Legally enforced ratings

Violent Video Game Supreme Court Case Raises Stakes In America, Sides Sound Off - Supreme Court - Kotaku

Everyone on Kotaku is raising commotion about the idea of ratings being legally enforced rather than voluntarily enforced. Why? I think this is a good idea honestly. While many stores do enforce it, not all do. This won't stop parents from being stupid and buying M rated games for their kids, but I don't see any reason why stores shouldn't be required to prohibit the sale of M rated games to minors any more than they prohibit tobacco and alcohol.

The content isn't for the kids. Please legally enforce it and maybe less of the elementary school children I'm around all day will stop talking about how awesome GTA and MW2 are.

Quote:

---

Well, that's great. This bill is utterly worthless.
If you'll notice, it says:

"(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

However, it's absurd to claim that games don't have those things. Let's look at the biggest offenders, the "Must-bans" of the past few years-

1. Dante's Inferno- This one isn't really worth commenting on. It's a re-interpretation of one of the most famous works of literature in human history. Obviously of literary value.
Can't be banned.

2. Grand Theft Auto- Complex social commentary on immigration, and gang violence.
Can't be banned.

3. God of War- Tale of the cost of vengeance and redemption, set in a classic Greek Mythology setting.
Can't be banned.

4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare- Anybody who can play through the atomic blast scene, and not call it art, is an idiot.
Can't be banned.

5. Mass Effect- Study of human interactions and diplomacy.
Can't be banned.

6. Fallout 3- Analysis of the ramifications of thermonuclear war, and humanity's reactions in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
Can't be banned.

And, I could go on and on like this. Under the definition of the bill itself, it can't ban anything. Unless, of course, they began to make subjective judgment calls as to what qualifies as literature or art. But, once you do that, what's the difference between banning games and banning books that you disagree with?

Once you set such a precedent, there is no such thing as freedom of speech and expression.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Depression Moon

Quote:

---

Well, that's great. This bill is utterly worthless.
If you'll notice, it says:

"(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

However, it's absurd to claim that games don't have those things. Let's look at the biggest offenders, the "Must-bans" of the past few years-

1. Dante's Inferno- This one isn't really worth commenting on. It's a re-interpretation of one of the most famous works of literature in human history. Obviously of literary value.
Can't be banned.

2. Grand Theft Auto- Complex social commentary on immigration, and gang violence.
Can't be banned.

3. God of War- Tale of the cost of vengeance and redemption, set in a classic Greek Mythology setting.
Can't be banned.

4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare- Anybody who can play through the atomic blast scene, and not call it art, is an idiot.
Can't be banned.

5. Mass Effect- Study of human interactions and diplomacy.
Can't be banned.

6. Fallout 3- Analysis of the ramifications of thermonuclear war, and humanity's reactions in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
Can't be banned.

And, I could go on and on like this. Under the definition of the bill itself, it can't ban anything. Unless, of course, they began to make subjective judgment calls as to what qualifies as literature or art. But, once you do that, what's the difference between banning games and banning books that you disagree with?

Once you set such a precedent, there is no such thing as freedom of speech and expression.

---

---

Someone didn't read the whole bill...

I agree, I think it should be legally enforced. Though honestly I don't see how it will keep kids from walking around talking about how cool said M rated games are as their parents will still buy them the games they ask for without actually thinking twice about why they needed to break out their drivers license to buy the game for their 11 year old.

The way I see it, if you open the door for the government to legally enforce ratings (or even worse, run the ratings board) then you open the door for them to censor or outright ban whatever they deem inappropriate. You only need to look at the situation with games in Australia to see how bad things could get anywhere else where the government gets involved with handing out or enforcing ratings. I personally have absolutely no desire to have a government body of any kind tell me what I can and can't play.

Let's focus on more important things like illegal immigration and cancer, not video games that hardly have an effect on kids in the first place. What's the difference between a violent video game and a violent movie or television show?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

You only need to look at the situation with games in Australia to see how bad things could get anywhere else where the government gets involved with handing out or enforcing ratings. I personally have absolutely no desire to have a government body of any kind tell me what I can and can't play.

---

That's a valid point.

I've changed my position.

