The position that I don't understand is the middle-ground one: that classification boards are useful, but that their ratings should simply be taken as a guideline (and not enforced). Surely, if certain content is damaging to children, then there should be restrictions put in place to stop them buying games and movies with that content. Conversely, if children are perfectly able to experience any content without concern, then there is no need for classification boards in the first place.
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents? Because *I* don't get the inability to comprehend this.
There is nothing "surely" about this. The law should not play parent, period. A parent has both a right and a responsibility to raise his or her child in the way the parent sees fit (within certain boundaries) and dictating the kind of media a parent can allow his or her child to experience is not something the government should do, ever.
If a child consumes artistic expression, then there is no imminent danger of harm to society.
However, if you take the stance that children can view any content without harm, then that position basically refutes the need for the ESRB, CARA, the BBFC, PEGI, and all other classification boards. That's a perfectly valid position to take, but it's not one I agree with personally (however, it's not a position I'm going to argue against, because those debates rapidly devolve into circular arguments about morality).
Not at all. There is material which is unsuitable for younger audiences. For that matter, there are certain cases in which a child that meets certain conditions will be damaged in a way that will be a threat to society later on. However, the material itself is not necessarily inherently damaging, and it has inherent artistic value. The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
I have no problem with the rating systems. I have no problem with parents or distributors deciding not to sell games to specific individuals, even on a large scale group basis, that is clearly their right as responsible parents and members of a market. What I have a problem with is governmental censor of artistic expression.
Khavall on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
I'm saddened that he's still using the "cop-killing simulator" and "trainer" bullshit.
But y'know... he's right. GTAVI shouldn't be sold to minors.
So at what point is a restriction of the distribution of artistic expression censorship then?
EDIT: That was to reVerse.
Altering or outright banning something can fall under censorship. Restricting the sale of a product is just restricting the sale of a product.
They took the gunrape out of GTA4 in australia.
I dont think this was because it was censored.
Mainly because the publisher wanted to change it to fall in line with the oz ratings so that they could increase their sales.
like how sometimes a movie will be cut to get a lower rating to get higher ticket sales.
There is such a concept as "self-censorship". The artist wants to say something but thinks he'll get in trouble for it, so he chickens out and alters his work to be more acceptable.
Yeah but self censorship is ok.
Also, from what they have said on the matter, it is the tiniest of changes anyways. In fact, I'm willing to bet if they hadnt mentioned it at all noone would notice.
That is, as long as Rockstar made the call, not T2. And specifically Rockstar North.
But who really cares, I've never had a problem with censorship in my life anyways. With the internet existing censorship is a lost cause anyways.
This is not OK self-censorship. A form of OK self-censorship is when Konami toned down Silent Hill 2 because they thought some scenes were too gruesome. Nobody else judged the scenes, they did, and they decided based on their own principles to re-tune them a bit. (Actually, the story surrounding all this is pretty funny, you should look it up.)
As for this GTAIV-in-Australia thing? This is a chilling effect perpetrated by a shitty ratings system that led to self-censorship, which might as well be regular censorship in this case.
Nobody else has judged the scenes here either. Rockstar changed the game to better meet the guidelines set by the Australian ratings board.
If they hadn't have changed it, the game would still be released and would still be allowed for sale.
There is no external forces acting here. It is the developer and publisher changing the game not because they feel the content would cause friction with the ratings board in Australia but because they want to sell as many copies as possible.
How is this any different than a film being edited marginally to get a PG13 instead of an R rating or something. That practice has been going on for decades and nobody gives a shit. This situation is exactly the same. No different.
Also freedom of expression is drastically different than voting or marriage, and using them as something similar is something akin to saying "Well I can shoot animals, so why is shooting people so different?" (...) If a child consumes artistic expression, then there is no imminent danger of harm to society.
I'm not sure freedom of expression works that way.
I mean, if I were to film a hard-core pornographic movie (for example) and the government says that I probably shouldn't be showing this to kids, how does that diminish my freedom of expression?
Unless I intended to show my hard-core porn flick exclusively to children, I wasn't exactly prevented from expressing myself to my target audience however I see fit, right?
And if I did intend to peddle my smut to little kids, some might argue that my need to rot in jail for being a filthy pedophile is more important than my freedom to express myself.
Or something.
That position only works though, if you're equating Video games to Pornography. Porn is not artistic expression, though if there was a flick that had artistic merit but also basically was just sex, then yeah, on a case by case basis we could figure out if the government should step in or simply have a strong advisory against it.
Also pornography has been shown to cause social damage when shown to children. It hits on both having no artistic merit and causing social harm by being shown to children.
Games aren't porn. If there was a hugely realistic HD remake of Custer's Revenge? Allright, let's restrict the shit out of that game.
