Parents Deemed Wholly Responsible for Kids Playing Violent Video Games

[Tharic-Nar]

A recent ruling in California struck down the proposal that would bar violent video games from being purchased or rented by anyone under the age of 18, which reaffirms that idea that the sole persons responsible for the games that children play are the parents. While the aforementioned proposal would have done well to keep violent video games out of the hands of young children, it would have set a not-too-great precedent. Thus, many parents, even those who oppose violent video games, welcomed the blocking of this proposal with open arms.

You can read the rest of our post and discuss here.

[Optix]

First off, a parent's say is always final. If they say that a 13 year old can play a game rated M, then that's fine. Parents are, in the end, ultimately responsible for the upbringing of the child.

Second, you're shitting me, right?

What about the parents who don't know enough about games in general or take an active role in what their children are exposed to or just don't care? If a child cannot buy a ticket for an R-rated movie, how can they be allowed to walk up to a counter and buy a game that would be restricted if it were a movie?

If I owned a game store, I would make it a personal policy that before any game rated beyond the age of a child is sold, that child would need to have a parent there to vouch that selling them the game is appropriate.

Should that parent give a thumbs up, I'd still have the staff mention the rating and the points that are mentioned next to it for why the game received the rating it did.

[On_Wisconsin]

Insert quote about parenting by George Carlin here

[marfig]

I fully agree Optix. This makes very little sense and gives the game market a legal exception, not the contrary.

The world doesn't turn everyday behind rose tinted glasses. Many parents simply do not have the ability to follow their kids activities. Many in fact work the whole time the sun is up and kids are left alone to spend their time going to school and doing whatever they wish to do with the rest of their time. This idea of responsible parenthood is appealing but is nothing much more than a pipe dream on any society that sees work becoming an increasingly demanding activity.

While this state of affairs shouldn't just exempt parents of their responsibilities, I don't see why they shouldn't get some help. After all it's not them who asked to be away from home for 12h a day on many cases. More if you count low class urban families where, in fact, the problem of violent games meets a social environment that may work together against both the child and the society as a whole.

This ruling surprises me and shouldn't go anywhere to make anyone feel better or safer about the education of their children. If a bunch of middle-class civil liberties parent buffs want to make a victory of this, they apparently did. But if they think they made any contribution child upbringing in today's society, they are sorely mistaken. They only contributed to their personal civil liberties political agenda.

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by Optix

What about the parents who don't know enough about games in general or take an active role in what their children are exposed to or just don't care?

To be honest, I believe that if the parents don't care or don't have interest in, well, being a parent, then chances are good that if a kid grows up to be violent or have some other less-than-ideal characteristic, video games or movies wouldn't be the fault - it'd be their parents. While video games can impact certain people in certain ways, not being exposed to genuine parenting while growing up, to me, is a far greater reason for concern.

Originally Posted by Optix

While this state of affairs shouldn't just exempt parents of their responsibilities, I don't see why they shouldn't get some help. After all it's not them who asked to be away from home for 12h a day on many cases. More if you count low class urban families where, in fact, the problem of violent games meets a social environment that may work together against both the child and the society as a whole.

I can agree with this to some degree. I still feel that it should be the parents responsibility to monitor such activities, and if we're not talking about a title-by-title kind of scenario, explain to the child what's appropriate and what's not in movies or video games. Then take action if the child goes against your wishes and then perhaps take stricter measures.

If you're a parent, be a parent. No one said being a parent was easy, and I don't think working 12 hours a day is enough of an excuse to not be a parent.

I realize I might be a little blunt here... I've just known a LOT of shitty parents, and to see the brats that their kids grow up to be, it just irks me. I've even seen the opposite, where the parents are too parenty and the kids grow up to be even stranger than those who have next-to-no parenting at all.

[Kayden]

I agree with Optix, game stores should not get a free pass on the content and sell to minors. They don't with other forms of adult entertainment there should be a president for a limit to minors in this industry as well.

I do however think it is just chicken shit to blame the game industry as most parent's do for violence and yet they said the same thing about AD&D back in the 70's & 80's but wait didn't they say the same thing about Rock & roll? Being a parent myself I do the best I can to understand what is influencing my kids but that's because I want to be involved, the worst part some don't for their job, too self absorbed into themselves, not enough time or what ever reason. The point is those who didn't grow up with something don't want or don't have the time to understand it and that has never changed.

