because they're not relevant to the debate.

                Laws aren't about convenience but they are about protecting society from harm. If this harm includes inappropriate media during early development, so be it, though I do have a feeling this law is more about educating parents by making them more aware of the ratings than keeping the children away from the games.
                Mostly I'm for lower age restrictions, though. I'd say a 15 year old would be able to handle even Doom 3 or GTA. Most
                • ... 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
    • I'm really sorry to double-post.

      While re-reading what you said, I came across this: 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 (sic) right mind will tell you that any law has been 100% complied with.

      Are laws just suggestions? If we don't mean for everyone to comply, why are we making laws in the first place? And why should the fact that we're not enforcing the laws make it any more acceptable to make crap laws for
    • perhaps the same way that making laws prohibiting the sale of certain items like tobacco and alcohol helps parents raise kids.

      Alcohol and tobacco are medically proven not only to harm people in general, but to cause even greater problems in the developing child- and not just a few susceptible children, but I'm pretty sure if there was a experiment where every single child of x age given y amount of controlled substance for z years, 100% would have unquestionable physiological damage as a direct result.

      Wi

  • keepe suggesting.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 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.

    • south park taught me about tolerance of other peoples lifestyles/viewpoints/religions (the mormonism one was a big eyeopener for me), taught me responsible use of drugs and alcohol, and taught me how to use foul language in an appropriate manner.

      i hope it doesn't get taken away...

  • Limiting != Good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by downlo ( 529531 ) on Sunday January 09, 2005 @12:24AM (#11301818) Homepage
    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.

    • 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 a
  • 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

  • Gaming License (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TheAdventurer ( 779556 )
    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.
    • That would work, except for the fact that unless you make this some sort of governmental-issued license--which is, frankly, ridiculous--you get major forgery issues. Hell, I'm 16 and I've already memorized my dad's credit card number. I'm mostly a "good kid" and I'd never use it, but I could a. buy stuff online b. use it as a kind of "proof of age"--hello porn! But otherwise it's a good idea.
  • 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-
  • 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 statem

Slashdot Top Deals

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Close