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.
You see, a system like this would not only persecute the lazy parents who unknowinly buy mature games for their children. But also the parents who, after informing themselves, decide that their kids are mature enough to play said game.
An awareness campaign would be much better in this case, a parents association would not be taken as seriously when they say this games are poisoning their children when there's a sign outside the retailer store saying that the M in the cover means that someone under 17 should not play this game
I didn't say it was a good idea. Simply, it isn't as bad an idea as people seem to be making it out to be. As a matter-of-fact, it seems to be the exact same idea that this community rallies behind whenever parent's associations and the like lash out at "vidyagames". You are quite right, though; this, like any other hypothetical legislation, has the potential to be abused if you assume it is a simple law. Most laws, however, anywhere you are, end up with so many caveats and exceptions (like for your "responsible parent" scenario) that they prove largely ineffective or unenforceable once implemented.
The problem with "awareness campaigns" is that ignorant fools do not wish to make themselves "aware". The rating is on the box, most retailers card, ESRB posters are in most stores in the U.S., not sure about PEGI in the UK. Granted that anecdotal evidence isn't much to go on in official venues, but here goes: how many video game retail clerks can attest to warning a parent that a "Mature" game would not be appropriate for their child, only to have that parent scoff at them about "knowing what they're doing" only for the parent to return furious that the store allowed their child to play this "terrible" game? That is the kind of person we are up against in this situation.
Again, personally, I think the government should just stay out of everyone's business. I think the current systems are as good as we can get; developers and retailers follow ESRB/PEGI, those that don't tend not to last. "Responsible" parents follow the ratings, irresponsible parents don't and will continue to blame other people for their own failings.
You know, I don't like this idea, but I would love to see the face of a lazy parent when they tell him that he has to pay a 100$ fine because he bought little Timmy "Adventures of the Super Cool Murderer 5"
I find it ironic that the people who seemingly don't care enough for their children to check if the game that they want to buy is something that a kid should be playing are the first one to complain that these games are corrupting the children
Although I wonder what/if there's some system that could be implemented to make sure more people are informed (Aside from awareness campaigns)
That very scenario might be worth the consumer rights violation.
I'm not sure there's a simpler way to say it than: "Dumb parent is dumb".
As for a system; most retailers card for M/18 purchases. I don't know a less intrusive way to say "the thing you are buying is not meant for your child". So, making that mandatory across the board would be a good way. The vendor sold it to an informed (at least at the minimum) consenting adult, what happens after that is on that adult.
I don't get this card thing, but it gave me an idea. Maybe we could give the parents a copy of the ESRB/PEGI ratings whenever they buy a M/18 games. It doesn't feel as intrusive, and giving you a copy of the ratings for you to keep in your home could probably do some good
"Carding", as in, asking for an ID card. Such as when you purchase alcohol or tobacco, they ask for an ID card (like a driver's license) to verify you are of legal age to purchase it.
I just realized that a law like this just wouldn't work, I mean, how do you recognize when a parent wants to buy a game for himself instead of giving it to their children?, how do yo prove that a kid has played the game?
And what about those who are proficient enough at being parents that their kids can manage violent video games before they're 18?
I played Mortal Kombat and other violent games quite often since I was 13, and am not a violent or dangerous person. If I do as good a job as my parents did, I should have the freedom to allow my kid to do the same.
Please sir, stay out of politics until you've learned to think things through.
Ok the parents need to be educated and not gaoled this wouldn't help anything at all or even a fine. Movies and books don't get this why should games. I want what he was smoking when he decided gaol was a fitting punishment for this. Prosecution(as said in the article) and potentially gaol(not mentioned) is too much.
Age restrictions are stupid in the first place. They should be more like guidelines. How about this researcher just gives it up and stops being a nanny state advocate? The government has no place in deciding what sort of content is or isn't appropriate for children. Parental discretion is key, and they and no-one else should decide.
So they want to waste valuable police and court time pursuing parents for something as trivial as this...
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.
While this is a bit extreme its nice to finally see someone pick up on the fact that parents are the ones in the end who are responsible for keeping R and M rated games away from their kids. Jail Perhaps not. Fines..... might work.
The whole point of a rating system is to help parents choose what their kids are ready for. Some kids are ready to play M games at 10 years old. God dammit I hate these people so much.
Ratings systems are nothing but arbitrary bullshit anyway. Why would I be simply unable to hear "Shit" as an 11 year old without turning out mentally broken, but the moment I hit 12 I'm perfectly fine? Why does the lack of blood bring "Tom and Jerry" a U/PG rating when the inclusion of blood would no doubt make that incredibly violent (and awesome) cartoon an 18/MA?
