UK Researcher Wants Parents Arrested for Buying Kids Violent Games

[deathbeforedecaf]

The problem here is idiots having kids in the first place. license to breed is the only real answer.

I hope you're kidding.

im kidding...except for the odd day or two every year when im so depressed about the state of the human race that i think it might actually work.

 

[Ledan]

What exactly are developers supposed to do?
There is the ESRB, and I think that's as far as a developer has to go. Should they be forced to not make as many violent games? Or what? This guy sounds like he hasn't properly thought this through, has no understanding of games, or of developers. Has probably never played a game.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Spoiler: snip

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?

That's where my "ineffective or unenforceable" line came from. It would probably work a lot like the alcohol/tobacco laws in the U.S.; the clerk can refuse to sell if they have reason to believe the adult is purchasing for a minor, and/or can report the sale. That, or if you see a minor playing such a game, you could report it and the authorities might look into where they got the game, who bought it for them, etc. Essentially, you'd have to make it illegal for minors to even play M/18 rated games.

Frankly, it'd just take too much effort better spent on real threats to public safety; so either it would never pass, it would have too many loopholes to be effective once passed, or it would never be enforced.

 

[Ledan]

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.

100% agree with this. I've been more affected by books than video games, and I used to play GTA when I was 9. Still, my first encounters of blood, violence, torture, nihilism, sexual themes, and such have come from books. I have felt physically ill from reading books, but not from games.
Oh! and I accidentally bought a porn book, because there aren't any stickers to denote that. Also when I was under 18.

EDIT:
Btw, has the last book in that trilogy come out yet?

 

[Gameslayer_93]

I can see where he's coming from, but i doubt it'd help much. What we should be doing is telling parents that they can in fact change the PARENTAL CONTROLS settings so that their child can't play certain games online, the options are there to control what your children are exposed to but the sheer ignorance surrounding gaming among parents is the real issue here

 

[Treblaine]

"Why should the system in the UK be any different?"

From America? I can think of a few ways.

Heck, a lot of Americans want America to be different from America, like on this very issue of the police policing parents in what non-pornographic media their children are allowed to see.

Fun fact, under UK law it is totally legal to take a 5 year old into a pub garden and order them a double brandy and any alcoholic drink at all. This is because the law is against children being served "at the bar", in the garden or at a table where food is served the age limit is only 5 years old.

And the police know it's not good barging in on families to tell them how to raise their children unless there is something hugely wrong like Baby P where they were frankly murdering their children.

 

[grumpymooselion]

I want politicians that think they have a right to come into our homes, and tell us how to live and raise our families, arrested.

 

[fanklok]

So instead of blaming one part of the 'Parent, Devloper, Government whose fault is it really' thing he decided to blame everyone. What does that accomplish.

 

[Hammartroll]

punishing parents for something that isn't even proven to harm children
I played GTA when I was little, so did all my friends, and we all turned out normal
I've actually found that video game violence has had a more powerful impact on my emotions the more I grew up, as I learned the real world repercussions of such things and dispte loving GTA, Mortal Kombat, Contra ect. I abhor violence.

This is just another pompous ass hole pretending he's a saint by pretending he's caring about your children when he's just getting off on his own ego, yet you brits will take his words as truth for some reason and sacrifice yet more of you personal life to the government.


Also, what if the parents were going to buy a mature game for themselves? How would the government know they weren't letting their kids play it? Better start having regular government check ins, or start putting cameras in your TVs, wouldn't want you hurting your own kids.

 

[somonels]

Parents punished in some way, perhaps, but an arrest won't help anyone...
What the hell, I can't read the text, did something happen to my eyes? It's all just a blur! wtf?

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

Does he ever think that not EVERY SINGLE PARENT who buys their children games are morons? Some kids develop faster than others. It's a parent's job to know their child well enough to gauge if they can handle Game X's content. I was playing Resident Evil around age 7 because my parents actually spent time with me and felt confident that I was able to separate fantasy from reality at that age.

Of course, then there are the mouth-breathers who buy their kids Splatterhouse with no information on the game and then go on a moral crusade once they find out what they gave their children. Amazing what a 30-second Google search can do, neh?

 

[Hammartroll]

here, for you guy's entertainment, I've been watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit
here's the episode for violent video games:

Spoiler

 

[grigjd3]

This guy is a professor of political science, which might as well mean professor of lies, half-truths and idiocy. He's just adding more proof to the overwhelming evidence.

 

[Hattingston]

"The issue of video games may seem rather trivial at first, but it has many implications for politicians,"
Huh. I've always thought of it as:
"The issue of politicians may seem rather trivial at first, but they have many implications for video games,
Anyways:
The state should not decide what material is appropriate for children and what is not, save for cases of abuse. If a parent decides that a violent video game is okay for their child, that should be their prerogative.

 

[Riobux]

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?

Even then, the problem then created is "you just said a vague phrase, well done". Instead of offering up what he has in mind for prosecution he has left it open-ended so the general public eats it up and rages out. I'll admit I fell for it because typically those "arrested" (using the title of the article) usually end up jailed, not simply fined. Fines usually occur out-of-court and are done on the spot. Fines I don't have much of a problem with (a little, but then we're getting into the argument of "should parents try to govern their own children", personally yes but some parents use video games as a third-parent (or second parent) rather than a supplement), I just hate the idea of jail time because of the counter-productive damage it serves.

I also have to wonder how much money it would take to investigate this kind of behaviour. You wouldn't get normal police to do it since it would lack the subtly required to catch it happening with proof. You'd have to get a particular branch made up or an existing one used (e.g. fraud) to catch people in the act. A lot of questions have to be raised by the enforcement and the idea of the researcher just saying "well, just prosecute them for this" is far from simple and I really do hope in the original paper he actually proposed something less vague than this.

Edit:

"Why should the system in the UK be any different?"

I also have to comment that phrase is one of the worst political phrases in the last sixty years and symbolises one of the most hated political parties in the UK. Fun fact, they've been elected three times in sixty years, and every single time they've caused chaos, lost a lot of people jobs and caused riots, and people still elect them. I'd blame the political party for using terrible logic and working to benefit the wrong people, but they've been voted in three times and every time they've done this. Why are people honestly surprised?