There are movies/magazines that children legally can't rent/purchase, why should video games be any different? Regardless of where you fall on the issue of how restrictive the government should be, you should be able to appreciate that video games should be held to the same standards of any other media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VeloZer0

There are movies/magazines that children legally can't rent/purchase, why should video games be any different? Regardless of where you fall on the issue of how restrictive the government should be, you should be able to appreciate that video games should be held to the same standards of any other media.

---

Movies aren't rated by a government agency in the States, nor are those ratings enforced by law as far as I know, yet stores do a fine job of not selling R or NC-17 rated stuff to minors. Why should games be any different? Keep in mind that by and large stores have gotten a lot better about not selling them to minors all over the place. I see under age kids get refused when trying to purchase M rated stuff all of the time, and store workers who are really good about making it clear to a parent before they buy their ten year old God of War that it's rated M and what that means.

And regardless of whether or not anyone thinks kids shouldn't be allowed to buy games not rated for them (and I agree they shouldn't), it shouldn't be up to the government. Hell, it bothers me that movie ratings in Canada are the domain of the provincial governments, but since I can't think of a case where they abused that power I'd say we've gotten lucky. We could easily get royally screwed by a government out to make a statement on a hot topic like violent games though. Since the movie ratings in the States have proven that industries are entirely capable of self regulating, we have nothing to gain by handing over ratings power for games to the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rad Bromance

Someone didn't read the whole bill...

---

I read it. Where does it contradict it.

I wasn't aware it wasn't legally enforced that movies must be IDed in the US. My point was only that video games should be held to the same standard, whatever that may be.

If the industry is going to be self regulating then they should be liable for civil damages as a result of negligence on the part of rater or retailers. There should be some sort of check and balance scheme to any system, and the civil litigation is one that generally applies to independent industry.

I realize how ludicrous it would be to actually sue over having your kid purchase a M rated game, I speak it from a purely legal perspective of having the consumer have some method of recourse. If you don't like the reviews Consumer Reports produces you can check another site. There is only one ESRB rating games, they are the only ones who can appear on a game box.

I have always been asked for an ID when buying an M-rated game. When I was underage and wanted one I asked my mommy and daddy to buy it for me and if I wasn't a brat and they could afford it, they did. The latter was the case for nearly all of my brother's and my M-rated games, and for many of my friends' and cousins' as well. This bill isn't going to do anything except possibly put a small dent in the gaming industry.

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

---

And what happens when someone new starts running the show and thinks the ratings are too lenient, the ESRB isn't doing an adequate job, or that some things should be denied ratings and banned outright unless they're changed? If you give the government the power to enforce ratings then you're still opening the door for them to take control of the whole shebang.

Frankly, even if the power wasn't abused and remained limited to simply enforcing an independent groups ratings, the potential for things to go so horribly wrong and the fact that it has happened elsewhere means that I can't see myself ever changing my mind on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

---

No, that's exactly WHY it's a problem. If the government wants to legally enforce age ratings, well, I'm not going to blow anything up; I don't really agree with it but it's not exactly unprecedented, and most jurisdictions allow either de jure or de facto parental override, which I find satisfactory enough to tolerate*. The problem, and something which to my understanding has been at the core of every single court review of such a bill that has led to them all, every last one, being struck down, is that the government cannot make a third-party ratings system a legal guideline.

In purely practical terms I think this would be a waste of resources. Many stores already come down hard on employees who violate their rules, and contrariwise we can see given the continuing struggles of governments that they can't stop kids getting stuff like cigarettes and alcohol if the store doesn't care, which many don't, because they don't think they'll get caught. It's a waste of resources, and whilst I'm not going to suggest a government can't do two things at once, I think the gains are so marginal that it's really not worth enacting, and then enforcing and prosecuting etc.

Finally because these things are the thin end of the wedge. This sort of law isn't really a problem but they are always, always introduced by people who seek far stricter controls and indeed censorship and banning. Seeing as I have no problem with the existing system, I have no incentive to meet them halfway when I consider them to very probably be emboldened if they succeed and begin posing more and more of a threat to freedom of speech.

* Ultimately I am deeply wary of a government which decides what its citizens may see and listen to, and object to it on philosophical grounds, but as I say the practical reality means I'm not terrible bothered by the systems as they exist.