I agree there should be something in place to prevent adults buying adult games for their children. In my experience, there's nothing worse than having to serve a parent with their kid as they buy the latest COD game, when you know full well it is for the kid, but the parent just doesn't give a shit.
What is wrong with parents buying games for their kids when they think they can handle it? I have always said 3 things about ratings.
1: If it's not meant for a child, don't complain about when your child plays it, take it away from them.
2: If you buy it for your child, you take responsibility for what your child sees so be active in the media they enjoy.
3: If you want to buy it for your child, it is entirely possible.
Why fine and prosecute parents for this? It is their decision how to raise their child. We want responsibility to lie with the parents. How does prosecuting them give them responsibility? All it does is take it away because now they are unable to buy the games. You are not responsible when you drive below the speed limit, you are just following the law. That's not responsibility that not doing what is illegal.
This is a stupid idea and would basically mean that everyone here on this forum would have had their parents fined at least once in the past. Because I believe for not a single fucking second everyone on this forum followed the PEGI ratings. Hypocrites.
More or less agree. I remember following the Columbine shooting people were trying to blame video games. I said then and I say now that if video games had been found to be responsible, in any way, for the incident and the parents bought said games for these kids, the parents should be serving time right along with their kids.
This doctor, however, seems to be taking it a step too far.
Enforcing it would be a ***** but that's not the point. You allude to the possible ramifications of breeching the legislation being a fine and you've already told people how seriously you're taking the certification.
And that's the issue at the minute, parents don't take the certificates seriously because "they're just games". You put up signs saying "giving adult certificated games to minors could result in a fine" and right off the bat the parents think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't get 'modern massacre 7' for little Timmy afterall..."
It's more about getting the message across to parents that the certificates matter.
As they should, but I don't think we shouldn't impose legal ramifications for the consumption of media regardless, as I indicated in the second paragraph of my...really large post. I find that barring an artistic medium to children based on what's already an extremely arbitrary rating system serves as a developmental burden. There shouldn't be a "legal playing age" required to play DX:HR, or Skyrim, or ME2. It's silly. I'm under 17, and have probably broken the legal limit several times regardless, and I figure I'm better for it. They served as an excellent emotional and intellectual outlet, and launched me into a plethora of technical hobbies (3D art, Coding, etc).
Point condensed, it's ageist, unfair, censorship, and I almost feels like it condescends a specific youth demographic big time. There are plenty of 13-17 year olds perfectly capable of handling mature content. Hell, most kids are having sex and shooting up before their adult years regardless, (USA), and we think inappropriate media is the largest roadblock in stable emotional development? Naw.
Just on a side note, I think that more games need to include optional censorship as well. There are some games out there that I'm confident i'd like the gameplay, but the excessive gore puts me off. A good example of this was in Brutal Legend. I really liked the game and enjoyed it when i played with gore switched off, but as soon as I tried switching it on It became repulsive and I didn't want to play. This could probably help the issue as well.
This is just wrong on so many levels; first off it assumes that parents don't know their own child well enough to be able to judge whether they're mature enough (or not) to deal with the concept of the game. Second, it's always more than a little creepy when the government decides what's good for you; 'innapropriate' seems an awful flexible word to me.
Yes it's true that there are many children out there playing games that are probably too mature for them to process (I mean you still hear about the nine year olds ploughing through people on GTA), but this is -not- a good way to try and stabilise everything. Hell, if you wanted to do some real good, try your best to promote discussion within the family, for parents to get to know their children well so they have an idea of what their kids are ready, or not, for. And for some reason I think that it could be done nicely without making something an imprisonable offence. The other thing the government could do would be to actually educate people about the age rating system, tell people what sort of things you can expect under each band and explain to people why it's in place. Now I get that this wouldn't work 100% of the time, but surely it's better than trying to criminalise people?
I am currently reading a book that describes someone taking a bag filled with glass being pulled over a person's face and kneaded while the victim screams in agony and bleeds to death as the torturer takes perverse pleasure in the act. A book that could be bought and read by an 8 year old without anyone complaining.
Would someone seriously pound some sense into these people? Seriously, how does this level of stupidity still fly in today's society?
I'm of the opinion that the parents should be punished if, and only if, they buy the game for their child and their child acts in a violent manner that would get said child punished. The mere purchase of a game for a child that is underage should not be a crime, it is only if said purchase leads to a crime that there should be punishment for the parents.
Basically if you are a parent and feel your child can handle the content of a specific video game you should have that freedom. However, if your child acts out the content of that video game in real life not only should the child be punished by you should be as well.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
