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.
This is where you run into almost all of your problems. A fairly large number of vocal people do consider exposing kids to violence (or just allowing them to expose themselves to it) to be a form of abuse/negligence.
I was in some organization a few years ago that gave a bunch of poor kids $50 and sent them loose in the mall to buy themselves a Christmas present. We were supposed to supervise. I saw one group awhile later though, where a kid who couldn't have been more than 10 years old had a copy of some GTA clone in his hand. I can't even remember the game, but I knew it was rated M, so I asked the guy (who happened to be in charge of this whole endeavor) if he knew that. He just kinda looked at me funny and said something like, "You think it'll be bad for him or something?" I think I threw a hissy fit and made the kid return it (probably retarding his social growth in the process) and looked like a total douche for the day. I have a feeling most parents (or people over the age of 30) are completely uneducated about this stuff, and really couldn't care to become educated about it. Maybe when the next gen grows up things will get better.
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.
This is where you run into almost all of your problems. A fairly large number of vocal people do consider exposing kids to violence (or just allowing them to expose themselves to it) to be a form of abuse/negligence.
I was in some organization a few years ago that gave a bunch of poor kids $50 and sent them loose in the mall to buy themselves a Christmas present. We were supposed to supervise. I saw one group awhile later though, where a kid who couldn't have been more than 10 years old had a copy of some GTA clone in his hand. I can't even remember the game, but I knew it was rated M, so I asked the guy (who happened to be in charge of this whole endeavor) if he knew that. He just kinda looked at me funny and said something like, "You think it'll be bad for him or something?" I think I threw a hissy fit and made the kid return it (probably retarding his social growth in the process) and looked like a total douche for the day. I have a feeling most parents (or people over the age of 30) are completely uneducated about this stuff, and really couldn't care to become educated about it. Maybe when the next gen grows up things will get better.
No one here is arguing that education over the system or parental and distributer discretion is a bad thing though.
Khavall on
0
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.
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 you knew beforehand that by constructing your piece in the way that it would fall within the parameters according to which the government tells you that you cannot sell your piece to someone who doesn not meet the requirements (18 years old, 2 years of artistic training), you have two choices: construct your piece so that it falls outside of those parameters, or construct it the way that you know your target audience will still be able to listen to it.
Just because some random 12-year-olds can't buy a game that was from the beginning designed to have mature content and to be sold for mature folk doesn't mean the government has censored anyone. You knew from the beginning that if you make your game a certain way, it'll be slapped with an M rating, and if it's slapped with an M rating you can't sell it to people under the age of 18 (or is it 17?). Your options are either to go with this, or from the beginning design your game so that it doesn't get slapped with an M rating. This isn't rocket science here.
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.
God this is the dumbest position(Unless you're European, when it's reasonable I guess).
Oddly enough, that is exactly what I am.
It is possible to have enforceable ratings made my an independent body. This is how the UK system works, and the government has no direct influence in the decisions of our ratings bodies.
Nothing wrong with it as a system.
It just means that children can't buy GTA for themselves. Their parents can buy it for 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?
You're basically admitting what we all know to be true - games companies target mature games at immature audiences. Do you support that?
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
All this video has done is remind me that I hate G4 and Adam Sessler.
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.
I guess that's one difference between the US and most other countries.
In the US, the ESRB and CARA aren't Government bodies, whereas, in most countries the classification boards are Government-sanctioned (but independent).
Legislation about age ratings would require some form of Government oversight of the MPAA and CARA. This, of course, wouldn't be impossible, considering that this is the way it works in most other countries. It would simply require the Government to designate these as the approved bodies for classification.
Of course, legislation wouldn't be required if the industry self-censored, and had their own system for disciplining retailers who failed to enforce the age ratings.
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.
I guess that's one difference between the US and most other countries.
In the US, the ESRB and CARA aren't Government bodies, whereas, in most countries the classification boards are Government-sanctioned (but independent).
Legislation about age ratings would require some form of Government oversight of the MPAA and CARA. This, of course, wouldn't be impossible, considering that this is the way it works in most other countries. However, it would be a bit of a hassle.
Of course, legislation wouldn't be required if the industry self-censored, and had their own system for disciplining retailers who failed to enforce the age ratings.
You don't understand me. The system shouldn't discipline retailers either, because retailers should be able to define who they are willing to sell to and not sell to as well as parents having the responsibility to moderate their child's media consumption.
The retailer should have zero legal obligation to prevent minors from buying violent or sexual videogames. Not only because it is unconstitutional to enforce this here, but also because I believe companies have the right to enforce their own moral policies when there is no clear immoral action.
