UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games

[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.

 

[La Kias]

When I have kids, I'd say that it is down to me and my partner when I think my kids are at an appropriate age to play the game. If I think they are not I wouldn't buy, but some kids are more mature than others, its down to the parent's own judgement and that is something the government should not interfere with. How would the authorities even know whether a child is playing such games or not?

Its like how a parent can say in a pub whether or not their child can have an alcoholic drink with their meal.

 

[Techno Destructo]

I've seen this thing happen dozens of times at my local game retailer: An oblivious mom or dad with their little preteen child, and the child points out a game with the gore level of Splatterhouse all over it's M-rating. The parent pays for the game and then gives it to the child, because once the purchase has been made, the responsibility is no longer in the hands of the retailer. As far as the retailer was concerned, an adult bought the game, not the child, but we all know who is going to end up playing the game.

The fate of these people is out of our hands; it is in the domain of subjective experience. Irresponsible parents need to know how to say "No" when their ten year old asks for the new Hooker Shooter Five. The kid may be upset, but that just temporary. At least they aren't ripping out people's digital spines.

 

[Alpha Bootis]

This man has lost it, regardless of his meanings with the word "prosecute".
The purpose of these ratings is to make it overseeable to what audiance the game would be suitable for. As an indication. Not to make a hard line. Theres people that are 50 that still are mentally too frail for anything more violent then Mario Kart FFS.

If a parent decides their kid is metally old enough for things like Modern Warefare airport scenes who the hell does this man thinks he is proclaiming to know otherwise.
I'd like to think this is still a free part of the world. If this sort of blundering in other people's business is going to be had you might as well outsource parenting to the gouvernment completely, or dictate in laws what parenting is and shoot everyone who thinks parenting should be done any other way then what the law dictates.

I was playing games, and violent ones at that, for as long as my memory will bring me back. I was playing things like Duke Nukem 3D, Wolfenstein and Rise of the Triad _way_ before I had the "proper" age for those games and I still didn't shoot anyone, the only effect it had on me was a very good understanding of the English language at a young age.

 

[Azuaron]

*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.

Er, I don't think you understand the slippery slope this would be in America. This would pave the way for mandatory church on Sundays, mandatory scouts, etc. etc. etc..