LA Times: Parents should regulate what games kids play, not government
by Griffin McElroy 
{ Feb 28th 2009 at 8:00PM }
The editorial denotes the flawed logic which went into the bipartisan regulation, and aptly places the onus for keeping adult-centric titles out of youngsters' hands on their parental units, who "don't need permission from a legislator or judge to keep an eye on what their children are doing." We can't help but agree -- besides, with the Golden State currently staring down the barrel of a $42 billion deficit, we're not convinced that the taxpayers of California can afford to keep making such charitable donations to the ESA.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
The Baron @ Feb 28th 2009 8:07PM
I never understood this - conservatism advocates a small state, yet (in a lot of cases - there's plenty of sane ones!) also calls for heavy state regulation of media?
Heyyou27 @ Feb 28th 2009 8:11PM
Democrats and Republicans alike only really care about power and
finding a way to stay in it. They will do whatever is necessary to
appeal to voters, regardless of where it stands in relation to their
own political philosophy.
Markez @ Feb 28th 2009 8:17PM
They say that, but it's been eons since conservative politicians were actually honestly about smaller government. Something of a big gag that everyone is in on and just accepts, knowing it's not at all true.
Jake B @ Feb 28th 2009 8:28PM
That gag is the heart of the failure of the Republican Party. They will only be able to get a strong amount of votes again if they appeal to actual conservatives, as a pose to being Mr. Nice Guy middle-man.
BigD145 @ Feb 28th 2009 9:03PM
@Markez
You mean "Republican" politicians. They haven't been conservative since before Reagan.
Markez @ Feb 28th 2009 9:10PM
My gaffe :( You're correct.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 28th 2009 9:50PM
Reagan wasn't terribly conservative himself. There hasn't been a legitimately conservative party since before Teddy Roosevelt took over the Republicans. It's just been Democrats and Democrats-Lite. So when you hear "bi-partisan", it just means the two factions of the same ideology just happened to agree with each other that one time.
t_m @ Mar 1st 2009 3:00AM
Its weird, cos the rest of the world looks at the US and thinks the exact opposite. We think there are republicans and republicans-lite.
Thats we were so confused by all the talk of obama being socialist, cos he's so far away from socialist he can hardly see it in the distance.
I guess it all depends on your viewspoint.
Its always confused me about the UK Conservatives too. the advocate less regulation of companies, and more regulation of what people do in their private lives. Does not compute.
t_m @ Mar 1st 2009 5:47AM
Come to think of it, christianity is essentially a socialist idea. And all the things conservative christians hate (sex, violence, media, etc..) are products of a capitalist society.
Its odd that so many christians are conservative, it'd make much more sense for them to be socialist.
Or maybe i should say that its odd that Conservatives are capitalist, they should be socialist.
offday @ Mar 1st 2009 10:22AM
Christians don't hate sex. They believe it should be more married couples. There's a big difference.
Also, I'm a christian and I play violent video games and watch violent movies, and guess what? I don't hate the media. Where are you getting this crap? Let me guess? Non-Christians? Don't stereotype. It makes look ignorant.
mr mobius @ Mar 1st 2009 11:42AM
I'll have to agree with Offday. True, I don't play many violent video games (I play many games that involve death and killing, but I'm not the biggest FPS fan just). I do watch many violent films though. Not all Christians are like the stereotype that the media (eg Ned Flanders) portrays. If you've read the Old Testament, you'll read quite a bit about violence and sex. The Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) is a book that pretty much is about two lovers having sex, and not just Missionary position either - it talks about oral and anal sex as well as normal intercourse. Now does that sound like your stereotype of Christianity? The only thing is that Christians believe it should be within marriage, but beyond that, almost anything goes, as long as both the husband and wife are up for it.
BigD145 @ Mar 1st 2009 1:51PM
Christians rewrite the Bible constantly. The current generation still sees sex as an activity purely for procreation. If you're enjoying it, you're doing something wrong. If you're doing it for recreation, you'll burn in hell.
What's in the Bible and what Christians "believe" are two very different things. Definitely not enough stonings going on these days what with so many people working on Sundays.
offday @ Mar 1st 2009 5:48PM
No one is re-writing the bible. You're just not educated enough in it to be talking about it. And again, you're getting your information from other non-Christians who obviously just look down on the religion and really know nothing about it.