The ESRB has done a really good job of doing what it's supposed to do, and it seems like game stores are getting as good as movies are about checking ages (no matter how much it pissed me off as a kid).

So we really don't need government regulation. If they only enforced what the ESRB does I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Then again I haven't read the bill and don't intend to, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME, so I just thought I'd throw in my two (unsubstantiated) cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sagensyg

Let's focus on more important things like illegal immigration and cancer

---

But this is pretty much what it already comes down to.

I am against anything that expands the government's role. They have too much power already, I have no desire to see them get more.

If politicians want to protect our kids from hurtful messages, they should stop making public speeches.

GamesRadar just posted a fairly great article on the subject.

Kids should be able to buy violent games. Americans need to get off their high horses of hypocrisy. The government should keep it's nose out of people's business.

etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Kids should be able to buy violent games. Americans need to get off their high horses of hypocrisy. The government should keep it's nose out of people's business.

etc etc

---

One of these statements is not like the others :eyebrow:

I'm sorry guys but what the hell is the fuss about really?

I've worked retail in the UK for 10 years now, in all those 10 years I have dealt with Games, Movies, Knives, Solvents, Alcohol, Cigarettes and other age restricted products. Age restriction in the UK is legally enforced I am expected and can quote the exact punitive measures that can be enforced upon a company and an individual who sells the products to underage people, these are for the individual who is responsible for the sale in question:

• £5000 fine
• 6 months in prison
• a criminal record
• dismissal for gross misconduct

For the company the employee works for they will also be prosecuted which in turn means the individual gets sued by their bosses for damages in 99% of cases the damages amount to the legal fees of the company and the fines imposed upon them for the transgression also be aware a company can lose it's liscence to sell age restricted goods for a period of 3 - 12 months though this is an unlikely measure generally dependent on there being a lot of transgressions consistently taking place meaning many companies especially HMV where I currently work would probably close down due to this unlikely occurence happening. A criminal record is there for 10 years minimum and can and will stop most people from getting a job because even though the criminal record can be there for an honest mistake it doesn't matter what it is for you're a criminal. Also to note, I often see children turned down for games try and get a passer by to buy the game for them. Most people would turn a blind eye to this kind of practice however it's actually still breaking the law, except not only you are up for the jump the person who is purchasing the game is also breaking the law and faces the fine, criminal record and 6 months in prison as well as you. So if someone in the UK asks you to purchase a game or other age restricted products for them in a store because they don't have ID consider it first. The only exception to the rule is their parents can buy them the products.

You also have to bear in mind that the BBFC and PEGI ratings systems are both legally enforced these days since around 2 years ago and the VSC training video that is often available is not up to date to include this at least the HMV one is not I often have to inform staff that start new or don't often sell games. In total theres something like 11 different age ratings and enforcing all of them isn't always easy after all valid proof of age for children is hard to find in the UK mostly it's a passport what parents don't often like to give to their children to go shopping with. Not to mention that parents can buy their children whatever games they like, we're expected to inform them that the game is not suitable and so on but often they just don't care.

So if America is considering legally enforcing it's age restriction systems then I don't feel theres anything wrong with it. It's certainly not the end of the world is it now? After all since 1984 the British public has had the legal enforcement of an age restriction system and in the 90s there was ELSPA (later became PEGI) a advisory not legally enforced system and now we have PEGI what controls only games.

imo ratings would be a good thing if the heaviest rating (like R18 or whatever) meant anything goes
and kids can’t buy it but if their parents think it’s all right for them then go for it
buy this for your kids if you want but that’s your problem we really suggest against it
if you’re smurfed in the head we suggest against it and aren’t liable
:bou::bou::bou::bou: like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

So if America is considering legally enforcing it's age restriction systems then I don't feel theres anything wrong with it. It's certainly not the end of the world is it now? After all since 1984 the British public has had the legal enforcement of an age restriction system and in the 90s there was ELSPA (later became PEGI) a advisory not legally enforced system and now we have PEGI what controls only games.

