Forget parents, EU tells industry to protect children

LOL easily your best, most right-on post yet.

You're an idiot.

How so? The purpose of a politician, especially those in legislative functions, is to make law. Law, by its very definition, is a restriction. Laws can't give, only take away. When a point is reached when all the reasonable restrictions are in place, the politician either loses relevance or needs to find new restrictions to make. A Senator/Congressman/Etc is a job and the output is law. When the output declines, the job gets cut back.

As it stands, most advanced nations can get away with paying politicians a week's salary just to get that year's budget out the door. No need to spend huge amounts of money on the salary and support for these people. If we collectively figure this out, politicians stand to lose huge fortunes. Thus, they need to manufacture relevance to stay in power.

LaughingTarget you're right on target.

Thank you for not resorting to name calling and refuting my argument with facts.....oh wait you did the opposite.

I'll do you the pleasure of not stooping down to your level and resorting to name calling. Me with no child, and you with one. One would think the parent would be the more mature one. I guess that's not the case.

Moving on...

--Are gamers saying that children SHOULD be able to play violent video games?--

Yes. If the child's parent allows them to do so. I played MK I and II at 7/8 and I turned out fine. Some studies show that playing a violent game can actually decrease stress. I know after a tough day at work, I can't wait to kick back and play a little Halo 3 and feel the stress just melt away.

--Look, I'm as tired as anyone about ridiculous FOX news reports, but if governments, stores or the gaming industry at large were to institute sweeping reforms which involved stricter parental controls on consoles, or enforced policies that required the presentation of a driver's license and/or credit card before being able to purchase a mature-rated title - other than it being a minor inconvenience to you - what do you care?--

For consoles, I know the PS3 and 360 come with parental controls, and the 360 even comes with a family timer. What more do you want?

As far as getting carded, I really don't care, and for the past 6 years, at least in my local area, I've been carded or ascertained for my age for every M rated game I bought. That also brings up my point again. I don't think underaged selling is as big an issue as the politics bring it out to be.

The main issue is that the state should not have that type of regulatory power. It's not done for any other popular media. Video games should be treated the same.

--I'm as big a gamer as any of you, and I'm as involved in my son's life as is feasible for any responsible parent to be. So I demand only two things:

A) That I'm able to purchase and play whatever game I so desire, and

B) That there are measures in place to prevent my son from being easily able to access violent/sexual material without my knowing about it.

Is that too much to ask?--

Yes it is. You can do all those things now, and it doesn't require additional legislation by the state.

No overextending legislation and expansion of government power, is THAT to much to ask?

"Yes. If the child's parent allows them to do so."

This is a ridiculous comment. You're essentially saying that parents can allow their children to do and watch whatever they like. Ask any social service worker, and they'll tell you this is not the case. A parent letting their 4-year-old daughter watch porn? No.

"For consoles, I know the PS3 and 360 come with parental controls, and the 360 even comes with a family timer. What more do you want?"

You plainly state that you don't have a child, and yet you deign to know more about parental controls than I do?

Yes, parental controls are a GREAT idea. But they're not nearly simple enough, stringent enough, or advertised clearly enough. The Wii, for example, only restricts Wii games, not GameCube games. The Xbox 360 and PS3 parental controls are difficult to set up, and the PS3 won't even show you what games are stored on your hard drive until you select them. They're clunky and far from user-friendly.

"The main issue is that the state should not have that type of regulatory power."

Isn't the whole POINT of government to have regulatory power? The government can tell you not to drive drunk, or go over a specified speed limit... They're elected BY us to make rules FOR us. We have every right to object if those rules interfere with our personal liberties, but keeping violent games away from CHILDREN does not affect YOUR ability to purchase them in the slightest.

"No overextending legislation and expansion of government power, is THAT to much to ask?"

How is the government "expanding" its power? The article itself states that the EU already HAS the power to legislate, and has chosen to give the industry 2 years to figure out an alternative RATHER than take matters into its own hands.