CGamble20 @ Mar 2nd 2009 9:48AM
That's not true at all. First off, as the psot notes, this was a "bi-partisan" push. Second, when have conservatives pushed for media regulations? Isn't it conservatives who fight most against steps such as the so-called Fairness Doctrine and internet censorship? Republican Party is mostly just a lite opposition to Democrats now a days anyways. And people from EU saying US is stupuid and should tear down teh constitution need to shut the hell up. We have one thing they will never have, REAL freedom.
t_m @ Mar 2nd 2009 10:18AM
@offday.
I don't know why you'd think i'm getting it from non-christians. All i have to do is listen to christians themselves.
Of course I'm not saying all christians are the same... but those right-wing bible bashing christians that get all the press coverage and that the politicians are trying to appeal to are the ones i'm talking about.
Though it seems in the US to be both sides that keep proposing the legislation on video games...
Professor Lario @ Mar 2nd 2009 10:18AM
@BigD - As a (mainly) conservative and a Christian (!) I haven't rewritten the Bible recently. Although those love others parts are a real drag - wonder if I can get that taken out!? I'll have to speak to my publisher...
ShadowXOR @ Feb 28th 2009 8:12PM
True that.
I Al2x I @ Feb 28th 2009 10:10PM
Read: Amen.
ShadowXOR @ Feb 28th 2009 8:13PM
Why doesn't the remember me button appear to work? How do I not have to type in my stuff every time? This comment system is really bad...
Also when I press comment before entering email/password it says: "You must provdie an E-Mail!"
You spelled provide wrong.
Markez @ Feb 28th 2009 8:15PM
The 'remember me' thing hasn't ever worked.
The Baron @ Feb 28th 2009 8:29PM
Firefox automatically has my stuff filled in, I think it's some combination of the remember me and firefox's remember password thing.
Tiptup300 @ Mar 1st 2009 5:45AM
Lately, it's been working for me, I just noticed a second ago that I no longer have to hit Returning every comment,.
Neil @ Feb 28th 2009 8:21PM
I don't understand why the USA can't learn from other countries. Forgetting the constitution for a minute (it is after all only just a couple of hundred year old piece of paper), look at places like the UK and Germany.
Do they have problems with people standing up in court and saying "the video game made me do it"? Do they have people suing developers because of the content in their games? No.
And there's one reason for that - if the offensive stuff gets into the hands of the kid then it is obvious who is at fault - the retailer, because they sold the game to someone who is underage. There's no room for a developer, publisher or distributor to be blamed because they did nothing wrong.
So yeah, America, which do you prefer to protect, your families or your ancient laws?
Markez @ Feb 28th 2009 8:29PM
Don't quite follow what this ancient laws, or constitution business is you're talking about or how it remotely relates to this article.
I'll pass on the 'why can't the US be like Germany' bit, and I'll pass on the silly amounts of censorship there.
The Baron @ Feb 28th 2009 8:37PM
Germany has massive video game censorship.
The UK doesn't really have these problems for two reasons that are sort of the same thing.
For starters, we're not a remotely religious or patriotic country. Despite the irony of having a state church and an un-secular government, politicians in the UK can't hold mass rallies where they promise to uphold what God wants - and we don't have a constitution, or founding fathers etc. So politicians here virtually never try and appeal to the codified morals of religion, or target people's sense of duty to our laws and governmental system.
Secondly, politics in the UK is much more left-wing than the US. Even our conservatives believe in the National Health Service, although they do have ideas about privatising it (but still be state-funded). Therefore there's not really the same degree of moral panic here about game violence, although this is also ironic - our newspapers are the most sensationalist in the world.
But to get back to the OP's point - I don't really understand. What we have is basically due to specific historic factors which you can't just lift and apply somewhere else. The US has an arguably more democratic and sensible political system, it's just that the public opinion of most people in your nation is more right wing.
Joeshie @ Feb 28th 2009 9:01PM
If we were to learn from countries like Britain and Germany, then we would be censoring our video games left and right. Unlike those countries, we have a certain amount of respect for the freedom of expression. Britain and Germany are probably the two WORST countries you could have picked seeing as how they go as far as to regulate media not only for children, but for adults as well.
If anything, those countries should be learning from us.