This is something that I don't see changing anytime soon, especially with it being a requirement for both parents to work to just make ends meat. These things lead parents to not caring or just unable to be involved with their children and it's sad but I for one am going to stay involved, eve if I like what they do or not.

[Optix]

Think of it as a K.Y.A. issue. Nobody wants to be a scapegoat for something like this.

[RainMotorsports]

I dont know how it is in cali but if we ignore the 17 versus 18 thoughts. Here stores wont sell a Teen/Mature rated game to anyone under 17. Sure it happens but in general the main method of obtaining those games wouldn't be blocked by the law.

My grandmother mentioned she was picking up a game for me and then all of a sudden they wanted to know my age which was 23 at the time lol. Unless the store policies of most retailers is different out there not sure what the deal was in the first place.

[Rob Williams]

Originally Posted by RainMotorsports

I dont know how it is in cali but if we ignore the 17 versus 18 thoughts. Here stores wont sell a Teen/Mature rated game to anyone under 17. Sure it happens but in general the main method of obtaining those games wouldn't be blocked by the law.

My grandmother mentioned she was picking up a game for me and then all of a sudden they wanted to know my age which was 23 at the time lol. Unless the store policies of most retailers is different out there not sure what the deal was in the first place.

Hmm, that's interesting. I have no idea whatsoever what the rules are around here. I don't know anyone that young who buys video games, and even then, most people I know don't even go to the store anymore; they just order online or buy it through Steam.

[Optix]

It's up to each store as far as I know. A friend of mine used to run a game store and he was very tight with what he sold and to who. He lost a few sales but he did everything by the book, just like I said above.

I miss that place. *sniff*

[OriginalJoeCool]

What place was that?

[Optix]

Microplay West.

3 or 4 years after he closed up, he ended up working with my wife.

[OriginalJoeCool]

Yeah, I used to go there. It was a cool place.

[marfig]

Over here legislation prohibits this. Game content is rated according to the PEGI system and is legally enforced, prohibiting the selling or distribution of unsuitable content according to the age of the minor. I have no doubt some shops may circumvent this, but they do it at their own risk since legislation provides for both state and individuals (parents most certainly) prosecution.

A few years back I remember having a debate about this very subject. I've always been a supporter of ratings systems exactly because they only stopped direct access to unsuitable content. Freedom of Speech is preserved, as is parents and other in-charge adults responsibility. I find many questionable content highly educational, but only if I can control when and how my daughters have access to it. The rating system and the legislation that accompanies it help me achieve this exactly.

However, I remember very well when I was younger. Certainly games weren't as technologically superior as they are today, so bent on breaking cultural barriers, or so politically or sexually oriented. But I still had access to content that was certainly not suitable to my age. At 15 I was playing Paradise Café on ZXSpectrum bought on the local gaming store. Samantha Fox Strip Poker, Cover Up and others also made it into my collection without my parents ever suspecting a thing. These games were clearly labelled "Adult Only" on the cassette covers. But shops would sell them to an infant if they could.

Nothing of this (as well as access to porn magazines, movies and whatnot) made me into a imbalanced person. And this brings me to the problem, as I see it:

A certain American establishment sees in sex only, the corruption of morale and good customs. The last Mortal Kombat may sell to kids if it only shows people being dismembered in graphical detail, GTA may sell if crime is a central piece of the player actions, or action games may sell if violence against civilians in an airport is part of the game introduction. But show on any of these games some naked breasts, a vagina, a penis, or any kind of sexual intercourse, and immediately the game is actively protected from children.

While I certainly won't think twice about monitoring access to sexual content, I am far more worried about access to violence. Particularly the type of violence that emulates real-life violence. And especially the type of violence that is a part of the urban landscape. Not because I don't think these can be good educational instruments, but because unchecked they can do more harm than good.

I'm not trying to make a distinction here. I just find it an error to treat violence and sexual content so differently from each other. Not because they are related (although under some circumstances they can). But because the relaxation on violence is, as I see it, a great point of concern for any society.

[OriginalJoeCool]

I don't get the sex-phobia people have. Even the Bible is sexually explicit, so they're not getting it from that.