Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal
game ratings are not enforceable. If a store wants to sell AO games to a six year old, they can. Unless something has changed recently, the system is entirely voluntary.
|
If a game counts as pornography, it's not legal to sell to a minor. If it doesn't, then it's bound by the same laws as every other rating system.
Personally, I don't trust the government to be in charge of ratings (I don't like the government being in the habit of dictating what we can and can't see any more than they already are), and giving the ESRB legal authority is giving an independant organization
far too much power.
Quote:
And the other one is not about law but about responsibility. Once me move past what should be allowed by law, maybe we can actually start some dialogue about who shares in the responsibility to make sure games aren't having negative consequences. Parent education - do parents really know what's in the games their kids are playing? Is it reasonable in this day and age for a parent to pre-screen everything their kids do? Even single parents? Obviously parents are the MOST responsible factor in their kids' welfare, but it's entirely unhelpful to just slough the whole issue off as "their problem".
|
Reading the ratings and applying some common sense would be a start. I have no pity for a parent, single or not, who buys his 10 year old son a GTA game. The game is rated M, there's a laundry list of offensive content written in the rating box, and the game is named after a criminal activity. If a parent can't figure out that this isn't appropriate for their child, it's either due to stupidity or apathy, because it takes next to no effort to find out what makes this game bad.
They don't have to play the game before their child does. They don't have to go online and read reviews. They just have to take five seconds and read the rating, and the reasons for it. There's absolutely, positively no excuse for not doing this.
Quote:
What about developer responsibility? Do they have any? Or does some ambiguous freedom of speech issue give them free rein to push acceptable boundaries farther and farther?
|
Well, of course anybody is responsible for how they exercise their freedom of speech, and they take responsibility for it if need be. However, the definition of what's acceptable and what isn't is always changing, and if a game sells millions of copies, it's pretty clear that a sizable chunk of the population doesn't find the content objectionable. However, freedom of speech
exists to protect speech that's unpopular. If it didn't do that, there'd be no reason to have that right in the first place. Legally, nothing should be done to companies that put out objectionable games. The consumers will comment with their wallets, just like they do with every other medium.
Honestly, there are books out there which are far, far, far more offensive than anything ever done in a game, and these have no content warnings beyond a plot summary on the back cover.
Quote:
We may never get to the second step of discussing solutions instead of pointing fingers for causing the problem. But we're not getting any closer so long as people keep looking for the solution in law.
|
I'm of the opinion that the problem begins and ends with apathetic parents who don't pay attention to the ratings. If you can't be bothered to read seven words on the back of the box before buying your kid a game called "Grand Theft Auto" then in my opinion, you've given up your right to complain.