UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games
- Thread starter Timothy Chang
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some random fucker no one's ever heard of, who happens to work at a university...what do you think?Nicolaus99 said:
This isn't even at the level of "some local MP spouts off on subject X" that everyone seems to think means that his words are suddenly UK law.
Also this doesn't contain the full article. He might just be giving his opinion on what would work or not for any desired outcome, nowhere does it say he wants parent prosecuted, merely that the current system does not keep games out of childrens hands and in order to do so they would need to target the parents that buy the game.
I would read his original article rather than some bullshit internet news page.
Different kids mature at very different rates, and my parents understand that. Whenever I told them that I wanted to buy a game they would, of course, look at the label, but they would also ask someone about the actual content to find out if they thought I could handle it. Parents who do this shouldn't be sent to jail, because the long term effects of that could be devastating to the child.
This douche clearly doesn't have kids, and he clearly doesn't understand the meaning of good/bad parenting.
This douche clearly doesn't have kids, and he clearly doesn't understand the meaning of good/bad parenting.
I don't. Even a fine would be an extreme extension of indirect censorship and brutally invasive, if assessed closely. A law of the sort, sans immediate ramifications, would be almost impossible to codify, if only for the ridiculous responsibilities it would delegate to law enforcement and the retailer, both in terms of security and accountability. How would you define "possession" in scenarios where the parent owned the game, yet it was being unknowingly accessed by one of their children? Are we going to begin enforcing movies and books similarly, or violent art and media in general? What are they going to do with the copy? Confiscate and burn the fucking thing? Are we really so childish, so immature, and so morbidly overassured in the ability of the government to regulate our lives such as to incarcerate or fine parents for....Abandon4093 said:
well...
Let's say this.
A child having his/her parents incarcerated for the rest of their lives isn't nearly as harrowing a sight AS TITTIES?
I'm fairly sure I was WELL under the PEGI/ESRB age limit for at least half of the games a played as a teen xD...and most of them actually enhanced my worldview, the most disgusting of all probably the moreso (The Witcher).
I lived in Switzerland for 2 years, and was born there as well. The youth culture, identity, and overall perception of sexuality and violence there are substantially more developed and grounded in reality and reasonability then the vast majority of the Western world. Ironically, it's for the very reason the US runs so pissively batshit over the direction of their children's lives, and their exposure to media. It's desensitization. It's absorption, and learning, and being provided the skills to cope. 'That's' parenting. Guiding your children into an unfamiliar and dangerous world, as opposed to acting like it doesn't exist. The fact that sexuality and violence have been largely relegated to taboo in the UK and US contributes more to the negative social climate than the "inappropriate" media in itself, as restriction basically confiscates an individual's ability to appreciate more mature media as more than a topical, bloody, wankfest. It encourages experimentation, and actually elevates the illicit activities portrayed by the given media above the thematic qualities of it in itself. I wonder when lobbyists will actually be able to conceive of mature media that allows us to express, understand, and explore a dangerous world as opposed to condoning it in itself. Isn't the the idea of art?
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.Nuke_em_05 said:
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
Ladies and gentleman!!! I bring you a total quack! Why allow your child to be damaged by the frequent exposure to violent media when you can simply jail yourself to ensure a childhood for your kids devoid of proper parental guidance and social, emotional development!!!
Aaaand that's why you don't ask politicians and so-called "politics experts" what to do when it comes to Parental Responsibility, Media and Art. Return to your boring grey life, little man.
I understood it the same as you.Reaper195 said:
If I just change a few words from that quote:
I think this is the same thing. What could brewers possibly do, if parents buy beer and their kids drink them at home?
I've been saying for years that parents should be held responsible for what their children do and see, but this is getting pretty beyond the pale. What we need is a societal change (being free to call out bad parents for the idiots they are), not a legal one.
I worked for a video game supplier for years and we would always have kids come in with notes saying that it was "Okay for them to buy Manhunt". We thought that they wrote the notes themselves like you would to skip gym class, but no, angry parents would then come in absolutely furious that we made them get off their sofas and miss their daytime chat shows to come in and buy the replacement babysitter. I informed them that it was the law and would ask them if they thought it was alright if i sold them cigarettes or alcohol. They never said "no".
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.
I also see some of you people talking about how a nipple or a naked body is considered bad, yet a disembodied brain or an exploding body is perfectly ok, and wondering why this is the case. Well, sex and violence are two entirely different things. It's not the "maturity" level. It's the "content" area. You start seeing a lot of pornography and, no matter how much self-control you think you have, it will affect you in a very negative form. Yet, seeing tons and tons of violence will do nothing to you, unless you already have some sort of disorder, in which case it might do something.
