Poll: Protect the Children?

[Arehexes]

It's the parents job if they want to protect the children end of story. I'm sick of people saying video games are harming our kids, yet we can get away with movies with no problem. Both are rated for different ages and stores enforce said rating. And hell game consoles (Not sure about the xbox 360) have parental locks. So it's all on the parents not the government.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

If by "we" you mean us - the people who know about and play games frequently, who could easily tell our neighbor that his son and daughter are probably not ready for Fallout New Vegas's adult themes if he's completely clueless - then yes; WE should. Parent's should. Aunts, uncles, older cousins, neighbors, teachers, children's club organizers, etc, etc, - we all should.

The government shouldn't have to. This law shouldn't be needed, that's what it comes down to for me (I read the Justice statements all day yesterday in PDF). The way it's worded is at issue, and the implications of applying obscenity standards without some clear definition - but more than that it's the ideas that games can disseminate that are protected, which might be embedded in a violent game as much as a non-violent one.

 

[HHammond]

Most of what I wanted to say has been said throughout the thread so I'll keep this brief.

The government should not censor anything. They should apply their rating system (I think the most effective rating system currently is the BBFC) and then leave it up to the parents. Parents should also make it their job to educate their self on how the rating system works and the content of the game. It's ludicrous that parents will give their 7 year old child a copy of Grand Theft Auto and then be shocked when they see it's full of violence and sex.

And for those who say that the government need to censor and protect children as parents can't do that. No. Just no. As a parent it's your job to know what your child is up to. Even if you're not in the room at the time it's their job to look after their children whether that be checking out the parents of a friend they're staying with or ensuring that the video game or film or whatever they're doing is appropriate for them. It's pretty horrific when I hear parents saying "this should be banned because my kid might get their hands on it and view something I think is not appropriate for them" because it's their job to look after their child and last time I checked looking after a child includes monitoring what they're doing.

Children need to be exposed to violence and sex. Not all at once, I'm not saying we should be sitting down our 6 year olds to watch A Clockwork Orange, but gradually teach them about it. Sex especially. My parents where always very honest about sex with me. If I asked a question, they'd answer. I remember when I was younger and we were listening to Queen and they said Freddie Mercury died I asked how and they were completely open with his homosexuality and the effect of AIDs. Sex and drugs shouldn't be such a taboo topic as it is. I think that's one of the big reasons teen pregnancy and drug abuse is such a huge issue. A child's parents never discuss it with them so they grow up confused and then they suddenly find out about this topic and they want to explore it. They can't talk about it so what else are they gonna do? Violence is a little more tricky because it's much more potent. But if you do not teach about the effects of violence then a similar thing could happen.

The truth is the world is harsh and cruel. We can't bury our children in ignorance. The only way to educate is to completely educate. Nothing should be too inappropriate to talk about. You should try your best to protect your child but not at the expense of their mental health. They need to know the truth so that when the time comes that they need to deal with these situations they have the tools to do so and aren't incapable of dealing with it.

 

[Daggedawg]

It's ultimately the parents' responsibility to ensure their children have a healthy upbringing. The government should make sure that the media is rated, and the parents can decide what they let their children see after that.

Simple, really.

 

[JoJo]

I would say that you underestimate the comprehension skills of children. You're making generalizations, which is a pet peeve of mine, so I'll ask you to cite some sources to back yourself up. You say psychological studies have proved that it's common for 7-year-olds not to understand death? I say show me said studies.

http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/feelings/death.html
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinfo/mentalhealthandgrowingup/deathinthefamily.aspx

Top link probably the best, explains how the finality of death is usually learnt between the ages of 6 and 10, evidently depending on the child. As I have said earlier on the thread, I have a 7 year old sister and I've done voluntary work with kids aged 8 to 11, so I've had a lot of experience with kids that age and while they are adorable little things, compared to the minds of adults they are stupid and gulliable, that's the way they are made. If I may ask what experience or sources do you have to back up your opinion?

Huh. Well, I think I may have misunderstood some of the points you made earlier. For some reason, I thought you were, like Snowy Rainbow, trying to say that kids could never comprehend death in any capacity ever, so trying to explain it to them is a waste of time. I see now that this conclusion was incorrect and I offer my apologies.

