• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video game regulation, parents or the government

Parents or Government

  • Government

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neutral

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A US Senator has called for a ban for all video games with violent or sexual themes in them. This ban would prevent teenagers (and children) from purchasing violent (and sexual) video games, even with parental permission. There is no scientific evidence linking violence to video games. So who do you think should be in charge of what teens and children play, the parents or the US government? We already have the ESRB, and most stores won't sell mature games to a minor without their parents okaying the transaction or confirming identification. Hell, just the other day at GameStop I saw a man who appeared to be in his 40s get asked for his ID to pre-order a mature game. I too was also asked for my drivers license. I for one am outraged at this, it should be up to the parents, not Uncle Sam.

Long before "Pong" and "Pac-Man" revolutionized the world of children's entertainment, kids found many ways to play interactive games that included violent themes, such as "Cops and Robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians." Beyond being somewhat politically incorrect, these games contain some violent themes that some parents might find objectionable. Children pretend to rob banks and shoot cops dead; toy guns or imaginary weapons are aimed at opponents; losers are supposed to "play dead." But no one has ever seriously suggested that government should regulate these games on the grounds that they might incite youth violence.

Fast-forward to the present and the debate over "violent" video game regulation. Some critics and concerned legislators are claiming that the modern day equivalent of Cops and Robbers must be regulated by government to protect minors from the purported ill effects of video games. The logic here is fairly straightforward: If kids are exposed to violent imagery in video games, they will become aggressive children or violent adults later in life. Although unable to muster credible evidence proving this thesis, legislators across America have been introducing measures that would regulate home video games or coin-operated arcade games on these grounds.

For example, Indianapolis and St. Louis passed laws banning the sale of violent video games to minors. (Both measures were struck down by federal courts as violations of the First Amendment.) And Gov. Gary Locke of Washington recently signed a law that would prohibit the sale of games to minors that depict acts of violence against law enforcement officers (this law is also being challenged in Federal Court and is likely to be struck down as an unconstitutional restriction of protected speech). Now, Congress is getting involved. Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) recently introduced H.R. 669, "The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003." This bill would impose fines on anyone who sells or rents, "any video game that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or other content harmful to minors."

There are many problems with such regulatory measures. To start, there's little evidence of a link between video games and aggressive youth. While the video game industry was exploding between 1994 and 2000, juvenile (ages 15-17) violent crime arrests dropped by 44 percent and young adult (ages 18-24) violent crime arrests dropped by 24 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. While that does not necessarily rule out any relationship between video games and youth violence, it should make policymakers pause before rushing to legislate. Major academic and government studies have also looked at the question of video games and youth violence and found no significant correlation.

Second, self-regulation is working well. In 1994, the video game industry established the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), a comprehensive labeling system that rates over 1,000 games per year and has rated more than 8,000 games since inception. The ESRB applies five different rating symbols and over 25 different content labels that refer to violence, sex, language, substance abuse, gambling, humor and other potentially sensitive subject matter. It must be a good system because the self-appointed media violence watchdog Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) called the video game rating system "a model" for other industries to follow. Coin-operated video game operators have also devised a descriptive parental advisory labeling scheme for games played in arcades or restaurants. As a result, a descriptive labeling system is available to parents to monitor the video games their children play.

Third, government regulation could easily cross the line into censorship. If legislators threaten industry with fines or prosecution for mislabeling games, voluntary labeling will likely be abandoned altogether. Parents would lose access to valuable, reliable, and credible information about the age-appropriateness and content of the games they're thinking of buying. Of course, if industry responded to such proposals by abandoning voluntary ratings, lawmakers would quickly allege "market failure" and propose a mandatory rating-and-labeling scheme instead. The courts would not allow legislators to regulate books or magazines in this manner, and there is no reason why video games should be any different.

Finally, the most powerful case against government regulation or censorship of video games is that it's none of government's business. In a free society, parents should decide what their children see, hear, or play; Uncle Sam should not serve as a surrogate parent. After all, "one-size-fits-all" forms of content regulation are unlikely to recognize that different parents have different definitions of what constitutes acceptable fare for their children. The eye of the beholder makes a difference and in a free society it is the eyes (and ears) of parents that should decide what is in the best interests of their children.

Regulating Video Games: Parents or Uncle Sam? | Adam D. Thierer | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The ratings system for movies works well. There is nothing wrong with a law that says children cannot buy certain games-- parents will always have the option of buying the games themselves and allowing their children to play them.

It's a very long step from a mandatory ratings system and censorship.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
The ratings system for movies works well.
I disagree. The ratings system is broken and doesnt really tell you anything about a game.

Laws banning the sale of certain games to children are token efforts that dont solve anything, most M games are purchased for children BY their parents.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,550
Reaction score
15,754
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Laws banning the sale of certain games to children are token efforts that dont solve anything, most M games are purchased for children BY their parents.

Then it's the parents' fault, just as if they'd taken their children into an R-rated movie.
 

Solace

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
685
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The ratings system for movies works well. There is nothing wrong with a law that says children cannot buy certain games-- parents will always have the option of buying the games themselves and allowing their children to play them.

It's a very long step from a mandatory ratings system and censorship.

The law would make it so they cannot posess them either. But that couldn't really be enforced. It's not like the police would get a warrant to search someone's house for violent video games.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,731
Reaction score
16,428
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I do not mind the rating system and laws dictating what MINORS can or can not buy.At the same time if the parents want to buy little Timmy Grand Theft Auto 4 or Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 then that is the parents business there should be no criminalizing the possession of video games.
 
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
316
Reaction score
117
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Joe Baca and Gary Locke are republicans right?

There is nothing wrong with a law that says children cannot buy certain games
The cost of drafting the legislation is wrong. Penalizing companies that do sell games to children anyways is wrong. Forcing people to restrict the sale of products is wrong. It doesn't matter if Mommy can still do it.

The ratings system is broken and doesnt really tell you anything about a game.
Perhaps you'd rather the market use Recreational Software Advisory Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It tells you if there's titties, guts and f-bombs, as if a giant M and cover art with guns and gore isn't enough.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,309
Reaction score
4,927
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This law seems like it would do absolutely nothing. If the parent wants the kid to have the game, they'll just buy it for them (which they probably do now anyway).
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
From The Article said:
"The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003." This bill would impose fines on anyone who sells or rents, "any video game that depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or other content harmful to minors."

The wording here is confusing. Does it mean that video game companies are not allowed to sell or rent out video games whose content depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or other things we don't want to expose children to just children or to anyone?

I don't mind government regulation for the former if it helps parents keep their children away from things they don't want their kids exposed to. If they're trying to do the latter, it's censorship, and I'm against it.
 
Top Bottom