The Baron @ Feb 28th 2009 9:12PM
It's not that bad in Britain. The only regulations we have on games is that games with mature themes, have to be rated by the BBFC, who very rarely refuse classification. Our TV and Radio is regulated by OFCOM, who are nowhere near as strict as your FCC.
Sure you weren't thinking of Australia?
LaughingTarget @ Feb 28th 2009 9:58PM
Know what's funny? The US Constitution is a much newer concept that what most nations are running today. "Socialism", "Regulation", "Universal Health Care", "Minimum Wage" and all the other "Government do it for me" buzz words are just another name for old, dusty, failed philosophies. It failed in Sumeria, Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Greece and Rome. It failed countless nations on every continent (except Antarctica, no one lives there but dancing penguins) for as long as we have had the ability to put words down on stone/papyrus/paper/CDs. Governments have tried since the dawn of recorded history to regulate behavior. It has failed consistently for 46 centuries. Trying to regulate the video game market is the ancient ideology, following the US Constitution (what we haven't done in nearly 100 years) to the letter is the fresh, new idea.
And that "dusty old document" says Government cannot stick its business into what other people do with themselves, even if the majority decides it's a good idea.
Ya, it's a shame more and more Americans are following the outdated modes of doing things, but so is the rest of the world.
finnith @ Feb 28th 2009 11:08PM
Wasn't it the lack of regulation that caused the current recession? And don't forget that it was government intervention that got us out of the Depression. An excess of anything is bad, but you always need some government regulation.
cknblade @ Feb 28th 2009 11:22PM
I'm all for moderation, leaning towards less government intervention, but even I have to admit that removing Fannie and Freddy from the mortgage market certainly didn't help the situation...
Massmass @ Mar 1st 2009 3:10AM
Earth to finnith. It's called economics. What goes up always go down. It's impossible to have continued growth forever. It goes against all human nature and it won't ever happen in the history of mankind. Therefore, a recession was inevitable. It's self correction. Even depressions are necessary. You can't come out of a depression directly into a recession can you?
The government can't do anything to truly get an economy out of a depression. All it can do is try to correct any serious mismanagement and what not and make people feel better, which funnily enough ends up costing tax payers more money for debatable value. It comes down to the people getting over themselves, taking off their tinfoil hats, and coming out from the rock they've been hiding under. The government could create thousands of jobs but if people still don't want to spend their money, it isn't going to fix anything.
So to sum up, consumers decide what's what and they are easily scared by wall street fat cats being stupid and making "risky" investments. People need to get over themselves and stop acting like the world THEY CONTROL is falling from under them.
Massmass @ Mar 1st 2009 3:15AM
The government can't do anything to truly get an economy out of a recession/depression or prevent them for that matter.*
t_m @ Mar 1st 2009 6:12AM
Er, no offence Laughing Target, but you are so far off the mark its not funny.
Socialism is an ancient idea? Sumeria had universal healthcare? I'm trying to work out if you are somehow being sarcastic and i can't spot it.
Almost all ancient civilisations were built on profoundly simple capitalist ideas. Those with the most money got the most power. You got whatever you could, and there was no state, unions or anyone else to help you.
Socialism essentially arose in the 1770s... in the twin revolutions in the US and France. People wanted to keep a fair share of the fruits of their labor, and not have it all go to the rich company owners. Thats a profoundly socialist idea. Heck, even Marx's (1844) main thrust was that workers should get a fair share of the profits from their work... which is essentially what triggered the US revolution too.
most of the societies you mentioned were built on slavery... the rich having everything and the rest getting nothing.
Have you ever imagined what a truely capitalist society with a tiny government would be like? It would be hell. Everyone looking out for number one. Want to get some of those new Nike trainers? Rich? Just shoot the poorer kid wearing them.. after all his parents couldn't pay the police or lawyers to investigate. It'd essentially go back to the old feudal system.
I don't think many americans realse how much of their life they owe to socialism. Their freedom, their opportunities, their education, their health, etc..
Any time a nation's people have risen up and demanded a vote or a voice, thats been socialism at work.
As for universal healthcare, it was generally considered to be created in 1948... a long time after the US constitution.
John @ Mar 2nd 2009 4:47AM
TM you are so wrong it makes my head hurt.
Capatalism is the very system that allows people to keep what they earn. If a company makes a profit, it does so because the government isn't standing over its shoulder, demanding that it complies to pointless regulation and turn over its profits to the state.