Anyway, to answer your question, though, most of what I've based my arguments on are just my own observations. I've never worked with kids or anything like that, but I've had family members in the age group and, heck, I was a kid once, myself. That isn't to say that I couldn't take the time to find reliable sources to back myself up, though.

No matter, I can understand the point you're getting at but I would warn against using your own memories as evidence as memories are far more unreliable than we generally imagine and are overlayed by our adult perspective. Still, a young child cannot understand things in the way we do and so allowances should be made for that.

I would give my opinion of Snowy Rainbow, but then I'd probably get warned for it, so I won't, but I've lost my respect for his opinion after he sent a swearing rage-filled PM to me telling me he was ignoring me because apparently I'm a terrible person for thinking that protecting children from abuse is more important than going on a witch-hunt for "teh paedoz".

 

[Phoenixlight]

A lot of parents are just fucking useless in terms of preventing their children from accessing inappropriate content so yes, there needs to be barriers and punishments put in place.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Now I am a believer in both sides... sort of.

Here is what I mean:

I do agree that it should be the parents choice, but it should also be the parent that has to buy the product for the kids.

If a 10 year old wants to buy CoD I think the store clerk should not sell it to the kid unless the parent tells him it is okay.

This is because if the clerk DOES sell it to the kid, he has alsoe violated the parents rights, so its better to ask the parent first.

 

[hermes]

I am fine about parents protecting children from content they think they are not prepared for. That is part of parenting and its part of their "job". In fact, no one but them should take that decision away from them, not the government, not any of you.

 

[Dango]

Unless the parents state that they would like their children to be exposed to sex and violence, the default answer would be to keep it away from them.

 

[faceless chick]

"protected" is a term totally misused nowadays.
protection now turned into paranoia, and parents are keeping kids away from ANY contact with the real world.
what's worse is that "bad things" are culturally filtered,and we get incredibly awkward situations where kids watch murder and rape on the tv news with their parents, but are told their goldfish is "sleeping" or some other shit like that.

i think kids should be taught these things progressively; there are things kids should know since they are little (the crucial things about life and death, which they will have to face from ANY age) and some they'll learn as they get older (sex, smoking/alcohol and their consequences etc.)

i voted that it's up to the parents, but i think it depends more on the child's mental state for them to decide when he should be taught these things.

 

[Terminate421]

It is up to the parents. If a parent took a child to see, "Kill Death Gore Raping of Children Part 2" and their child goes Jason Vorhees on someone, it's their god damned fault for doing that.

The directors are making a product, and it was the parents decision to expose the child to the product. Same goes with even Tobacco, if you encourage smoking at a young age (Lets hope you don't) and they get lung cancer, blaming the Tobacco companies is not one thing you should do.

Protecting the children, I am somewhat okay with, but in the form of Censors. FUCKING NO! I cannot stand Censors. They ruin everything, not just the experience, but the fact that somone's art now has limits. Imagine what would happen if they censored "The King's Speech". The entirety of film would suck (Possibly even the speech).

As for my "Okay with" part, Children should be gradually exposed to things, I mean really, at some age, probobly even 5, they will understand what alcohol is. Around 9-11ish they will be curious and find out what sex is. At which point, the parent must tell them in a simplified manner what it was. (At the age of 10, lets just say I found out what sex is through the internet, I didn't know how to delete internet history and got caught, my dad laughed and my mom gave me "The Talk" about what it was I looked at.) If a parent can't do this on their own, they are probobly not fit to be a parent.

Other people's enjoyment shouldn't be ruined to "Protect the Children".

 

[TheDooD]

Let the kids learn at their own pace. Yet the parents should have the more "damaging" stuff closed up until they're mature enough and be very willing and patent enough to break it down for the child so they'll understand. Instead of coming it at them with fear, ignorance and try to deny its existences.

