UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games

[gardian06]

wait I read the article twice, and there is no mention of arrest, or jail sentence. the person talks about responsibility, education, and possible prosecution (nowhere did he say the result of the prosecution being a jail sentence) the person who titled the article presumed arrest. I think most everybody here is overreacting to the word "prosecution" when he is probably more likely talking about a trial where a fine is imposed.

I actually like the idea of fining the parents that don't at least understand the rating system, and buy the game anyways not realizing that list next to the rating. file a lawsuit after buying the game calling it to violent then you get the fine (double the lawsuit) to shut you up.

those rating are on the box for a reason, and in some regards yes I completely agree that 8 year-old Timmy should not be playing CoD trash talking on XBL, and his parents should be held responsible/accountable for that. The "I know better then you do" statement is childish, but so is the "I can give my child a ___ if I want to" both do nothing, but start a pissing contest.

 

[Fappy]

Someone tell me why this guy has a platform? God damn.

 

[Berithil]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Wait.... He's serious.....


It's not the governments job to raise children, its the job of the parents. If mommy and daddy want to get little 6 year timmy grand theft auto for Christmas, it might not be the wisest decision, but its still their choice. Unless its a blatant crime like murder or meth cooking, the government has no business in what happens in the family home, period.

 

[templar1138a]

*facepalm*

You know, on second thought, I actually hope this kind of legislation will pass, in the States as well. It would pave the way for arresting parents who shove their religious beliefs down their children's throats; parents who force their kids to take part in sports or scout groups; parents who teach things to their kids that have even the slightest racist undertone to them.

Sometimes the slippery slope can be a good thing.

Also, Venza from Toyota can kiss my hairy ass.

 

[thiosk]

Lets jail all the people who look different too! Also, fatties!

 

[thenumberthirteen]

I sort of agree with him.

I work at a cinema and if I let someone under the appropriate age in I get fined thousands, and lose my job. The parent who brought their kid to see the movie gets off with nothing. I accept it is my responsibility to enforce the rules, but it also the job of the parent, and they should have legal responsibilities too. It's illegal to buy drink or cigarettes for minors, but not games or movies which are similarly age protected.

 

[Covarr]

The problem with this is that it assumes all kids are the same, when that really couldn't be further from the truth. Some kids are quite impressionable and have no business playing anything more violent than Tetris, while others very much aren't. Some 15 year olds can handle PEGI 16 level violence, while some 17 year olds can't.

This is why in general I'm opposed to legislation like this. If a company wants not to sell these things to kids younger than the rating, that's fine, as companies are (usually) private entities. But when the government starts saying it's against the law to decide what's best for your kids, and acting as though all kids of a certain age are the same person, it becomes unreasonable.

P.S. Thanks

 

[xaszatm]

Hey guys, let's be fair here. At least he is going in the right direction, blaming parents who don't take the ESRB/PEGI/CERO system to heart instead of game companies or other random things. Who knows, maybe in the next couple of centuries, they might finally get it right.

 

[bobmus]

Uh... what? So, because my parents decided I could take the mental scarring of such horror as presented in say, Tony Hawk's Underground, they should be arrested.

Oh you!

 

[zidine100]

um yeah, that actually seems logical in this day in age, the amount of parents who take a bf if they buy there kids a 18 rated game, for being to violent is unreal.

Then the amount of politicians who call for a outright ban of 'mature games' because of this, forgetting it was the parent in the first place who bought it, is also utterly dumb.

ergo why not tackle the root problem here. Dumb parents. Stores here can not sell games to underage people anyway so... yeah.

ahh well i know someone will just come on and post WRONG to this comment

Spoiler

lex wins

but i might as-well post it.

That is if prosecution does not mean jail time.... which to be honest prosecution does not equal jail.

 

[halobolola]

Wouldnt mind this.
If consoles (main problem for children) had a way to report underage players, which then went to a local authority, would stop the endless amounts of children screaming down the mic all the time.

Funny when cod comes out though

 

[nathan-dts]

He realises a huge number of people would be arrested if this was the case, right?

 

[mirage202]

This guy is nuts. As it is parents no longer have a leg to stand on when complaining about violence in games being inappropriate for their kids, they circumvented the law to let the kid play it.

Isn't that enough? Not as if we can cure stupidity, only expose it.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Did I read the same article everyone else did?

This guy said "prosecute", not specifically "jail" or "arrest". Maybe he means like a fine? Who here has ever received a traffic ticket? Tada! You've been "prosecuted". This guy wants to make it illegal for parents to buy these games for their children, which is currently how many circumvent PEGI (and ESRB in the U.S.), but then the "parents" still turn around and run these ridiculous campaigns about the violent videogames that somehow got into their children's hands.

Isn't this suggestion the logical conclusion to the "blame the parents, not the game" mantra when the "games community" feels threatened by major media or legislation against violent videogames?

Personally, I'd rather government just stay out of everyone's business, but the dichotomy here confuses me.

 

[loa]

You know on one hand, I don't see the "damaging effects" children need to be "protected" from here and if anything, sheltering kids, keeping the actual world out there away from them as long as possible and letting them live in a safety bubble probably has a much more damaging effect than some simulated blood or *gasp* a naked human body.

On the other hand, fuck those 12 year old call of duty xbox live shriekers.

 

[Aeonknight]

Did I read the same article everyone else did?

This guy said "prosecute", not specifically "jail" or "arrest". Maybe he means like a fine? Who here has ever received a traffic ticket? Tada! You've been "prosecuted". This guy wants to make it illegal for parents to buy these games for their children, which is currently how many circumvent PEGI (and ESRB in the U.S.), but then the "parents" still turn around and run these ridiculous campaigns about the violent videogames that somehow got into their children's hands.

Isn't this suggestion the logical conclusion to the "blame the parents, not the game" mantra when the "games community" feels threatened by major media or legislation against violent videogames?

Personally, I'd rather government just stay out of everyone's business, but the dichotomy here confuses me.

This. In so many ways.

You either start making parents responsible for their poor practices (maybe not as extreme as jail time, a fine is more reasonable,) or you let the industry take the responsibility when little Jimmy shoots up a school and points the finger at Call of Duty.

The most reasonable answer is to make little Jimmy responsible for his own actions, but of course that will never happen. No one wants to think children aren't innocent, and will blame everything else before they blame the person who pulled the trigger.

 

[TwiZtah]

Ugh, not again, a leak in the morally upfucked associations!

Most kids will be fine with violence and sex (well, The US of A is NOT okay with half a nipple, but half a brain on a wall is all okay) I played doom when I was 5 and I have not killed anyone and am a generally calm and harmonic person.

 

[cerebus23]

It breaks down two ways.

One hand its the whole why should government be telling people how to raise their children? is that any business that a government should have to be deciding some overarching standard of what is good and proper for people to show/let their kids play, vs what is not? dont different children mature differently to a good degree?

but on the other hand we have all seen those parents with the young kids at the R rated movies and such, and well it hard not to see a certain point here.

 

[teqrevisited]

"He also points the finger at game developers for shying away from the responsibility of keeping kids from playing their products."

Does he live in the real world?

Even account-based systems can't keep children from accessing age restricted content if the parents don't control it themselves. He should be pointing the finger solely at the irresponsible parents who try to pass the buck on to retailers because they were too lazy to research what they were buying.