Freedom of expression has limits, but Video Games clearly don't fall into those limits, unless we're also going to be restricting other forms of expression which have more objectionable content. We do this in terms of freely-broadcast television and radio, but that is a restriction on content, not a restriction on accessibility, and it's because the content is freely accessible, there in fact can be no restriction of sale from anyone, therefore restriction of content is important to ensure that the content is constantly rated for all who can access it, which is everyone. There is however in place systems of non-governmental rating and control of video games. We also do this in terms of certain forms of cinema in porn, which again, we have no video games that are that bad.
Note that there are Operas and multimedia forms of art that are far, far, far, more objectionable than anything in video games, yet they aren't censored. Wonder why.
Khavall on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents?
The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
If these ratings are intended as indicators for parents, then surely parents should be required to decide whether the content is appropriate for their children, and choose whether or not to buy it for them accordingly.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
Honestly, without some form of restrictions on purchasing, kids are just going to buy the game, and their parents will probably never notice the little "17+" label on the box. We could argue that parents should sit and watch what their children are playing, but they are never going to be able to supervise them 100% of the time, especially when their children reach their teenage years.
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents?
The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
If these ratings are intended as indicators for parents, then surely parents should be required to decide whether the content is appropriate for their children, and choose whether or not to buy it for them accordingly.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
Honestly, without some form of restrictions on purchasing, kids are just going to buy the game, and their parents will probably never notice the little "17+" label on the box. We could argue that parents should sit and watch what their children are playing, but they are never going to be able to supervise them 100% of the time, especially when their children reach their teenage years.
Governmental restriction will not account for a teenager getting their hands on the material, it will simply make it somewhat harder to. Unless you're suggesting that no one drinks, smokes, or looks at porn while under the legal age.
Understand I am not advocating free sale to anyone, I am advocating a lack of governmental censor of artistic expression.
Movies constantly say "This movie is probably only appropriate for people aged 17+" and then legally allow 12 year old children to view them.
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
You take the No Country for Old Men with the Eragon.
Khavall on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
That position only works though, if you're equating Video games to Pornography. Porn is not artistic expression, though if there was a flick that had artistic merit but also basically was just sex, then yeah, on a case by case basis we could figure out if the government should step in or simply have a strong advisory against it.
Also pornography has been shown to cause social damage when shown to children. It hits on both having no artistic merit and causing social harm by being shown to children.
Your position, then, only seems to work on the assumption that all games are art.
I must disagree.
And I only chose porn to make the point more obvious. Perhaps I should have gone for the extremely gory slasher angle.
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
Why would it cause that?
EDIT: I'm dumb. It would keep in line with the developers' current policy of refusing AO-rated games. That's what he was getting at.
That position only works though, if you're equating Video games to Pornography. Porn is not artistic expression, though if there was a flick that had artistic merit but also basically was just sex, then yeah, on a case by case basis we could figure out if the government should step in or simply have a strong advisory against it.
Also pornography has been shown to cause social damage when shown to children. It hits on both having no artistic merit and causing social harm by being shown to children.
Your position, then, only seems to work on the assumption that all games are art.
I must disagree.
And I only chose porn to make the point more obvious. Perhaps I should have gone for the extremely gory slasher angle.
Funny how extremely gory slasher movies are not restricted by the government then isn't it?
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
Why would it cause that?
Because everytime I go and play Halo 3 online I can tell you for a fact the majority of people on their are under the age to bu the game. If it was made illegal, sales of that game would be much lower.
developers for the most part only make games that they want to sell.
Governmental restriction will not account for a teenager getting their hands on the material, it will simply make it somewhat harder to. Unless you're suggesting that no one drinks, smokes, or looks at porn while under the legal age.
So, by this argument, sales of cigarettes, alcohol and porn shouldn't have Government regulation either, because such regulation isn't effective?
Movies constantly say "This movie is probably only appropriate for people aged 17+" and then legally allow 12 year old children to view them.
They certainly don't allow children in to such movies here in Australia. People under the age of 15 can't go into a MA15+ film unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Once again, the law here basically says: "this probably isn't appropriate for anyone under 15, but if parents think it is OK for their children, then that is their decision". It empowers parents to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their children. Allowing children in without parental consent takes that right (and responsibility) away from parents.
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents?
The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
If these ratings are intended as indicators for parents, then surely parents should be required to decide whether the content is appropriate for their children, and choose whether or not to buy it for them accordingly.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
Honestly, without some form of restrictions on purchasing, kids are just going to buy the game, and their parents will probably never notice the little "17+" label on the box. We could argue that parents should sit and watch what their children are playing, but they are never going to be able to supervise them 100% of the time, especially when their children reach their teenage years.
It is not the government's job to make sure parents are doing their job in every respect.