 

[Phisi]

Okay in case people want more of my irrelevant opinion. I think it shouldn't matter as long as parents can parent their parentheses (Okay that was very punishing). these games have no fixed age appropriateness but is fixed on the child's understanding of the material within it. So how about instead of having restrictions we just hope/make/force the parents/teachers/counselors to teach the children these things from the age that they are ready to learn. I was taught about sex from when I was in year 1 by my parents(Australia) and I watched my first R rated movie with my parents when I was 10 (Pulp fiction) and as long as the child understands what it means and the consequences that could come from such behaviour then they should be taught and as such restrictions on games or any media are flawed by restricting the media to people who can understand it and appreciate its value. Don't underestimate the intelligence of children, they may not know much about the world but they can grasp social situations.

Sorry for getting a bit political there.

 

[StBishop]

Children should be protected, as that is the majority opinion.

Parents can circumvent the rating system for their children if they feel that their kids can handle it.

But the government should default to protecting them from possibly harmful content.

Pretty much this, but because the children don't get to pick responsible parents, rather than "because that's what everyone else says".

It's all very well and good to say "It's your job to protect your kids from violent video games, DO THAT JOB!" but in the long run, it's not the people who complain about video game ratings who have children to worry about. It's the ones with the parents who don't give half a fuck.

I believe that measures should be in place to protect children and that parents have the right (or at least should) to over rule those measures and monitor their children themselves.

ie. "I think tommy can handle MW2 so I bought it for him" or "I think Julie can handle a 6 pack of beer at a party, so I told her to host it here and gave her a 6 pack." etc etc.

 

[Amphoteric]

I've always wanted to know this. Why the hell does comedy central censor "ass" during daytime?

But anyway, censorship fails almost 100% of the time.

If you try and stop a child from seeing something then they will immediately try to see it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Yes.

I got exposed to a real death on TV at an early age, and it did bad things to me. I don't give a rip about "some children can handle it". I didn't burst out crying at the time, but the YEARS of nightmares and later my little mini-obsession with horror and death stemmed from one graphic documentary on late-night TV. Maybe some kids can handle, but most can't, and thus it should be blocked from them until they're older.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you try and stop a child from seeing something then they will immediately try to see it.

True... assuming you have no control over your children. When I was told "No, you aren't allowed to see 'Kill Bill'", my first thought was "Wanna see!" followed by "Meh", because I actually respected my Dad's decision.

 

[TheLoneBeet]

I think it's up to the child's parent(s). To a certain degree anyways. Obviously we shouldn't allow them to teach their kids how to produce drugs or how to smuggle weapons (although I imagine we can't stop the ones that do anyways) but for the most part things like this are fine. When it comes to violence and sex, that's a part of being human. It's up to parent(s) to teach their kids about it and how to exercise restraint towards both.

EDIT: Also I don't think that your parent(s) not wanting you to do/see something will encourage or discourage you. If a child wants to see/do something and their parent(s) says no they'll probably try to do it anyways. However if a child doesn't want to do something and their parent(s) tells them not to I can't imagine it'd suddenly put the thought in their head.

 

[spartan231490]

It's a very tough question to answer. Yes children should be protected, but at the same time, you're right, it shelters them so that they end up being thrown into a world they aren't ready to handle. It should be up to the parents.

 

[Falseprophet]

Children have rights too. They are their parents' responsibility, not their parents' slaves. You could try to lock them up away from the world, but such behaviour is considered cruel and monstrous, because it is. They are going to have pets and probably relatives die on them. They are going to witness violence, even if just in sports. They are going to stumble across discarded porn magazines in the park. They are going to see R-rated movies and M-rated games at a friend's house. They are going to talk about disgusting things with their friends. They might try drugs and alcohol. Most of us went through this growing up. Most of us did not end up hopeless junkies, hardened criminals, or sexual predators.

Go back and watch some PG-rated movies from the 80s, like Goonies, Gremlins, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or Adventures in Babysitting, and tell me if those movies would get a PG-rating today. Am I and every kid from my high school scarred for life because we played Mortal Kombat in the arcade when we were 14?

So trying to protect your children from every bad thing in the world, is just not realistic. Raising them in a loving and supportive home with values, wisdom and integrity so they have some idea how to react when they encounter the evils in the world is a better strategy. Don't shelter your children, empower them. They're not as weak as people seem to think. They used to be expected to do the most brutal labour [http://www.cracked.com/article_18565_the-6-worst-jobs-ever-were-done-by-children.html].