I'm sorry, but it seems that gamers are obsessed with the idea of lazy parents who get offended when they see their kid playing a game with "boobies." This applies to all media - not just video games - but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that children can be damaged by seeing violent/pornographic imagery at a young age, and I don't see why we ALL shouldn't be working together to ensure that impressionable children with developing minds aren't at least given a chance of having a normal childhood.

This isn't about telling YOU what you can and can't play. This is about taking steps to make sure that kids aren't being affected by material they shouldn't be seeing at their age. You still get to play GTA IV either way.

--Ask any social service worker, and they'll tell you this is not the case. A parent letting their 4-year-old daughter watch porn? No.--

This is what's called a strawman. Nowhere in my post did I say I wanted 4 year olds to watch porn. I said that if parents want their children to play violent video games then they should be able to. I stand by that statement.

--You plainly state that you don't have a child, and yet you deign to know more about parental controls than I do?

Yes, parental controls are a GREAT idea. But they're not nearly simple enough, stringent enough, or advertised clearly enough. The Wii, for example, only restricts Wii games, not GameCube games. The Xbox 360 and PS3 parental controls are difficult to set up, and the PS3 won't even show you what games are stored on your hard drive until you select them. They're clunky and far from user-friendly.--

Now you're just making excuses. It's the parents job to do the research. If they don't, it's just plain laziness. Caveat Emptor-research an item before you buy it and read the instructions. (Whether they be manual or online.)

--Isn't the whole POINT of government to have regulatory power? The government can tell you not to drive drunk, or go over a specified speed limit... They're elected BY us to make rules FOR us. We have every right to object if those rules interfere with our personal liberties, but keeping violent games away from CHILDREN does not affect YOUR ability to purchase them in the slightest.--

You seem to have it backward. The governement only has the power THE PEOPLE allow it have. Yes, the people can cede power, but they never should.

It's not the state's job to babysit your children, it's yours. This legislation would waste taxpayers money and bring unnecessary state bureaucracy.

--How is the government "expanding" its power? The article itself states that the EU already HAS the power to legislate, and has chosen to give the industry 2 years to figure out an alternative RATHER than take matters into its own hands.

I'm sorry, but it seems that gamers are obsessed with the idea of lazy parents who get offended when they see their kid playing a game with "boobies." This applies to all media - not just video games - but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that children can be damaged by seeing violent/pornographic imagery at a young age, and I don't see why we ALL shouldn't be working together to ensure that impressionable children with developing minds aren't at least given a chance of having a normal childhood.

This isn't about telling YOU what you can and can't play. This is about taking steps to make sure that kids aren't being affected by material they shouldn't be seeing at their age. You still get to play GTA IV either way.--

People don't seen to understand what legislation means. It means ENFORCED BY THE GUN. If you violet said legislation, you can(possibly) be deprived of freedom and property. The state does not need this type of power for video games.

The real world is more messed up than any video game ever could be. I very much doubt playing a video game will hurt anyone. You're sound just a paranoid as the legislators.

They say it's to protect the children. That's how all draconian legislation starts. You'll say I'm paranoid, but I eventually see parents being fined for buying a violent video game for their child. It never starts out with bad intentions, but it always leads to expansion of government power--just reference the US Patriot Act.

Well, gaming is something that one can fully immerse themselves in. A movie lasts for 2 hours generally, after that it is pretty much over. Sure, you can watch it again but it would still offer nothing new, in general.

A game on the other hand can last for much longer. GTA for example, a child can simply walk around and shot people and everyday it is different. You can find new ways of doing it, etc. This is the key difference.

Now, I understand everyones outcry for parents to handle it. And I completely agree. However, this is not a position that is going to get us anywhere. If it is the case that parents are not doing it, something must be done. I find it appalling that we are willing to say, "hey it is there problem." Is that how we want to handle our children?

A possible solution, is consciousness raising. Maybe run ads to explain the ratings, show them where they are. Heck, it would be no different than the drug ads currently running telling you to talk to you kids.

In summary, if there is a problem for our children, it is our problem as well. That may not equate to more legislation, but bitching in the comments on a blog site is not going to make the politicians change what they think they should.