I believe it is a parent's job to supervise his or her child at a level they think appropriate. I think it is the government's job to strongly urge parents to take their parenting job seriously and maybe even suggest appropriate levels of parenting and supervision, but in no way should the government ever enforce anything except to protect children from abuse or negligence.
Unless you think otherwise, the above points you've made are all invalid. I think these ratings boards are good tools for parents to use. Stating that parents are generally not doing their job nowadays doesn't really change the fact that it isn't the government's job to pick up the slack, or to force parents to do their job in this regard.
He's talking about being able to interact with other people in general - avoiding being a complete introvert...
Social competencies are the life skills that help young people grow up to be independent, capable, and competent. Social competencies equip young people to:
# Deal with the choices and challenges they face;
# Form and maintain healthy relationships;
# Reduce or avoid stress--and cope with it when it occurs;
# Be effective in school and the workplace; and # Contribute to their community and society.
Countries where the government decides ratings have, in almost all cases, banned certain games or movies from coming out. That is censorship, and it's unacceptable. Therefore, don't let the government rate games or movies.
He's talking about being able to interact with other people in general - avoiding being a complete introvert...
Social competencies are the life skills that help young people grow up to be independent, capable, and competent. Social competencies equip young people to:
# Deal with the choices and challenges they face;
# Form and maintain healthy relationships;
# Reduce or avoid stress--and cope with it when it occurs;
# Be effective in school and the workplace; and # Contribute to their community and society.
Fuck that noise, I work for MONEY!
It's like he took a list of attributes that no gamer has and tried to force them on us.
Every bullet point on that list is like the opposite of me.
The_Scarab on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
Why would it cause that?
Because everytime I go and play Halo 3 online I can tell you for a fact the majority of people on their are under the age to bu the game. If it was made illegal, sales of that game would be much lower.
developers for the most part only make games that they want to sell.
Sales might be lower but I do not believe they would be so much lower that it's not worth making the game in the first place.
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
Why would it cause that?
Because everytime I go and play Halo 3 online I can tell you for a fact the majority of people on their are under the age to bu the game. If it was made illegal, sales of that game would be much lower.
developers for the most part only make games that they want to sell.
Sales might be lower but I do not believe they would be so much lower that it's not worth making the game in the first place.
But almost certainly worth changing the game to make back those lost sales by maybe getting a lower rating? Right?
Movies constantly say "This movie is probably only appropriate for people aged 17+" and then legally allow 12 year old children to view them.
They certainly don't allow children in to such movies here in Australia. People under the age of 15 can't go into a MA15+ film unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Once again, the law here basically says: "this probably isn't appropriate for anyone under 15, but if parents think it is OK for their children, then that is their decision". It empowers parents to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their children. Allowing children in without parental consent takes that right (and responsibility) away from parents.
Yes, and Australia has no First Amendment protecting freedom of expression
Don't get me wrong, I'm against censorship regardless of the country, and that's an entirely different can of worms. In America, though censorship is a violation of the constitution, so not only is it wrong to censor, but it's wrong and against the founding principles of the nation.
Also my point about governmental restriction wasn't "It won't work so it's useless" it was "Governmental restriction is not a magic bullet". Basically everyone agrees that parental involvement is the solution, similar to how parents educate their children on many other aspects of life. The governmental control makes sense in the case of materials that will damage the children, it makes it harder to attain certainly. It however is not the solution for bad parenting. Education of the parents and the distributors is the solution, and all governmental restriction accomplishes in the case of video games is harm and partially kill the industry(again I speak in the case of America). It does not help educate the parents beyond "They're bad, don't let your kids play them", which is the correct message for Porn, Alcohol and Cigs, at least, for the age group where they are restricted. Is it the correct message for Video Games? No, the correct message is "Think about this, this may be inappropriate"
Khavall on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
Why would it cause that?
Because everytime I go and play Halo 3 online I can tell you for a fact the majority of people on their are under the age to bu the game. If it was made illegal, sales of that game would be much lower.
developers for the most part only make games that they want to sell.
Sales might be lower but I do not believe they would be so much lower that it's not worth making the game in the first place.
But almost certainly worth changing the game to make back those lost sales by maybe getting a lower rating? Right?
If the developer feels that excessive violence and sexual themes in their game aren't all that important in the end, then I see no problem why they shouldn't remove them to get a lower rating. If they feel that they are important for the artistic expression of the game, then they won't remove them.
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
Why would it cause that?
Because everytime I go and play Halo 3 online I can tell you for a fact the majority of people on their are under the age to bu the game. If it was made illegal, sales of that game would be much lower.
developers for the most part only make games that they want to sell.
Sales might be lower but I do not believe they would be so much lower that it's not worth making the game in the first place.
But almost certainly worth changing the game to make back those lost sales by maybe getting a lower rating? Right?