In Capitalism if you don't like your job, you go get a different one, if you are unable to do so it's your own fault.
Socialism DEMANDS that citizens give their earnings to the government in exchange for services they may never use. People who do nothing however are still afforded the same services... How is this fair exactly? oh, you must be one of the worthless ones who wants to reap the benefits of another man's work.
REGULATION, specifically the government telling mortgage brokers that they had to countt welfare as a source of income and could not hod bankrupcies and failure to repay loans against people is what led to the collapse. When the deadbeat losers couldn't get rid of their debt by selling thier housem the system collapsed.
The exact thing happened in the 20s-30s where people were buying too much on credit and couldn't afford to pay, then the banks couldn't get their money, and surprise! collapse again.
Government CAN NOT provide wealth or guarantee success for anyone, you must do it on your own. Spend more time working and less whining about "the Rich" and you could join them.
t_m @ Mar 2nd 2009 10:33AM
@John:
That works great if everyone starts off equal... it works less well when people all start off at different starting points.
Socialism started as a demand for workers to get fair pay for the work they did, rather than all the profits ending up in the pockets of the rich owners. This seems to me to be pretty close to the american dream of people being able to work their way up.
Before socialism there was NO chance to work your way up. Its kind of hard to work your way up in a class based society, where you are paid peanuts, work 15 hours a day, pay rent to your employer, have to send your kids to work in the factories, get paid half in liquor, etc...
I'd love to put you in a pre-socialist society and see how well you'd do at working your way up.
The police force, the army, fire service, etc.. these are all services provided for the good of SOCIETY. They have no function in a truly capitalist society (not that we're likely to ever see one).
America is a great country, and it gives its citizens opportunities that they could never have dreamed of a few hundred years ago... but it was socialism that won most of the basic rights that allowed ordinary people to access the benefits of capitalism. Yet it seems to have become a dirty word in the US. (probably due to its association (there) with communism, which is as much of an extreme corruption of socialism as feudalism is of capitalism).
Its interesting to note that many past societies existed based on a master/slave or lord/serf system. The american dream has theoretically removed that distinction... but i wonder if it hasn't just offshored the serf class to places like China.
Sure, I can get a better job if i don't like it, but the people who made your shoes, your PC, your jacket.. they might not be so lucky. (despite the fact that they live in a capitalist country like china...)
John @ Mar 3rd 2009 2:20AM
I think you don't understand socialism.
Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems, not government systems.
Socialism is an economic system where means of production are run by the government. there is no competition, no incentive to lower prices because people have to go to one place for all their needs.
You seem to think that socialism is a fancy word for the government providing police and fire services.
Imagine if your cable bill was run by a government agency like the IRS. Satellite TV would be illegal and you'd be forced to pay whatever the state decided you would pay, only also consider that you wouldn't be allowed to cancel your cable altogether either.
When the government doesn't try to regulate wealth, the market (ie Free Market) determines what price you pay for goods and services.
If people don't like your product they have the freedom to buy a competitors and you can go out of business (see the American car industry). The only problem comes in when the government decides that OH NOES!!! We can't let that business go under!!! and dumps YOUR tax money into someone else's badly managed business (again see the American auto industry)
Capitalism fosters competition, innovation and is the best system for generating wealth. When people have an incentive to provide a better service, they will attempt to provide the best services possible.
As far as everybody starting off at different points, have you ever heard of the terms rags to riches or the American Dream? If you start poor, tough shit. My Grandparents were poor as shit, and they died millionaires.
Again I'll tell you instead of whining about your unfair advantages, go to work and make something of yourself, quit hatin on the "rich man" who keeps you down, or else move to a communist nation where the government takes everythign you own because it isn't fair that johnny lazy doesn't have the things you worked for.
Plus if you think China is a capitalist country, you are a retard.
LaughingTarget @ Mar 7th 2009 3:25PM
t_m
I'm a little late on this, but read the Code of Hammurabi, written in the first millenium B.C. It had minimum wage provisions as well as universal health care. It specifically laid out that surgeons had to charge wealthy merchants twice as much as the non-merchant class for any medical procedure (supplementing the poor with the rich), specified how much any specific job could be charged and on and on and on.