--You don't mind if I let my 5 year-old watch me rip out someone's spine in Manhunt 3? Thanks. Great news for me. Traumatic for the kid, but hey, who cares.--

If you let your child play a violent game, what does that have to do with me? I cede that decision to you, the parent, because you are the one responsible for your child. I'm fine with you, or any parent for that matter, not letting children play violent games--the same courtesy is not extended to the state though.

--I never said it wasn't. But are you OBJECTING to the idea that the ESRB produce pamphlets which explain how to activate parental controls? Would it be a DISASTER if every new Wii box contained a sticker which said "Parents: Please Read" which detailed how to set up their console to make it safer for their kids? Would that somehow restrict your personal liberties? Would that extra second to tear through that sticker RUIN your gaming experience?--

I don't mind or object to any extra reading material printed VOLUNTARILY. What I have a problem with is the state forcing companies to print that material. The manuals are in the boxes, not just for game systems, but all electronics. Subsequent manuals are online. If people don't have a computer or internet they can go to the library. Ratings are on the game boxes, ESRB literature is in most specialty stores, rental stores, and online. Again, I submit that it is laziness. If you feel you do not have the time to police the product, then your child needs to do without.

--Wait, what? The government has power that the people give it, but the people should never give it power? Is this some new dialect of gibberish I haven't been informed of?--

What I meant to say is that THE PEOPLE should not cede more power than is necessary for BASIC state functions: Defense, Common Welfare (Non-socialism), and Protection of the Rights of the People.

--So when I send my child to school, it's not the state's fault if they let my son wander around on the road and get run over? Oh right, any responsible parent spends 24 hours of every day hovering over their child's shoulder, I forgot. As for this "legislation" you mentioned, I have no idea what on earth you're referring to, as the article doesn't mention ANY change in legislation, either in the US, OR anywhere in Europe.--

You're using hyperbole and another strawman. I didn't say anything about school. You know when I said that I meant as far as your child's entertainment and extracurricular activities. Not an event or place where you expect someone or organization to be watching your child.

According to the blog post the EU is going to act (pass legislation) if the industry is not regulated enough in ITS eyes--not the peoples'.

--ENGLISH. DO YOU SPEAK IT.--

Another strawman. You know I meant to say seem and violate. If you can, please address the actual post.

--Well, as long as you "very much doubt" something, that's MORE than enough to satisfy me. Then again, your example of a "violent video game" was Mortal Kombat, so while I'm thinking along the lines of Manhunt and Jericho, you're probably thinking of Street Fighter or Primal Rage.--

There are some studies that show that violent tendencies go down. I'll do some research and see if I can find links for you.

I'm 23 and have played from Doom to Halo 3. I saw my brother bloodied after he got pistol whipped from a robbery where he was delivering Chinese food. I know the difference between a fictional image and real life. Kids do too. Give them a little more credit.

--You're seeing some kind of conspiracy where none exists. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't keep a close eye on what our government does, but - and I want to make PERFECTLY clear that this is the point - THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH RESTRICTING THE SALE OF VIOLENT/SEXUAL CONTENT TO CHILDREN, OR IN DEMANDING THAT THE INDUSTRY DOES EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO PREVENT CHILDREN FROM ACCESSING SUCH CONTENT WITHOUT THEIR PARENT'S KNOWLEDGE.

This has NOTHING to do with your precious "civil liberties." You're still free to go back to doing whatever you were doing before you started trying to convince me that the politicians were about to "make their move and turn us all into slaves."

But, judging from the majority of these comments, I'm clearly in the minority. So I may as well come clean: I'm a government spy here to distract you all while the politicians make laws so that 5-year-olds can't play Grand Theft Auto IV. This will, of course, lead to the removal of ALL your rights and lead to the dissolution of liberty and, eventually the TOTAL DOMINATION OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Seriously, I wish I had shares in tin foil right now...--

I agree with your first paragraph. I think where you and I differ is that you want the state to handle it whereas I believe in free market solutions. This is the way that it's supposed to work:

1. Parent researches product
2. Parent buys product
3. Parent sets parental control
4. (If 3. skipped) Parent discovers child is playing "bad" games
5. Parent gets rid of product or ups parental controls
6. Parent tells other parents who decide not to buy.
7. Sales of product go down
8. Company does research to find out why
9. Company finds out why and fixes complaint
10. With complaint fixed, company releases literature explaining new features
11. Parent re-researches product and decides whether or not to repurchase

All this can be done the free market way without government intervention.