Hell that's not even my point.
Nintendo and Sony said that they would not let an AO Manhunt 2 be released on their consoles. Why would it be any different if it was governmentally restricted to adults only?
It is not the government's job to make sure parents are doing their job in every respect.
It should sure as hell try to help them do their job.
Otherwise, we might as well say: "let children buy alcohol, their parents can decide whether they can drink it or not", "let children buy cigarettes, their parents can make a decision about whether they smoke", "let children into strip clubs, if they are there in the first place, their parents must have decided it is OK".
I believe it is a parent's job to supervise his or her child at a level they think appropriate. I think it is the government's job to strongly urge parents to take their parenting job seriously and maybe even suggest appropriate levels of parenting and supervision, but in no way should the government ever enforce anything except to protect children from abuse or negligence.
Why not? Enforcing ratings helps parents in making decisions for their children. How is that a bad thing?
Parents can't be with their children 100% of the time, so things like prohibitions on minors buying alcohol and enforcement of film ratings provide assistance to them when they aren't there. If parents think their children can handle alcohol when they are 12, then that is their decision (and I have a French friend who does allow his kids to drink wine), but the parent has to make that decision themselves and purchase the alcohol for the children. If a parent thinks their children can handle a film that is rated above their age, then they should be able to take their children along to that film.
But children shouldn't be able to unilaterally decide that they want to go buy some alcohol or head into a film rated 17+. That's a decision that parents need to be involved in.
Funny how extremely gory slasher movies are not restricted by the government then isn't it?
Actually, porn is slightly less restricted than gore. The 'minimum age' advisory for viewing porn is 16, whereas for gore it's around 18 or such. Both can only be shown on TV after... 10 in the evening, if I'm not mistaken (possibly 9).
Funny how extremely gory slasher movies are not restricted by the government then isn't it?
Actually, porn is slightly less restricted than gore. The 'minimum age' advisory for viewing porn is 16, whereas for gore it's around 18 or such. Both can only be shown on TV after... 10 in the evening, if I'm not mistaken (possibly 9).
I'm fairly sure that is incorrect in America, as we have obscenity laws like crazy to restrict pornography and obscene material, but I haven't much found anything for gore. Unless you have a source. Also when you speak of "Only be shown on TV" you are of course aware that the FCC does not have jurisdiction on subscription channels content, only the freely broadcast channels content.
What's wrong with saying a video game not suitable for minors shouldn't be sold to them, exactly? He isn't trying to get it banned or re-rated this time.
Yeah, I have to agree. This is probably the only sane thing I've ever read that had his name attached to it in any way. Which is why you don't go crying wolf - now he has something reasonable to say, and we all just ASSUME it's going to be completely off-the-wall insane.
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents?
The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
If these ratings are intended as indicators for parents, then surely parents should be required to decide whether the content is appropriate for their children, and choose whether or not to buy it for them accordingly.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
Honestly, without some form of restrictions on purchasing, kids are just going to buy the game, and their parents will probably never notice the little "17+" label on the box. We could argue that parents should sit and watch what their children are playing, but they are never going to be able to supervise them 100% of the time, especially when their children reach their teenage years.
Quoting and liming saves me the time of basically typing the same thing out myself.
It is not the government's job to make sure parents are doing their job in every respect.
It should sure as hell try to help them do their job.
Otherwise, we might as well say: "let children buy alcohol, their parents can decide whether they can drink it or not", "let children buy cigarettes, their parents can make a decision about whether they smoke", "let children into strip clubs, if they are there in the first place, their parents must have decided it is OK".
I believe it is a parent's job to supervise his or her child at a level they think appropriate. I think it is the government's job to strongly urge parents to take their parenting job seriously and maybe even suggest appropriate levels of parenting and supervision, but in no way should the government ever enforce anything except to protect children from abuse or negligence.
Why not? Enforcing ratings helps parents in making decisions for their children. How is that a bad thing?
Parents can't be with their children 100% of the time, so things like prohibitions on minors buying alcohol and enforcement of film ratings provide assistance to them when they aren't there. If parents think their children can handle alcohol when they are 12, then that is their decision (and I have a French friend who does allow his kids to drink wine), but the parent has to make that decision themselves and purchase the alcohol for the children. If a parent thinks their children can handle a film that is rated above their age, then they should be able to take their children along to that film.
But children shouldn't be able to unilaterally decide that they want to go buy some alcohol or head into a film rated 17+. That's a decision that parents need to be involved in.
"Try to help them do their parenting job," "enforce that they do their parenting job," and "enforce certain actions within their parenting job" are three entirely different things with increasing levels of restrictive control.
The first, absolutely. The government should do what they can to help parents do their job. They should instruct. They should guide. They should give parents monetary breaks (like they do with taxes). They should provide tools and information that assist. They should do a number of things to assist parents in doing their jobs. They should remind them to do their jobs.