The collectivization of resources and the distribution back to the people by a central authority is as old as written history itself, probably older. Only during times when these central authorities failed because it attempted to do something impossible, creating a right out of a limited resource, did we have any serious advancement in society. It then repeats itself as a new generation that didn't live through the failings of trying to create safety nets and central guarantees to health and income thinks they're wiser than those that failed in the past and try it again. They fail again. Process repeats and here we are, 4,000 years after Hammurabi drove Mesopotamia into the ground, trying it again, hubristically assuming we're smart enough to do it.
PCIV @ Feb 28th 2009 8:45PM
Yea... because parents nowadays are doing such a good kid governing their kid's dating, gaming, and purchasing habits. My friend's parents didn't know he had a DS, PSP, iTouch, and an Aspire One (He returned all but the former, not due to parent's pressure). Nor do they know he has a girlfriend. Who's to stop him from playing GOW2 repeating at the "special" minigame?
B3astofthe3ast @ Mar 1st 2009 12:57AM
Still, its the parent's fault.
Nick8708 @ Mar 1st 2009 3:40AM
So you think the parent's failure to know what's going on with their child is somebody's fault besides their own? It must be nice for you to live in a world where nobody has to take responsibility for themselves.
PCIV @ Mar 1st 2009 11:25AM
Teens, at 16, are a lot smarter than you're giving credit for. If we truly wanted to hide something, they most likely won't find it. Daily bag searches will just annoy, we'll keep stuff at school in the lockers. Girlfriends? What girlfriend. As long as you don't come home with perfume on you...
Unless you go Big Brother, you won't find what we're hiding, unless we slip up.
gotchaman @ Feb 28th 2009 8:48PM
unnecessary and unconstitutional nature of a recently rebuked California bill which mandated "18+" warning labels be applied to M-rated games, and enforced strict $1,000 penalties for retailers who sold such titles to minors.
hahaha... whats preventing minors from watching a rented dvd thats PG and R rated
and shows on HBO.
kids have watched schwarzenegger "The Terminator" wasnt that rated R
Markez @ Feb 28th 2009 8:51PM
dah peepul of cullifornia can learn teh menny lessuns from my movies, LIKE JEENGLE ALL DA VAY
offday @ Feb 28th 2009 9:09PM
Hollywood is safe from the government's regulations. Where do you think most of their campaign dollars come from?
todzilla @ Feb 28th 2009 8:50PM
as a parent stuff like this really insults me. I have played games since the 2600 and colecovision and have owned every console - the 3do. I have a 6 year old daughter. I know what games she can play and ones she can't. She was playing the PSP the other and told me she was going to play spongebob. a minute later the music sounded similar to God of war which i saw she was playing. She was immediately grounded because she knows thats a grown up game. Would the government please just stick their noses out of my family life?
Noshino @ Feb 28th 2009 9:21PM
Wait, what's that? an educated parent making sense? get out of here!
Why should parents educate their kids? The government should take care of that! Not only that, but if something bad happens to the children, let's blame everyone else!
Anyway, grats man, great to see that there still rational people out there.
Oh, and I do let my 13 year old brother play God of War now and then, thing is, from early on our parents taught us about what is and isn't fake, appropriate behavior and so on. Funny thing is that after playing GoW, he was interested in Greek Mythology and now and then likes to discuss it along with me and my other brothers.
todzilla @ Feb 28th 2009 9:26PM
i think god of war is fine for a 13 year old boy, aas long as they can seperate fantasy from reality which it seems he can. just as long as he doesn't play the minigames
Popfrogs @ Feb 28th 2009 11:22PM
I can just imagine what happens when he gets to the minigames in GoW.
Daaaad, I'm at the part where you bang the chicks, can you finish this for me?
Sure son, ok...hold on....yeaaah...niccceeee...
Dad are you done?
Yes...*sigh* yes son I am, here's the controller.
Also +1 for being an intelligent and aware parent. Most parents probably just know what time American Idol comes on and that their kids are "talking to friends" on their webcams at 2am.
Noshino @ Feb 28th 2009 11:57PM
Lol, no, I was actually there while he was playing, it was funny because I kinda get nervous whenever he would get near those areas, but lucky for me he just went passed them. Although I wouldn't really be that worried if he found them, but still @_@
offday @ Feb 28th 2009 9:08PM
Smartest thing I've heard in a long time.
But let's be honest, government needs to keep itself out of a lot things, not just this.