Topic: Kids and violent videogames

I forgot about how Aussie censorship is much more strict than other places (and also didn't realize you were in Australia, my bad). But i completely disagree, from a legal standpoint, about actual legal restrictions on creative content. What i do agree with and what needs to be in place (and theoretically is, though not always followed as it should) is a voluntary system where retailers/distributors enforce the particualr industry's guidelines (whether its for movies, games, or whatever).

Legal restrictions, unless there is a truly truly truly compelling reason for them (eg, child porn being illegal is the prime example, and even that can have certain legal exceptions), can create the proverbial "slippery slope" towards government controlled censorship and the potential dismantling of the First Amendment in the US. Sadly, when it comes to First Amendment rights, people forget that just because you can do or say something, doesn't mean you necessarily should. They should all heed the words of Peter Parker's Uncle Ben. =)

Rabbits.

@tbd
That's most likely just the mall and/or theatre covering their own behind; i have seen the same as well in my younger days. It's not worth it to have some parent all of the sudden come back and raise a stink, or write a letter to the editor of the local paper, etc etc. Plus, since it (as all stores are) is technically a private establishment, they can establish their own rules (eg, not allowing minors to see a certain level of film), and then have mall cops help in enforcing those rules (the old "no shirt, no shoes, no dice" rule) =)

Maybe there need to be legal restrictions in Australia, if people really sell these games to kids as often as you say, but they're completely unnecessary in America. The American video game market has the best self-regulated "not selling mature content directly to minors" rate of any entertainment industry. This doesn't stop kids from getting their hands on the games, though, 'cause ignorant parents continue to buy them for them. The law they're going to decide upon in November wouldn't change ANYTHING here, from a functional standpoint. Selling an M-rated game to a kid is already a firable offense at GameStop, for example, which is why we don't do it.

Basically, I think you and I agree that kids shouldn't have access to this type of content, but don't see eye-to-eye on what measures need to be taken to reach that goal. Laws are not needed, period. 100% parental responsibility would do the trick just fine.

@SonicMaster - I LMAO when I saw that video! My friend showed it to me a few weeks ago and I have since forgotten how funny it was.
Back on topic, I think it is generally true that young children shouldn't play M rated games, or see R rated movies. Why else would these ratings exist if not to tell us that their content isn't appropriate for some ages. Having said that, I do feel that for some kids, playing video games that most would consider inappropriate for their age isn't as bad as it is made out to be. After all, I've been playing M rated games since my brother got GTA3 for our PS2 when I was around 8, and I'm not too messed up (I hope :3). Still, I am a 14 year-old, and for that reason my opinion could be somewhat biased.

Sexual themes I can understand, but like I said a few posts ago,I honestly dont see the point in ratings for games like Team Fortress 2. Most of these games arnt even that bad, so why give them an M rating?

@Kanrakus
Well, that's the ESRB's call. I'd expect it's just due to the killing and such, even though it's cartoon-ish. I haven't played the game myself so i couldn't speak more specifcally to that point. The ESRB generally doesn't seem to take kindly to when players can kill humans, unless it's in more of a "historical" war setting, and even then it's touchy.

Of course, ratings boards themselves are often suspect; the MPAA is constantly accused of down-rating (eg, rating them PG-13 rather than R) films if they're from an established studio or well-known (and liked) director.

@Waltz:

So if I go to Australia and play Dead Rising (my latest game), will I get fined, or will the store which I bought the game from will get fined? Because Im only (soon to be) 12.

No, the person who supplies the game to you (most likely the store, but potentially a case could also be brought against older siblings/ parents who bought the game for you) would be the ones eligable for a fine.

It's essentially a similar law to alcohol or cigarettes, and I agree with it.

Legal restrictions, unless there is a truly truly truly compelling reason for them (eg, child porn being illegal is the prime example, and even that can have certain legal exceptions), can create the proverbial "slippery slope" towards government controlled censorship and the potential dismantling of the First Amendment in the US. Sadly, when it comes to First Amendment rights, people forget that just because you can do or say something, doesn't mean you necessarily should. They should all heed the words of Peter Parker's Uncle Ben. =)

That's assuming we should subscribe to the view that America's view of cultural development is the right one, that the First Ammendment Right is a good one, and so on and so forth. There are plenty of analysts and social commentators that would debate that.