The second, to an extent. The government should make sure that parents do not abuse their authority and that they don't neglect their children or harm them in some concretely, provable physical or mental way.
The third, never. Never. The government should never say "you should only show your children stuff that isn't violent" or anything along those lines. Ever.
The government is not a parent's employer. The parent is the head honcho in that vocation and should only answer to higher authority if there is either abuse or a criminal level of negligence, the enforcement of which I absolutely do agree with. Beyond that the government has absolutely no authority and should never, ever have authority, over how a parent parents. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ever ever ever.
Almost every time I have bought an M-rated game I have been asked to show ID. I am 20, but I often get confused for 24-25. The most recent time I was not asked to show ID I was good friends with the store clerk. This is all without government interference of expression. Another time I was not carded I had it explained to me that the game I was buying was rated M for violence and sexual content, "In case I was buying it for someone". The clerk apologized and I of course said "No need to apologize, thanks for taking the time to explain that" even though I already knew, because it was a simple informative message that could help a lot of parents or other relatives.
I seem to have people not reading what I'm saying, so let's go over it again:
I am all for parents and distributors restricting and informing potential audiences over the content of games. I am completely for a self-policing industry, similar or even identical to the current ratings system of movies.
I am against governmental censor(Yes, that's what it is, it is suppression of sales, which is censor) of artistic expression.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
While a system like this would be nice, there are only 2 ways to implement it. One way is through store policy. This ultimately doesn't work, as a lot of stores already have this policy, and its difficult to enforce. Most cashiers don't care enough to enforce the policy, and since no law is broken, they don't really get into any trouble for not checking IDs.
The other option is to make it a law. The problem with that is, well, the Constitution won't allow it. Lawmakers try to get this sort of thing passed almost every week, it seems. It always gets shot down. Sure, they could try to amend it, but do we really need to amend the Constitution just because a bunch of parents can't be bothered to check in on what they're kids are actually doing?
The third, never. Never. The government should never say "you should only show your children stuff that isn't violent" or anything along those lines. Ever.
I agree. However, I believe they do have the right (and obligation) to say: "parental consent is required before children watch films or buy games which have content that is considered inappropriate for their age group".
Then parents can decide whether their 12-year-old child can have a game that is rated 17+. If they think it is appropriate, they can buy it for them. Similarly, if they think their child is mature enough to watch a film rated 17+, they can accompany their child to the film.
Marlor on
Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
I am against governmental censor(Yes, that's what it is, it is suppression of sales, which is censor) of artistic expression.
If a company makes a mature game for mature people, and the government says "okay, but you can only sell this game to mature people", how has this suppressed their sales? I mean, they're still allowed to sell the game for the people they intended to sell it to in the first place.
The problem with that is, well, the Constitution won't allow it.
Well, that's a matter for the US. I'm just arguing that age restriction is a sensible idea, (and one that has been implemented in many countries with success). Whether it is practical in the US from a constitutional standpoint is another matter, and one which I have no idea about.
I am against governmental censor(Yes, that's what it is, it is suppression of sales, which is censor) of artistic expression.
If a company makes a mature game for mature people, and the government says "okay, but you can only sell this game to mature people", how has this suppressed their sales? I mean, they're still allowed to sell the game for the people they intended to sell it to in the first place.
I'm sorry, can you not tell the difference between suppression of sales and suppression of sales to the target audience?
I'm a musician. If I write a piece with the intended audience being artists, is it ok for the government to come in and say "Ok, only someone who has had at least 2 years of college in an artistic field can listen to this"?
If I write a piece with the intended audience being artists, is it ok for the government to come in and say "Ok, only someone who has had at least 2 years of college in an artistic field can listen to this"?
I think there's a bit of a difference between discriminating based on age, and discriminating based on level of tertiary education.
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents?
The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
If these ratings are intended as indicators for parents, then surely parents should be required to decide whether the content is appropriate for their children, and choose whether or not to buy it for them accordingly.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
Honestly, without some form of restrictions on purchasing, kids are just going to buy the game, and their parents will probably never notice the little "17+" label on the box. We could argue that parents should sit and watch what their children are playing, but they are never going to be able to supervise them 100% of the time, especially when their children reach their teenage years.
Quoting and liming saves me the time of basically typing the same thing out myself.
This is utterly bonkers to me.
The ESRB and MPAA, for instance, are not government appendages. They are designed as guides, for retailers and parents. That is to whom their ratings are directed.
It is crazy - since you nutters like throwing that word out there - to suggest that these independant rating systems should invariably come packaged with enforcable legislation.