As I said before, a lot of draconian laws start with some kind of "protect the children" clause. It has been shown throughout history again and again that THE PEOPLE will cede power(rights) if its "for the children". (I will look for examples and post back)

I never said anything about becoming slaves. If you are referencing any post I made, that quotation is a strawman. I think another poster made the quote you're referring to.

I have no comment for your last paragraph.

Here are some links in reference to my post:

Violent games:

Video: Researcher Says Violent Games Can be Good for Kids http://gamepolitics.com/2007/07/10/video-researcher-says-violent-games-can-be-good-for-kids/

Kids Prefer Violent Games
So says new research
http://news.spong.com/article/13043?cb=126

Violent Crimes Keep Dropping As Violent Video Games Get More Popular
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070625/003804.shtml

I'll post back with the "for the children" links later.

Two more: (Joystiq will only let you post 3 :( )

Computer games make players less violent
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/73410,computer-games-make-players-less-violent.aspx

Writer: Video Games Are Good for Kids (Fox News of all places :) )
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303277,00.html

Tragically he's not right on target; laws do not only restrict people. Here's a nice example, the Human Rights act of 1999 in England set our rights as citizens into written law; essentially this ensures entitlement to our rights as humans. Also, laws which put forth redistribtution of taxes as well as laws which initiate taxes are not restricting. Also, legislators work on repealing laws they see as unfair, so sometimes they're actually doing the polar opposite.

In response to comments by both SDeeper Kyo and Vil3; the basis of your country is your constitution. If you want to know what Congress is for i suggest you read it. As far as your comments go, one of you strikes as a libertarian and the other as a conservative. In terms of argument I definitely agree more with Kyo; there's no need for legislation to prevent the sale of video games to minors. For a start, most large retail chains already have this as their policy anyway, and secondly parents should pay more attention to what their kids do. By the way, yes, the real world is a lot more traumatizing than most games; harsh social interactions alone are far more likely to push a kid in the wrong direction than playing a Goddamn game.

Seriously, at what point is it logical to assume that video games warp the minds of children and yet t.v. and other media do not? Would you go back in time and tell yourself not to play a game that was too violent? Personally i can think of things much higher on my agenda if i could do that.

Also, Nick, i dont know where you got that information but it's not true; crime has gone down since guns have been banned (i wouldn't be surprised if knife-crime went up, though), most politicians don't wear armour for tours of towns, because the electoral back-lash would be intesne. As for guns, well, sorry, but guns may not kill people by themselves but they make it a hell of a lot easier.

--Tragically he's not right on target; laws do not only restrict people. Here's a nice example, the Human Rights act of 1999 in England set our rights as citizens into written law; essentially this ensures entitlement to our rights as humans. Also, laws which put forth redistribtution of taxes as well as laws which initiate taxes are not restricting. Also, legislators work on repealing laws they see as unfair, so sometimes they're actually doing the polar opposite.--

It seems from this first paragraph that you're implying that the passage of the law gave (the English government ceded) you your rights. Your rights are inherent to you as a human being and you would have them with or without that law.

I still have to agree with Laughingtarget. Laws only restrict. They only say what people and governments can't do. Keep in mind, there are good and bad restrictions, but they are still restrictions.

I fully agree with your second and third paragraphs.

--Also, Nick, i dont know where you got that information but it's not true; crime has gone down since guns have been banned (i wouldn't be surprised if knife-crime went up, though), most politicians don't wear armour for tours of towns, because the electoral back-lash would be intesne. As for guns, well, sorry, but guns may not kill people by themselves but they make it a hell of a lot easier.--

Not to derail the thread, but what Nick said is correct. Studies show when guns are banned crime goes up.

Link: Handgun crime 'up' despite ban
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Despite Rise in Gun Crime in Britain, ABC News Trumpets UK's Handgun Ban
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/12230

Ministers 'covered up' gun crime
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2328368.ece