Australia doesn't have a freedom of speech provision, amongst other things, and from what I've observed about both Australian and American cultures, Australia is the less aggressive and politer society. We also don't have a right to own weaponry, and we do fine there.

Without turning this into a political argument, simply stating "there shouldn't be a law against giving minors games they shouldn't have because that's what we do in America" is a flawed argument. In terms of building a healthy, decent society for everyone, I believe there's a pretty compelling argument for keeping certain material out of the hands and minds of children.

100% parental responsibility would do the trick just fine.

Doesn't work, as you just said in your post. Bad parents etc etc need incentives to be good parents.

To take an extreme example, there's a reason that murder is illegal, and we don't leave it up to individuals (or our parent's discretion) to enforce their own moral code. Some things do need regulation for the health of society.

Sexual themes I can understand, but like I said a few posts ago,I honestly dont see the point in ratings for games like Team Fortress 2. Most of these games arnt even that bad, so why give them an M rating?

Violence is more harmful than sexual content, I can promise you.

I don't know about that. There are different degrees of violence and sexual content. I think I'd rather a child be exposed to something that might him the idea to hit someone than rape someone. The example was a game with killing, but if you just say "violence is more harmful" as a catch-all statement, I don't know what such a promise is worth. I don't know why the two need to be compared and ranked to begin with though.

To the people saying that it should be "100% parenting," that's pretty silly and non-sensical. The law prohibiting sales of adult content to minors enables good parenting. As long as there is a law for this (or in the US, an industry-enforced rating system or however the heck this works), it means the child needs the parent to step in. Otherwise, the only way for "100% parenting" to be effective is if the parent shadows the kid day and night, which, rabbits, would be 100% bad parenting. Yea, you can raise a kid good, but even the greatest parents have to contend with a million other influences on a growing mind that each day think it knows more than it does. Enforced ratings is a far cry from infringement of personal freedoms.

Well, that wasn't the argument -- or point -- i was trying to make at all. I was simply stating, from a legal perspective (being an attorney and all), that when government begins to encroach into freedoms of expression by instituting legal repurcussions upon forms of expression that can potentially stifle the rights of indivduals to engage in such expression, it can create a "slippery slope" (an oft used legal euphemism in the US, particularly in relation to Constitutional rights). Every country is of course different, and should follow their own paths that their individual populaces deem correct for them.

I agree that there are compelling reasons to keep certain materials out of the hands of children; i believe we just differ on whether the instrumentalities of same should be enforced by the legal system, or through voluntary self-regulation. It's a debate that has valid points on either side.

@Adam: i'm cool with the law prohibiting my (eventual) kid from attempting to run around behind my back and purchase an M-rated game, but me walking into a store and wanting to purchase an M-rated game for my kid, even after being warned by the clerk that the game may contain violence, sex, and/or drug usage, I don't want that to be against the law (which is what I think Waltz is attempting to argue, if i'm reading him correctly). it's the same as taking my kid to see an R-rated movie IMO (or the same kid attempting to purchase an R-rated movie behind my back); while I appreciate Big Government's concern, and i'd be happy if they wanted to card any unaccompanied minors, it's my call as to whether or not I think they can handle what's going on in it if i am right there with them, and I'll be the one to explain things if they have any questions afterward.

Oh, is he? I should stop posting in discussions I've barely skimmed. Yea, that's kind of silly. A rating is a warning for a parent. But parents can make their own judgment for their own families. No one has a right to decide for them. My parents had no problem with me seeing blood or some violence as long as it wasn't overboard, and they had no problem with nudity as long as there wasn't actual sex. (Little boys have a good idea of what booties and boobies look like already anyway. Give us some credit.) I would feel the same way for my own kids if I hated the world enough to produce more people who might end up like me. And if I think the kid is mature enough for the rest of that before 17 (an arbitrary age to begin with -- not everyone matures at a set interval [R is 17 still, right?]), then have at it. I was seeing all that good stuff by 16, I think, though not often, as I was raised well enough not to care that much about the naughty stuff. (Plus, the internet was invented for a reason.)