I'm not even going to reiterate why your inability to grasp this is so beyond insane. I'll just say "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and reassert that tools that inform parents are good and by no means should "surely" carry some kind of governmental enforcement. A game that the ESRB suggests is appropriate for 17+ year olds may mean diddly shit to both the 12 year old and his parents and as the 17+ rating isn't directed at the government and isn't based on rigorously-tested, adopted scientific theory but is rather based on relative societal taboos and arbitrary guesstimations at what can be handled at what ages, I would say that governmental enforcement of these things is the worst idea ever.
I'm very sorry that me considering the ESRB a positive thing and the government's enforcement of ratings the ESRB gives to be a horrible thing seems crazy to you but I assure you that the inability to understand this is the craziest thing in this thread.
If I write a piece with the intended audience being artists, is it ok for the government to come in and say "Ok, only someone who has had at least 2 years of college in an artistic field can listen to this"?
I think there's a bit of a difference between discriminating based on age, and discriminating based on level of tertiary education.
Well that's another point, though my stance on that is also that regardless of what the discriminatory element is, the government should not be the entity that censors. My point with that example was that saying "Oh well it's still reaching the target audience so it's not being suppressed at all!" is a stupid one.
Posts
You don't understand the position that the onus should wholly be on the parent to moderate the media intake of their children and that such classification tools may be useful to responsible parents? Because *I* don't get the inability to comprehend this.
There is nothing "surely" about this. The law should not play parent, period. A parent has both a right and a responsibility to raise his or her child in the way the parent sees fit (within certain boundaries) and dictating the kind of media a parent can allow his or her child to experience is not something the government should do, ever.
Not at all. There is material which is unsuitable for younger audiences. For that matter, there are certain cases in which a child that meets certain conditions will be damaged in a way that will be a threat to society later on. However, the material itself is not necessarily inherently damaging, and it has inherent artistic value. The rating systems are a good thing and are necessary as a guideline for parents and distributors to help decide what content is suitable for what audiences.
I have no problem with the rating systems. I have no problem with parents or distributors deciding not to sell games to specific individuals, even on a large scale group basis, that is clearly their right as responsible parents and members of a market. What I have a problem with is governmental censor of artistic expression.
But y'know... he's right. GTAVI shouldn't be sold to minors.
Nobody else has judged the scenes here either. Rockstar changed the game to better meet the guidelines set by the Australian ratings board.
If they hadn't have changed it, the game would still be released and would still be allowed for sale.
There is no external forces acting here. It is the developer and publisher changing the game not because they feel the content would cause friction with the ratings board in Australia but because they want to sell as many copies as possible.
How is this any different than a film being edited marginally to get a PG13 instead of an R rating or something. That practice has been going on for decades and nobody gives a shit. This situation is exactly the same. No different.
That position only works though, if you're equating Video games to Pornography. Porn is not artistic expression, though if there was a flick that had artistic merit but also basically was just sex, then yeah, on a case by case basis we could figure out if the government should step in or simply have a strong advisory against it.
Also pornography has been shown to cause social damage when shown to children. It hits on both having no artistic merit and causing social harm by being shown to children.
Games aren't porn. If there was a hugely realistic HD remake of Custer's Revenge? Allright, let's restrict the shit out of that game.
Freedom of expression has limits, but Video Games clearly don't fall into those limits, unless we're also going to be restricting other forms of expression which have more objectionable content. We do this in terms of freely-broadcast television and radio, but that is a restriction on content, not a restriction on accessibility, and it's because the content is freely accessible, there in fact can be no restriction of sale from anyone, therefore restriction of content is important to ensure that the content is constantly rated for all who can access it, which is everyone. There is however in place systems of non-governmental rating and control of video games. We also do this in terms of certain forms of cinema in porn, which again, we have no video games that are that bad.
Note that there are Operas and multimedia forms of art that are far, far, far, more objectionable than anything in video games, yet they aren't censored. Wonder why.
True, but most games contain roughly the same amount of "artistic expression" as your average porn movie.
If these ratings are intended as indicators for parents, then surely parents should be required to decide whether the content is appropriate for their children, and choose whether or not to buy it for them accordingly.
In my opinion, a system that restricts children from buying games and movies, and forces them to ask their parents to buy it for them instead is something that empowers parents to make decisions about their child's ability to buy a game. It forces the children to approach their parents and discuss with them whether they should be allowed to buy the game, which is a good thing.
A system which says: "this game is probably only appopriate for people aged 17+", then allows 12-year-old children to buy the game without parental accompaniment just seems crazy.
Honestly, without some form of restrictions on purchasing, kids are just going to buy the game, and their parents will probably never notice the little "17+" label on the box. We could argue that parents should sit and watch what their children are playing, but they are never going to be able to supervise them 100% of the time, especially when their children reach their teenage years.
So do most Hollywood movies.