---

Funny you should mention that because that's exactly what the UK sounds like to me from your story. The fact there's cameras on the streets everywhere nowadays and the new internet freedom removal act aren't helping things either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

---

No, that's exactly WHY it's a problem. If the government wants to legally enforce age ratings, well, I'm not going to blow anything up; I don't really agree with it but it's not exactly unprecedented, and most jurisdictions allow either de jure or de facto parental override, which I find satisfactory enough to tolerate*. The problem, and something which to my understanding has been at the core of every single court review of such a bill that has led to them all, every last one, being struck down, is that the government cannot make a third-party ratings system a legal guideline.

---

I'm forced to correct myself. This bill apparently isn't like all the others that have been attempted, and doesn't use ESRB ratings.

@ Steve - they have all this enforcement, but guess what? Kids up and down the country are still playing this stuff. Even if it's not a problem (Though reading all the commentary on this bill I'm increasingly convinced that it is despite it being govt. not ESRB ratings) it's pretty much a waste of resources. Frankly I would rather our legal system stop wasting time on this crap and make room for burglers and muggers and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceglow

So if America is considering legally enforcing it's age restriction systems then I don't feel theres anything wrong with it. It's certainly not the end of the world is it now?

---

No it's not the end of the world. Unless a legal rating and enforcement agency starts to abuse it's power and ban whatever they see fit. As an example, take a look at a small list of games banned or censored in some way in Australia:

Censorship in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, because they refuse to have a rating higher than their MA15+, anything that exceeds the standards for that rating either gets censored or banned. Now I'd like to ask you how the government has any business banning any games; essentially telling grown adults such as myself that what we should or shouldn't play. When I'm a grown adult, I should be able to play whatever the hell I want, and developers should get to make the game they want so long as it gets slapped with the appropriate rating in the end.

It's easy to ask what the big deal is when the ratings enforcement doesn't infringe on our ability to play the games we want. But just ask Australians how awesome it is when the government starts using it as an excuse to censor and ban things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Funny you should mention that because that's exactly what the UK sounds like to me from your story. The fact there's cameras on the streets everywhere nowadays and the new internet freedom removal act aren't helping things either.

---

You know that theres a lot of hyperbole over the amount of CCTV in the UK, sure in London it's really hard to leave any building including your home without being picked up on CCTV somewhere within 20 seconds however you need to realize over 90% of this CCTV will be privately owned by shops or even by homeowners who have received harrassment in the past by people/yobs. Orwell's 1984 is still a far cry from the Britain of today and I do note the coincidental irony of the Video Standards Act being introduced in 1984. As for the new act combating internet piracy, that law is a badly made law what is very hard to enforce and seriously needs to be re-thought imho.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

@ Steve - they have all this enforcement, but guess what? Kids up and down the country are still playing this stuff. Even if it's not a problem (Though reading all the commentary on this bill I'm increasingly convinced that it is despite it being govt. not ESRB ratings) it's pretty much a waste of resources. Frankly I would rather our legal system stop wasting time on this crap and make room for burglers and muggers and such.

---

I agree age restriction doesn't stop children nationwide from getting their hands on such games, as I said in my post whilst I am legally obliged to refuse sales to underage persons and actually any person who doesn't appear to be around 3 years older than the age restriction (think 21 it's amazing [/ sarcasm]) I'm also legally obliged to inform parents when they're purchasing items with an age restriction for those under the age I cannot really stop them from doing so. Most parents simply don't care enough to actually listen to the advice we give having exposed their kids to films and such rated 18 since a very young age. I also agree that the imposition of a fine, a criminal record and a prison term is over kill for this kind of thing, the criminal record and prison term do nothing but create someone who is suddenly a dependent of the state since they prevent people from getting a new job when they do get out of the prison. The fine alone suffices and not to mention the loss of job in my opinion both of these are problems enough for someone who makes an honest mistake though they're justified if the person has deliberately and knowingly done so. The problem is determining if an action was an innocent mistake or a knowing and deliberate action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

No it's not the end of the world. Unless a legal rating and enforcement agency starts to abuse it's power and ban whatever they see fit. As an example, take a look at a small list of games banned or censored in some way in Australia:

Censorship in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, because they refuse to have a rating higher than their MA15+, anything that exceeds the standards for that rating either gets censored or banned. Now I'd like to ask you how the government has any business banning any games; essentially telling grown adults such as myself that what we should or shouldn't play. When I'm a grown adult, I should be able to play whatever the hell I want, and developers should get to make the game they want so long as it gets slapped with the appropriate rating in the end.