@theblackdragon

word

Well, that wasn't the argument -- or point -- i was trying to make at all. I was simply stating, from a legal perspective (being an attorney and all), that when government begins to encroach into freedoms of expression by instituting legal repurcussions upon forms of expression that can potentially stifle the rights of indivduals to engage in such expression, it can create a "slippery slope" (an oft used legal euphemism in the US, particularly in relation to Constitutional rights).

I understood, but I disagree with that theory. America's famous for creating 'slippery slopes' when they don't really exist. The Vietnam War happened because Vietnam's communist movement was part of the 'slippery slope' that was going to see the whole world painted red.

I understand it's part of the American mindset to protect personal freedom at all expenses, but a Government introducing a law that prevents an 11 year old from wandering into an X rated film is not part of a slippery slope at all, any more than a legal drinking age of 21 is.

But I agree, there are plenty of other arguments for voluntary self regulation. I just believe it is behooven of a Government to play a role in ensuring social standards are upheld.

I don't know about that. There are different degrees of violence and sexual content. I think I'd rather a child be exposed to something that might him the idea to hit someone than rape someone. The example was a game with killing, but if you just say "violence is more harmful" as a catch-all statement, I don't know what such a promise is worth. I don't know why the two need to be compared and ranked to begin with though.

The two are comparable simply because they are both the centre of censorship debates. And as a general rule, the US has it the wrong way around (I believe) - the censorship culture over there takes a much softer approach to violence, while attacking any sexual content like it is a sign of the appocalypse. Ultimately there is much greater harm - potentially - in exposing a young-un to graphic images of a soldier having a bullet blow through his brain, than of a couple having sex.

One is, by-and-large, a positive experience. The other is negative. I never, ever understood the need to censor positive experiences. (please note that depictions of rape do not count in the former, since they are in themselves classified as violent actions.)

@Adam: i'm cool with the law prohibiting my (eventual) kid from attempting to run around behind my back and purchase an M-rated game, but me walking into a store and wanting to purchase an M-rated game for my kid, even after being warned by the clerk that the game may contain violence, sex, and/or drug usage, I don't want that to be against the law (which is what I think Waltz is attempting to argue, if i'm reading him correctly). it's the same as taking my kid to see an R-rated movie IMO (or the same kid attempting to purchase an R-rated movie behind my back); while I appreciate Big Government's concern, and i'd be happy if they wanted to card any unaccompanied minors, it's my call as to whether or not I think they can handle what's going on in it if i am right there with them, and I'll be the one to explain things if they have any questions afterward.

Yeah. That's the point I was making. If a parent does decide to override the ratings system, than the fact it would technically be illegal is irrelevant - there isn't a watchdog or security cameras in the typical home. After all, my parents had no problem with me drinking beer and watching R rated films when I was 17, though both were technically illegal at that stage.

@Waltz: i don't understand -- i thought you were trying to argue that it should be illegal for me to do those things I described -- you were saying in this reply that you believed that "the ratings system should be treated as law," and in this one here that "It [the ratings system in Australia] should be the same with the games industry - the problem is, it's not regulated enough." (note that the preceding statement was with regards to people being fined for allowing a minor to see an R18+ movie whether a parent was present or not.) has that changed?

bottom line: i want to be able to take my (eventual) kid out to see a movie in public, or to walk into a store and purchase an M-rated game with my kid right there with me without being given the third degree regarding who will be playing said game (like sometimes they do if you try to purchase alcohol and you've got a teenage kid with you). i want to be allowed to be out and about in public and seeing/purchasing said things with my child if I so choose, not having to hide behind closed doors at home. it is my decision as to when I see my child is mature enough to handle these things, and not the government's.

No, I do believe that in public classifications should be law. My view is pretty simple - certain classifications (MA and R, in Australia) need to be treated like alcohol, driving, and smoking for the classification to even have a point. It's not helping promote a healthy social environment to allow parents to break the law in public whenever they feel like it.

Of course, at home everything will be up to the parent's discretion.

I'm so glad you're not in any position to do anything about it then, Waltz. :3
_{not here in the US anyway; in Australia, do as you please}

I'm sure plenty of people would be very glad I have no plans for a political future, because I definately have the benevolent dictator as my ideal form of government <_<

@Waltz

I think it's not really correct to compare regulation of things like alchohol or tobacco with regulating forms of expression, as they are fundamentally different in just about every way imaginable.