Governmental restriction will not account for a teenager getting their hands on the material, it will simply make it somewhat harder to. Unless you're suggesting that no one drinks, smokes, or looks at porn while under the legal age.
Understand I am not advocating free sale to anyone, I am advocating a lack of governmental censor of artistic expression.
Movies constantly say "This movie is probably only appropriate for people aged 17+" and then legally allow 12 year old children to view them.
Also keep in mind that if there was a Governmental restriction on the sale of M games to minors, which would of course cause console developers to refuse the production of games which could not be sold to minors, games such as No More Heroes would not exist.
You take the No Country for Old Men with the Eragon.
Why would it cause that?
I must disagree.
And I only chose porn to make the point more obvious. Perhaps I should have gone for the extremely gory slasher angle.
EDIT: I'm dumb. It would keep in line with the developers' current policy of refusing AO-rated games. That's what he was getting at.
Funny how extremely gory slasher movies are not restricted by the government then isn't it?
Because everytime I go and play Halo 3 online I can tell you for a fact the majority of people on their are under the age to bu the game. If it was made illegal, sales of that game would be much lower.
developers for the most part only make games that they want to sell.
So, by this argument, sales of cigarettes, alcohol and porn shouldn't have Government regulation either, because such regulation isn't effective?
They certainly don't allow children in to such movies here in Australia. People under the age of 15 can't go into a MA15+ film unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Once again, the law here basically says: "this probably isn't appropriate for anyone under 15, but if parents think it is OK for their children, then that is their decision". It empowers parents to decide what is and isn't appropriate for their children. Allowing children in without parental consent takes that right (and responsibility) away from parents.
It is not the government's job to make sure parents are doing their job in every respect.
I believe it is a parent's job to supervise his or her child at a level they think appropriate. I think it is the government's job to strongly urge parents to take their parenting job seriously and maybe even suggest appropriate levels of parenting and supervision, but in no way should the government ever enforce anything except to protect children from abuse or negligence.
Unless you think otherwise, the above points you've made are all invalid. I think these ratings boards are good tools for parents to use. Stating that parents are generally not doing their job nowadays doesn't really change the fact that it isn't the government's job to pick up the slack, or to force parents to do their job in this regard.
Fuck that noise, I work for MONEY!
Countries where the government decides ratings have, in almost all cases, banned certain games or movies from coming out. That is censorship, and it's unacceptable. Therefore, don't let the government rate games or movies.
It's like he took a list of attributes that no gamer has and tried to force them on us.
Every bullet point on that list is like the opposite of me.
Sales might be lower but I do not believe they would be so much lower that it's not worth making the game in the first place.
But almost certainly worth changing the game to make back those lost sales by maybe getting a lower rating? Right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm against censorship regardless of the country, and that's an entirely different can of worms. In America, though censorship is a violation of the constitution, so not only is it wrong to censor, but it's wrong and against the founding principles of the nation.
Also my point about governmental restriction wasn't "It won't work so it's useless" it was "Governmental restriction is not a magic bullet". Basically everyone agrees that parental involvement is the solution, similar to how parents educate their children on many other aspects of life. The governmental control makes sense in the case of materials that will damage the children, it makes it harder to attain certainly. It however is not the solution for bad parenting. Education of the parents and the distributors is the solution, and all governmental restriction accomplishes in the case of video games is harm and partially kill the industry(again I speak in the case of America). It does not help educate the parents beyond "They're bad, don't let your kids play them", which is the correct message for Porn, Alcohol and Cigs, at least, for the age group where they are restricted. Is it the correct message for Video Games? No, the correct message is "Think about this, this may be inappropriate"
If the developer feels that excessive violence and sexual themes in their game aren't all that important in the end, then I see no problem why they shouldn't remove them to get a lower rating. If they feel that they are important for the artistic expression of the game, then they won't remove them.
Hell that's not even my point.
Nintendo and Sony said that they would not let an AO Manhunt 2 be released on their consoles. Why would it be any different if it was governmentally restricted to adults only?
It should sure as hell try to help them do their job.
Otherwise, we might as well say: "let children buy alcohol, their parents can decide whether they can drink it or not", "let children buy cigarettes, their parents can make a decision about whether they smoke", "let children into strip clubs, if they are there in the first place, their parents must have decided it is OK".
Why not? Enforcing ratings helps parents in making decisions for their children. How is that a bad thing?
Parents can't be with their children 100% of the time, so things like prohibitions on minors buying alcohol and enforcement of film ratings provide assistance to them when they aren't there. If parents think their children can handle alcohol when they are 12, then that is their decision (and I have a French friend who does allow his kids to drink wine), but the parent has to make that decision themselves and purchase the alcohol for the children. If a parent thinks their children can handle a film that is rated above their age, then they should be able to take their children along to that film.