I've killed so much in games like Half-Life: Source, [Prototype], Grand Theft Auto III, Shadow the Hedgehog, Halo: Combat Evolved, Doom, 007: NightFire, and so many other games, and it doesn't affect me one bit. Yet, if I were playing something like, say... a Duke Nukem game completely uncensored, I know the games' obvious sexual themes would affect me on a mental level. I wouldn't be able to get the images out of my mind, simply because I am human, just like the rest of you. Humans feel a much greater urge to sex than they do to violence. They are completely different things.
Whatever content games have, there really do need to start being more child blocks and greater awareness of the rating system for videogames, just like any other medium. A fine just might be the way to go. After all, anyone can be fined $1,000 for giving alcohol to minors for the first offense and $2,500 for each following offense. At least where I'm from, that's the case. Videogames could benefit from a similar system. Though, if it's a fine, it really shouldn't be as high as that of underaged drinking.
I also see some of you people talking about how a nipple or a naked body is considered bad, yet a disembodied brain or an exploding body is perfectly ok, and wondering why this is the case. Well, sex and violence are two entirely different things. It's not the "maturity" level. It's the "content" area. You start seeing a lot of pornography and, no matter how much self-control you think you have, it will affect you in a very negative form. Yet, seeing tons and tons of violence will do nothing to you, unless you already have some sort of disorder, in which case it might do something.
I've killed so much in games like Half-Life: Source, [Prototype], Grand Theft Auto III, Shadow the Hedgehog, Halo: Combat Evolved, Doom, 007: NightFire, and so many other games, and it doesn't affect me one bit. Yet, if I were playing something like, say... a Duke Nukem game completely uncensored, I know the games' obvious sexual themes would affect me on a mental level. I wouldn't be able to get the images out of my mind, simply because I am human, just like the rest of you. Humans feel a much greater urge to sex than they do to violence. They are completely different things.
Whatever content games have, there really do need to start being more child blocks and greater awareness of the rating system for videogames, just like any other medium. A fine just might be the way to go. After all, anyone can be fined $1,000 for giving alcohol to minors for the first offense and $2,500 for each following offense. At least where I'm from, that's the case. Videogames could benefit from a similar system. Though, if it's a fine, it really shouldn't be as high as that of underaged drinking.
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.Two-A said:
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.
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.
And the arresting part of it is only in the title and is never mentioned in the article, escapist should really change that.
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"Nuke_em_05 said:
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)
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.Iszfury said:
The purpose of game ratings...assuming you're sane...is to EMPOWER parents. It is to take away a child's ability to buy a game that they are not ready for, and put that power in the hands of the parent, through a means which gives them the tools necessary to make an informed decision. The purpose is to make it so the parents, who know their kids, can get all the information they need easily, and choose what they want for their child.
This takes power AWAY from parents. It is arbitrarily enforcing one code of parenting on all children of all parents everywhere. It is saying that parents are not competent enough to parent, and that all children are identical. This is horrible. Games ratings are supposed to be conservative, because you want to be conservative about what control a parent has over a child. Yes, I am annoyed when a parent decides to buy there 6 year old a GTA game, but it HAS to be the parents choice.
By replacing parental choice with a catch-all rule for all children, all you are doing is absolving the parents of the responsibility of parenting because the government already wrote your values into law.
(Also, I understand the hyperbole but...come on. No ones talking about jailing the parents. This policy is stupic, but its not THAT stupid, and there is plenty to criticize without resorting to fabrication.
This takes power AWAY from parents. It is arbitrarily enforcing one code of parenting on all children of all parents everywhere. It is saying that parents are not competent enough to parent, and that all children are identical. This is horrible. Games ratings are supposed to be conservative, because you want to be conservative about what control a parent has over a child. Yes, I am annoyed when a parent decides to buy there 6 year old a GTA game, but it HAS to be the parents choice.
By replacing parental choice with a catch-all rule for all children, all you are doing is absolving the parents of the responsibility of parenting because the government already wrote your values into law.
(Also, I understand the hyperbole but...come on. No ones talking about jailing the parents. This policy is stupic, but its not THAT stupid, and there is plenty to criticize without resorting to fabrication.
Is anyone else reminded of the South Park episode where the kids trick the police into arresting the parents for molestation and the kids become the tribes from "Road Warrior"? Somehow, I could see this happening if kids could fool parents into thinking "M" games meant something else - I honestly doubt it would be difficult to pull off.