![Editorial Editorial](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/editorial_64.png)
![Entertainment Entertainment](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/entertainment_64.png)
![Games Games](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/games_64.png)
The Law as a Parent 161
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?""
How, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't.
Re:How, you ask? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:How, you ask? (Score:1)
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)
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? (Score:2)
Re:How, you ask? (Score:2)
How many R rated movies are made? The movie industry has repeated it cuts films to get them down to PG-13. Its a different way to censor, but its still censorship.
Re:How, you ask? (Score:2)
Game Sales, not Game Industry. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they do. But the stores generally don't care. That's why the law is needed.
Re:Game Sales, not Game Industry. (Score:2)
Which gets right back to what iocat said in the grandparent post, which is that the ratings should more accuratly reflect the content: "it would be to see more use of the AO rating, to sign
How? More likely parent will be invovled ... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:How, you ask? (Score:2)
Re:How, you ask? (Score:2)
Less work (Score:2)
lazy parents rejoice!
Corollary: (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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 (Score:3)
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:1)
Re:If parenting is such hard work (Score:4, Funny)
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!
Re:If parenting is such hard work (Score:2)
something overlooked (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:something overlooked (Score:1)
Re:something overlooked (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:something overlooked (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:something overlooked (Score:2)
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)
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)
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 (Score:2)
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
Re:something overlooked (Score:2)
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)!
Re:something overlooked (Score:2, Informative)
Re:something overlooked (Score:2)
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.
Re:something overlooked (Score:2)
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
Re:something overlooked (Score:2, Insightful)
This is new? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
Re:This is new? (Score:1)
Slashdot is the wrong place (Score:1)
Re:This is new? (Score:1)
Re:This is new? (Score:2)
Re:This is new? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is also no artistic, literary, scientific, political or historical merit when it comes to pornography.
Re:This is new? (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:This is new? (Score:2)
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.
This article is weak (Score:1)
Hrumph (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hrumph (Score:2)
Re:Hrumph (Score:2)
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.
Re:Hrumph (Score:1)
Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps you need to rethink what you are saying as your lack of thinking things out makes you a dangerous person.
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
Restrictions on household products. (Score:2)
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
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:1)
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
Kids already drink alcohol and smoke pot as it is. Laws like these really just make more criminals.
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
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
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:1)
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
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
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
Re:Will someone please think of the parents? (Score:2)
There are several reasons why my model is better:
1) The panopticon doesn't encourage moral behaviour.
In a panop
Movie ratings, can you find them? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Movie ratings, can you find them? (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to start some more discussion... (Score:2, Troll)
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
Re:I want to start some more discussion... (Score:2)
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
Re:I want to start some more discussion... (Score:2)
I believe you misread me. You many read in "force." "Force" a child to watch pornography. I did not say force. Let. Let them watch pornography. I can understand how it's easy to read that in, but I did not say it, and I did not mean it. Please re-read with that in mind.
I really do not want to come off as an asshole with this post, and I do want you to respond. I can honestly understand how you could read in "force." I wrote force in when I typed in up just to delete afterw
Re:I want to start some more discussion... (Score:2)
There was no real sarcasm when I said it was "sound advice." I mean, there's coherence in that idea. Maybe the use of the word "mantra" sets you off on that one: I suppose, yes, that word is commonly used negatively. I don't mean to use it like that though, but I couldn't think of a better word to describe it. Meme? That's one Slashdot knows, but doesn't so
Re:I want to start some more discussion... (Score:2)
Acutally, your position is pretty solid and I understand it. Give parents the right to do whatever they want to their children that does not cause any sort of even close to long term harm. So spanking allowed, as long you don't bruise, for example. As I said before, sound. But I think one can still see where my questions fit in.
As a society we definitely do outlaw some things that
How you ask? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
GRAMMAR nazis (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
Also I object to the claim that nothing without harm is restricted. Why is porn restricted, then?
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
You're right; a lot of no-harm things are restricted; masturbation is even illegal (crime against nature) in some US states. Se
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
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
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:1)
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
Re:Unfortunately.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How you ask? (Score:2)
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
Re:How you ask? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:keepe suggesting.... (Score:1)
i hope it doesn't get taken away...
Limiting != Good (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Party in HS may have led to failure in HS not Univ (Score:2)
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
Re:Party in HS may have led to failure in HS not U (Score:2)
Re:Party in HS may have led to failure in HS not U (Score:2)
Were you stoned the day they taught the phrase "may have" in school?
Re:Party in HS may have led to failure in HS not U (Score:2)
The thing is, it's normal for teenagers to want to do things that their parents don't want them to. Not to mention just having fun...the idea is to do these things while you're still a kid, before you move on to other things, and when it may have more effect on the rest of your life.
Re:Party in HS may have led to failure in HS not U (Score:2)
Torn to agree (Score:1)
Gaming License (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gaming License (Score:1)
Quite Obviously (Score:1)
Where is the PROOF!? (Score:2)
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
Re:Just another reason... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's the Democrats who want to regulate every aspect of our lives and our children's lives. I've never seen any Republican try to pass laws like these.
Re:Just another reason... (Score:1)
These things seem a lot more serious and life-altering than playing GTA before you are 17.
Re:Just another reason... (Score:2)
Umm...grandparent said vote Libertarian, not Democrat.
Re:Just another reason... (Score:2)
Re:Just another reason... (Score:1)