But children shouldn't be able to unilaterally decide that they want to go buy some alcohol or head into a film rated 17+. That's a decision that parents need to be involved in.
I'm fairly sure that is incorrect in America, as we have obscenity laws like crazy to restrict pornography and obscene material, but I haven't much found anything for gore. Unless you have a source. Also when you speak of "Only be shown on TV" you are of course aware that the FCC does not have jurisdiction on subscription channels content, only the freely broadcast channels content.
Quoting and liming saves me the time of basically typing the same thing out myself.
"Try to help them do their parenting job," "enforce that they do their parenting job," and "enforce certain actions within their parenting job" are three entirely different things with increasing levels of restrictive control.
The first, absolutely. The government should do what they can to help parents do their job. They should instruct. They should guide. They should give parents monetary breaks (like they do with taxes). They should provide tools and information that assist. They should do a number of things to assist parents in doing their jobs. They should remind them to do their jobs.
The second, to an extent. The government should make sure that parents do not abuse their authority and that they don't neglect their children or harm them in some concretely, provable physical or mental way.
The third, never. Never. The government should never say "you should only show your children stuff that isn't violent" or anything along those lines. Ever.
The government is not a parent's employer. The parent is the head honcho in that vocation and should only answer to higher authority if there is either abuse or a criminal level of negligence, the enforcement of which I absolutely do agree with. Beyond that the government has absolutely no authority and should never, ever have authority, over how a parent parents. Ever. Ever ever ever ever ever ever ever.
I seem to have people not reading what I'm saying, so let's go over it again:
I am all for parents and distributors restricting and informing potential audiences over the content of games. I am completely for a self-policing industry, similar or even identical to the current ratings system of movies.
I am against governmental censor(Yes, that's what it is, it is suppression of sales, which is censor) of artistic expression.
While a system like this would be nice, there are only 2 ways to implement it. One way is through store policy. This ultimately doesn't work, as a lot of stores already have this policy, and its difficult to enforce. Most cashiers don't care enough to enforce the policy, and since no law is broken, they don't really get into any trouble for not checking IDs.
The other option is to make it a law. The problem with that is, well, the Constitution won't allow it. Lawmakers try to get this sort of thing passed almost every week, it seems. It always gets shot down. Sure, they could try to amend it, but do we really need to amend the Constitution just because a bunch of parents can't be bothered to check in on what they're kids are actually doing?
I agree. However, I believe they do have the right (and obligation) to say: "parental consent is required before children watch films or buy games which have content that is considered inappropriate for their age group".
Then parents can decide whether their 12-year-old child can have a game that is rated 17+. If they think it is appropriate, they can buy it for them. Similarly, if they think their child is mature enough to watch a film rated 17+, they can accompany their child to the film.
If a company makes a mature game for mature people, and the government says "okay, but you can only sell this game to mature people", how has this suppressed their sales? I mean, they're still allowed to sell the game for the people they intended to sell it to in the first place.
Well, that's a matter for the US. I'm just arguing that age restriction is a sensible idea, (and one that has been implemented in many countries with success). Whether it is practical in the US from a constitutional standpoint is another matter, and one which I have no idea about.
I'm sorry, can you not tell the difference between suppression of sales and suppression of sales to the target audience?
I'm a musician. If I write a piece with the intended audience being artists, is it ok for the government to come in and say "Ok, only someone who has had at least 2 years of college in an artistic field can listen to this"?
I think there's a bit of a difference between discriminating based on age, and discriminating based on level of tertiary education.
This is utterly bonkers to me.
The ESRB and MPAA, for instance, are not government appendages. They are designed as guides, for retailers and parents. That is to whom their ratings are directed.
It is crazy - since you nutters like throwing that word out there - to suggest that these independant rating systems should invariably come packaged with enforcable legislation.
I'm not even going to reiterate why your inability to grasp this is so beyond insane. I'll just say "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" and reassert that tools that inform parents are good and by no means should "surely" carry some kind of governmental enforcement. A game that the ESRB suggests is appropriate for 17+ year olds may mean diddly shit to both the 12 year old and his parents and as the 17+ rating isn't directed at the government and isn't based on rigorously-tested, adopted scientific theory but is rather based on relative societal taboos and arbitrary guesstimations at what can be handled at what ages, I would say that governmental enforcement of these things is the worst idea ever.
I'm very sorry that me considering the ESRB a positive thing and the government's enforcement of ratings the ESRB gives to be a horrible thing seems crazy to you but I assure you that the inability to understand this is the craziest thing in this thread.
Well that's another point, though my stance on that is also that regardless of what the discriminatory element is, the government should not be the entity that censors. My point with that example was that saying "Oh well it's still reaching the target audience so it's not being suppressed at all!" is a stupid one.