It's easy to ask what the big deal is when the ratings enforcement doesn't infringe on our ability to play the games we want. But just ask Australians how awesome it is when the government starts using it as an excuse to censor and ban things.

---

Austrailia is a special case (SPOILER)because let's face it, they're a country decended from convicts and run by morons and idiots ;P love ya really you damn convicts xD, however I do see your point on how government restrictions is a bad thing, I'm not exactly sure how it worked back prior to 1984 but as far as I know the BBFC (British Broadcast and Film Commission) is independent from the government even though it's ratings are legally binding. Same goes for PEGI, PEGI is a european thing and in most countries it is still considered advisory rather than legally binding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

This won't stop parents from being stupid and buying M rated games for their kids, but I don't see any reason why stores shouldn't be required to prohibit the sale of M rated games to minors any more than they prohibit tobacco and alcohol.

---

The major difference is that tobacco and alcohol are physically and objectively harmful; in this case, the government is determining what content should or should not be legally available to kids, which is not something the government should be doing.

Kids will still get the games, anyway. This is just another massive waste of resources to make it look like the government is doing something, because "it's for the children!" wins votes.

If the punishment is too severe some stores may find it better to just stop stocking such games altogether, I imagine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

If the punishment is too severe some stores may find it better to just stop stocking such games altogether, I imagine.

---

I know how people say the UK and USA are vastly different to each other on these things but look at the UK, for the past 25 - 26 years this has been the way of things I've never once had trouble finding retailers willing to stock the games. As I point out in my initial post most of the responsibility and punitive measures are extolled on the individual responsible for the transaction not the company the fine they get is generally only big when the company doesn't bother to or has inadequate training for staff in regards to the law. Anyone who sells games won't refuse to stock an 18+ rated title such as MW2 or GTA IV because "it's too risky that it could be sold on to someone under the age of 18" Lets say one customer was under the age of 18 and brought the game and the company got sued, they claim the staff member was responsible and put it all on him, the staff member cannot unless specifically ordered to do so (in which scenario he/she should refuse and say "if you're happy to do the sale go ahead yourself" which is well within the rights of the employee) claim the same. It is their judgement that counts. The company is fined perhaps £5000 for that error same as the employee. The employee would be sued for the £5000 + legal fees by the company meaning the company would really lose nothing. Also the benefits of stocking such titles far outstrips the risks and hazzards. A big game release such as MW2 or GTA IV will make a company thousands of pounds per week for a good couple of months. The only businesses truly affected by the risk of this is independent computer game stores on a small scale because for them the fines may be more than the company takes on a weekly basis and they can be forced to shut down because of it.

If this proposed bill was passed and if the government didn't do an Aussie on the United States public (personally my opinion is that they ought to utilize the ERSB ratings myself but hey I'm british what does my opinion count for?) Since most people here talk about getting games from Wal-mart, Gamestop or the like I doubt anyone from the USA here will really be affected by this law except that some might need to show a drivers liscence to buy a game or two and some will have to rely on their parents getting it for them which is no real big deal is it now? Well unless your parents say no which to be fair if they were happy with you buying such games prior to the law changes that have been proposed it won't make much sense for them to not be ok with buying the game for you now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

This won't stop parents from being stupid and buying M rated games for their kids, but I don't see any reason why stores shouldn't be required to prohibit the sale of M rated games to minors any more than they prohibit tobacco and alcohol.

---

This is just another massive waste of resources to make it look like the government is doing something, because "it's for the children!" wins votes.

---

I can get behind and understand this sentiment at least. I guess it is potentially a waste and a slow incremental robbing of potential rights that isn't noticed if done slowly.

I'm having trouble finding a spot that I feel comfortable about things like this. I have a knee-jerk reaction against the extreme-Libertarian philosophy that nothing should be regulated. I think there is room for and need for regulation (FDA being one of the better examples for me personally).

