![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
"Barely legal
Should mature-rated video game sales to minors be criminalized?
by Chris Morris
NEW YORK – Since Janet Jackson's 2004 Super Bowl half-time peep show, anything on TV and radio that approached, much less pushed, the edge of the envelope has been condemned and ostracized.
Before long, Howard Stern was headed to satellite radio and Dennis Franz was no longer dropping trou on "NYPD Blue."
Having tamed the broadcast media, politicians have turned their attention to the interactive media -- video games, to be precise. Four states (Texas, Georgia, Maryland and North Carolina) and the District of Columbia are currently considering bills that would make it a crime to sell or rent certain video games to children. Michigan, meanwhile, is expected to introduce a bill of its own in the coming weeks. And the governor of Illinois asked legislators earlier this month to pass a similar bill.
The bills vary in their wording, but basically all say the same thing: It should be a criminal offense to sell games featuring nudity or graphic violence to minors. Suggested penalties range upward to a $1,000 fine or six months in jail.
It's an argument that's not without merit. Mature video games receive the "M" rating for a reason – and clearly state on the box that they are not suitable for players under 17.
Then again, so do R-rated movies. But there are no laws that punish theater owners for not enforcing those ratings.
It's not like politicians haven't turned their attention on the video game world before. Washington state, St. Louis County (Missouri) and Indianapolis have each passed ordinances regulating the sale and rental of violent video games. But the courts have stayed or struck down each of those ordinances fairly quickly. So why the rush of legislation now?
Jackson's flash of flesh sparked a cultural uprising that seems to have become a crutch for lazy parenting. Granted, the Super Bowl was a grossly inappropriate venue for such a stunt and there was no way for parents to prevent their children from being exposed (pardon the pun) to it.
But Howard Stern? Racy television shows? Violent or sexy video games? Folks, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what you're getting with these. If your 12-year-old comes home with a game entitled "Grand Theft Auto" or "Playboy: The Mansion," it's a safe bet you're not going to see a lot of cartoon animals onscreen.
It's the parent's job to decide what's appropriate for their children – not the government's. If your kid buys and plays something that seems inappropriate, pop the eject button on the console, put it back in the box, and march your son or daughter back to the store and demand a refund. Should the store absolutely refuse, destroy the game and teach your child an expensive lesson: You don't buy games of this nature without my approval.
Sure, this will result in all sorts of shouting and pouting, but it's not like kids won't act much the same way about many other decisions they feel are unfair.
There's no arguing that any of these bills has its heart in the right place. Young players should not play certain video games. But the ultimate responsibility for ensuring kids aren't exposed to something they shouldn't be starts and ends at home."
It's nice to see a little bit of rational, resposible thinking when it comes to video games and what a "plague" they are upon society. What with that nut out there ranting about them, whatever his name is.
October 2 2005, 04:14:32 UTC 6 years ago
October 3 2005, 01:59:50 UTC 6 years ago
Still, saying that the parents "can't" be held responsible is crazy. Parents are responsible for being a role model for their kids, and knowing what their kids are buying and playing, for, you know, being a parent...If they give in to their kids because they'll never shut up...Well, they're stupid, frankly. When I was a kid, I wanted a lot of things that my parents wouldn't or couldn't get me. I got over it.
The game rating systems aren't a definitive label. It's not a perfect system, and even if it was, I wouldn't want them passing laws enforcing people to it. Think of it...a police officer arresting a parent because they bought their sixteen year old a game that's NC-17? I think that's crazy.
A five year old can get into see an R-rated movie if they're accompanied by a parent or guardian of some sort. It's the same difference. Once again, it's the parent's responsiblity to say "No, you can't see that movie." It's the parents' responsiblity and decision, to decide what their kids should and shouldn't be seeing/playing/etc. Some games that are just rated "teen" are games that some people wouldn't want their kids playing. They can't exactly pass a law that says that a parent must be there when a kid buys ANY game.
I kind of agree with the idea that stores should not let a kid buy a mature sort of game. Kids being kids, they'll go out and buy the game themselves and try to hide it from their parents. But if the parent decides that it's alright for their kid, and they buy the game, then that's their right. Even if they're being stupid.