And a "slippery slope" in a legal context is very different from raising comparisons to politicians justifying wars, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing at all. In "legalese", a "slippery slope" is used to refer to the precedent that a law creates, which can allow for greater and greater restriction (or permission, as the case may be). When laws are passed restricting (or permitting) something, it makes it more likely that later laws can be passed building on those previous precedents. It is why many supporters of the Second Amendment are so often opposed to any types of firearm bans, as it can lead to the "well, if that's outlawed, let's outlaw this too" concept (but that's an entirely different discussion; just using that as an example).

Keep in mind there are laws in the US when it comes to viewing pornography (which is what i assume you meant by X-rated movies, though X-rated does not technically refer to pornography as far as the ratings-board classifications go (and i believe the "X" rating has actually been eliminated by the MPAA)) and minors.

I do agree that in the US there is somewhat of a backward emphasis on worrying about sexual content vs violent content. That is, by and large, a result of our nation's origins and culture as a whole. Strong arguments exist on both sides as to what is potentially more "harmful" (if either truly is at all when viewed in proper or appropriate contexts).

^{I think i'm a little all over the place in this post, but it's getting late and me tired.}

what I don't understand is why it's necessary to implement a law that says I can't buy an M rated game for my kid while he's standing next to me, when I could just go to Gamestop by myself and buy him Modern Warfare 2 for his birthday. I just don't think it would actually prevent kids from playing games that are created for people outside their age group. More ignorant parents will still just buy the games for their kids.

I think it's not really correct to compare regulation of things like alchohol or tobacco with regulating forms of expression, as they are fundamentally different in just about every way imaginable.

I'm not sure how the consumption of media is a form of expression. There are no laws, as far as I am aware, preventing a 16 year old making an R rated film.

And a "slippery slope" in a legal context is very different from raising comparisons to politicians justifying wars, which has nothing to do with what we're discussing at all. In "legalese", a "slippery slope" is used to refer to the precedent that a law creates, which can allow for greater and greater restriction (or permission, as the case may be). When laws are passed restricting (or permitting) something, it makes it more likely that later laws can be passed building on those previous precedents. It is why many supporters of the Second Amendment are so often opposed to any types of firearm bans, as it can lead to the "well, if that's outlawed, let's outlaw this too" concept (but that's an entirely different discussion; just using that as an example).

I'm familiar with the concept - it's the same argument that people are making against an ISP-level filter to block RC (refused classification) level Websites and the ilk.

I don't believe that's how Governments really work, and beyond that I don't believe certain harmful freedoms should be maintained simply because people are worried they'll lose less-harmful freedoms. But this is just my opinion.

Keep in mind there are laws in the US when it comes to viewing pornography (which is what i assume you meant by X-rated movies, though X-rated does not technically refer to pornography as far as the ratings-board classifications go (and i believe the "X" rating has actually been eliminated by the MPAA)) and minors.

The X rating is a strange on in Australia. It's essentially media with high-level sexual content, which may be simulated or real, but includes no violence and has very heavy restrictions on fetishes. It's the only legal form of pornography in Australia, and can only be bought and sold in two territories within Australia. Otherwise it is treated as an R-rated film is.

That's the X rating I was talking about. I didn't even realise there was an equivilent in the US.

what I don't understand is why it's necessary to implement a law that says I can't buy an M rated game for my kid while he's standing next to me, when I could just go to Gamestop by myself and buy him Modern Warfare 2 for his birthday. I just don't think it would actually prevent kids from playing games that are created for people outside their age group. More ignorant parents will still just buy the games for their kids.

Technically it's actually illegal, but there aren't police monitoring the typical home. So parents are free to use their discretion.

As they should. Please don't take this to mean I approve a police state, but I do believe classifications ratings should be, in principle, law. If a parent wants to ignore that law at home, then power to them.

Off Topic Please, please, please, leave the name of the person you are quoting in your posts, @WaltzElf. I guess the next time I see a pet peeve discussion I can finally respond with something, nameless quotes. Anyways, proceed