UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games

[Iszfury]

I just love how everyone on this site say parents should be the ones responsible not the developers, publishers or retailers yet when someone comes out and says that everyone complains at him.

And the arresting part of it is only in the title and is never mentioned in the article, escapist should really change that.

The parents should be responsible, aye, but not responsible by law. Parents should be able, based on a game's content, to decide if it's appropriate for their child.

Your right they should be but large numbers of them aren't. I think legislation would be a good thing it would give the industry some protection for the parents that use there games consoles to raise there kid without doing some simple research on the games they are playing it isn't like it is hard to do and the threat of fines could help them do it.

Read my earlier anecdote as to why I don't think legislation of that sort will work.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

...

...

I am still waiting for the punch line. You know there is supposed to be a small pause between the joke and the final, but this researcher is taking way to long.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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.

 

[robert01]

This is where I draw the line, forbidding a store from letting little Jimmy buy Modern Shooter #45454 is a lot different than stopping his mom from doing so. A parent is the one responsible to make the decision of the whether the content their child consumes is for them, not the government.

 

[braincore02]

Ah, England, what a ridiculous nanny state.

Is this any different than a parent allowing their child to watch an R rated movie? I know it was a bonding moment when my dad took me to see Terminator 2 at the age of 13 or something like that. I thought "wow, he thinks I'm mature enough to watch this!"

I also played Carmaggedon and Doom and many other violent videogames before I was 18, and I'm not running around committing acts of violence.

So maybe it's ok if a parent decides their kid doesn't need to wait for these arbitrarily decided age points to digest a bit of "controversial" entertainment.

I mean, sure, some parents are just gonna be blind idiots or whatnot, but I'd rather have freedom. Psychos are gonna snap and do awful things whether or not they played GTA at 15.

Glad I don't live in England.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

Yes, that's exactly the answer. Let's arrest people who legally buy things for their family. Sure, it's not the best to give your 10yr old GTA and you would/should be socially condemned for it. But, now, are you going to insist we arrest people who let their children watch... the show Justified? (TVMA) Or South Park? What about buying albums with explicit content? Them too? Comso can be kinda... adult. Let's go there while we're so far head with our heads up asses.

I know this is the UK's issue... but you, US, don't even fucking think about it. Don't. I'm watching you. So stop while you can UK. Nanny State = Failed State.

 

[Two-A]

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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

 

[TheIronRuler]

A parent can choose whatever education he wants to give his child, so s/he can sure as hell choose if he wants his kid to see titties and flying heads at age 8.

 

[sethisjimmy]

Stupid Stupid Stupid.
It's great that the guy understands it's the parents responsibility to pay attention, not the game's fault for being mature. That being said: this is stupid.

Why?

Because as long as parents know what is in a game, and what it is rated, the choice should be 100% theirs if they let or don't let their child play it.

I think most people will agree that PEGI and ESRB ratings should be GUIDELINES not RULES or LAWS.
If you want to let your kid play a mature game at 15, if you think he/she's ready, why should you be fined?

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Surely it should be up to the parent to decide whether or not it's appropriate for their child? I've been playing 18 rated games since I was 12, I think, because my parents thought I was capable of dealing with it rationally and understanding the difference between the games and real life. I've turned out just fine.

 

[ElPatron]

We have restrictions for films, pubs, and various other things. A similar system for videogames would be welcome. Yet, for some reason, it seems to be a lot more complicated.

The difference between films and pubs is that parental guidance actually counts. I can take my 14 yard old brother to a +16 movie as long as I, as an adult, take him.

A parent can choose whatever education he wants to give his child, so s/he can sure as hell choose if he wants his kid to see titties and flying heads at age 8.

This. It sounded like he was trying to blame lazy parents, but he ended up saying that devs (of all people to blame...) were also responsible and that the government should introduce even more "nanny state" features.

 

[Tiger Sora]

You can't tell parents what they can and can't expose their children to. "That isnt already defined in the law" that is. This guy is just another raving nutjob that goes to angry mothers against everything meetings. "Were currently fabricating this evidence". : p

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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.

No one reads hand-outs.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Even if we entertained the possibility that kids are going to turn into violent monsters how on gods green earth does he expect this to be enforced?

How.

No really I would love to hear his plan because beyond peeking in peoples window's I don't see how this could even work.

I do tell you something. When I was younger I was bullied so bad and had such a bad home life I have (officially diagnosed) PTSD now. If it wasn't for games to take my anger out on and escape into I have no idea where or how I would have ended up.

 

[Two-A]

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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.

Spoiler: snip

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.

No one reads hand-outs.

Oh that, guess I still need some English lessons.

I'm out of ideas then.

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?

 

[McMullen]

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.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

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.

 

[MammothBlade]

This is ridiculous.

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...

 

[Evil Smurf]

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.

Oh dear, Just just thought of a new game, Cooking Mama: Meth edition

 

[Callate]

Merciful God, save us from @#$%ing crusaders. Amen.

"Doctor" Robinson, if I, in my judgement as a parent, decide that my 16-year old is ready to play Skyrim, that is absolutely none of your business.