I think perhaps I'm (incorrectly) thinking that if there were a little more regulation of what can be sold to whom there would at least be a better argument against those who hate violent games. As it is, when the argument arises that children shouldn't be playing them, it's just swept off the table. Perhaps if the argument was that "you as a parent made a point to circumvent the law to allow your kids to play a game that was regulated and rated to be inappropriate" then perhaps they could stop buck passing. I know that's not reality and it's frustrating.

Quote:

---

imo ratings would be a good thing if the heaviest rating (like R18 or whatever) meant anything goes

---

This is where I'm at. An AO rating means the death of a game. M ratings are handed out almost with the predication that children might see them so certain things are to be avoided. This shouldn't be the case. Maybe it's just in my head, but I feel like often developers have to be more careful with a game to temper it against the ESRB AO rating. AO insinuates that it's a sex game, but that doesn't have to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yearg

I think perhaps I'm (incorrectly) thinking that if there were a little more regulation of what can be sold to whom there would at least be a better argument against those who hate violent games. As it is, when the argument arises that children shouldn't be playing them, it's just swept off the table. Perhaps if the argument was that "you as a parent made a point to circumvent the law to allow your kids to play a game that was regulated and rated to be inappropriate" then perhaps they could stop buck passing.

---

There's already a plenty good argument to rebut the claim that violent video games result in violent children: it's bull:bou::bou::bou::bou:.

Quote:

---

I have a knee-jerk reaction against the extreme-Libertarian philosophy that nothing should be regulated. I think there is room for and need for regulation (FDA being one of the better examples for me personally).

---

Just because X may be better off with some regulation, doesn't mean Y is too. Some things, especially when it's related to the content of speech, are certainly better off with minimal regulation as possible. There's a difference between dangerous drugs and video games.

Useless from a practical standpoint... and as common amongst government agencies, the quality of this rating system will likely be or become abominable. This is common sense-- its not about safety, its about control. Thats the sociology of the state apparatus. Voluntary associations are perfectly capable of satisfying the desire for content "control."

Maybe I'm just wrong about my premise that kids should be limited on any content. I played Mortal Kombat II when I was in 4th grade. I guess I feel differently about random violence compared to actual adult scenarios. As I'm playing GTA IV the scenarios elicit a response that I could not have if I weren't mature enough to get what was going on.

Of course, you could use that argument to say that kids under X age shouldn't read 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 because they simply can't fully grasp the concepts and that's BS.

Part of me really thinks maybe we should worry less about what kids are playing or even watching, but what would your gut reaction be hearing that a kid, aged 6, is watching all of the most gruesome modern horror films, playing GTA, and listening to songs that explicit explain "nig*as f**kin' b**ches?" If they were even 15 I just wouldn't care. But when they are under 10... something just rubs me wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeargdribble

Part of me really thinks maybe we should worry less about what kids are playing or even watching, but what would your gut reaction be hearing that a kid, aged 6, is watching all of the most gruesome modern horror films, playing GTA, and listening to songs that explicit explain "nig*as f**kin' b**ches?" If they were even 15 I just wouldn't care. But when they are under 10... something just rubs me wrong.

---

I would say that kid's parents should do a better job, but that it's absolutely no business of the government.

Quote:

---

Maybe I'm just wrong about my premise that kids should be limited on any content.

---

I'm not saying that. I am saying you're wrong that there should be laws limiting it.

I think by this point in the thread I agree with you on that pretty completely. But it does leave me self searching on what I think about the limits that should be imposed on minors and their restriction to content.

You can say their parents are doing a bad job, and they probably are, but at what point do you think it becomes appropriate? Sure, it's different for every kid, but... I dunno. I guess I just feel that 6-10 there are very few kids that are ready for that content, but I know that when I was 10 my mom would've gotten me GTA IV without question. In her case I don't think it was bad parenting. She was aware of content, but thought I was mature enough to tell fantasy from reality and felt that there's no point hiding certain realities (like the fact that people cuss and have sex and sometimes even shoot other people).

I don't think you can really put a set standard on it. Children are different, situations are different. I can't really criticize a wide range of tactics for dealing with filtering content for really young children, though I would definitely support a much more filter-free environment upon a child reaching adolescence.

I'm not sure you can narrow it to a set standard. Or at least, I don't think you should. Parenting isn't about definitive standards that apply to all children.