The problem with issue is that I remain entirely unconvinced that giving even a five year old access to something like GTAIV would have any harm whatsoever. Would I want my five year old to have it? Absolutely not! But my "absolutely not!" is based on my own upbringing and not because I believe a five year old will be irreparably harmed by seeing a gun squished into someone's ass. That I wouldn't want my five year old to see it is based on my taboos and not on any scientific fact or accepted theory and as there IS no accepted theory on this subject, I don't see how any government can enforce anything. It's all based on sensationalized bullshit at this point.
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 you knew beforehand that by constructing your piece in the way that it would fall within the parameters according to which the government tells you that you cannot sell your piece to someone who doesn not meet the requirements (18 years old, 2 years of artistic training), you have two choices: construct your piece so that it falls outside of those parameters, or construct it the way that you know your target audience will still be able to listen to it.
Just because some random 12-year-olds can't buy a game that was from the beginning designed to have mature content and to be sold for mature folk doesn't mean the government has censored anyone. You knew from the beginning that if you make your game a certain way, it'll be slapped with an M rating, and if it's slapped with an M rating you can't sell it to people under the age of 18 (or is it 17?). Your options are either to go with this, or from the beginning design your game so that it doesn't get slapped with an M rating. This isn't rocket science here.
Really? You're really going to say that in the event of the government censoring material purely based on its target audience with no moral or ethical reason to, it's the artists fault? Like, you see that as a cogent argument? That hey, the Government decided it, so I guess it's the artists fault for not falling into the Governments restrictions on expression! Also this one dude said that the government was wrong, guess we'd better lock him up, after all, he should've tempered his argument to fit into what the government wants!
Also you're advocating giving a private organization legal binding, 'cause that's not another can of worms at all.
Hey how does that work without governmental interference and censor, but instead educated parents and distributors? You make a game intended for Mature audiences, the distributor informs the parents that the game is not suitable for children, if the parent doesn't already know, and/or refuses to sell the game to the child based on the rating(And before anyone says "LOL DISTRIBUTORS WILL SELL EVERYTHING TEHY WANT TO MAEK MONIES" remember that the profit from sales of in-store games is really low, and they are more likely to keep sales if they don't have irate moron parents who refuse to shop there because they forgot to check the rating, which is why many distributors do have policies regarding the sale of M games to children. It is then the game distributors choice as to how to temper their work to fit in the age guidelines.
Oh it seems that we're meeting up at the same place, but only one way violates the fucking constitution.
But are we really? Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles? They certainly can keep their "For everyone" with games only going up to T. So M games become exclusively PC, and all those games that would've been M as a storytelling technique, such as, oh, shall we say, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, No More Heroes, well those wouldn't exist, save maybe a PC exclusive. Oh but how much money can they make as a PC exclusive that can't be attained in stores?(Stores also refused to carry an AO Manhunt 2) Well gee that's not very much at all. Guess we're left without those games. Good thing we have the government censoring artistic expression! God we wouldn't want anything that was Mature as a necessary part of its artistic presentation, that would be terrible.
All this video has done is remind me that I hate G4 and Adam Sessler.
Plus, the whole thing is a non-issue as its just more preaching to the choir. Unless they can get on an actual news channel with these findings, its meaningless. But the "real" news channels pander to the market that thinks that video games are destroying our children, so they won't run with any story that doesn't suggest that games will turn your kids into murderers, rapists, or both. This is just like that, but backwards.
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?
You're basically admitting what we all know to be true - games companies target mature games at immature audiences. Do you support that?
I neither support it or oppose it. It's a non issue to me. Or at least, the singling out of games compared to TV, cinema or books as some kind of exception is a non issue.
I saw Aliens when I was about 8 years old. And I'm sure a lot of other kids have had similar experiences with supposedly 'adult' material well before the age of recommendation. Has it affected me in any significant way? Can't say really.
My parents have never really cared about government ratings, they were able to make their own decisions on what was suitable for me. I think that's the bottom line here.
Who really cares whether the product is a mature game marketed for immature individuals other than the parents of those children, the very same people whos responsibility it is to manage their childs exposure to such material.
So much of the censorship issue is just lazy irresponsible parents looking for a scapegoat and/or someone to blame for their childs behavior, when the fact is they themselves have nearly full control over the social development of their children.
So basically my point is who cares if some company markets GTA4 to kids, not that they are in any way at all? Why single out games as being any worse at this trait than a billion other products, such as cigarettes or movies.
I'd almost support legislation concerning the sale of M rated games, if that meant console makers would be more reluctant to sell M rated games. Then designers would have to start making new types of games that don't rely on collision detection algorithms as the primary game mechanic. Imagine the bizarre variety of new developments that would emerge with violence no longer used as the crutch it currently is! Remember the strange plots for comic books when violence was out of the question? (See that superman is a dick site)
Sadly, they'd probably take the Samurai Jack route, and make all the villains become robots. And then we're right back to collision detection games.
But are we really? Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles? They certainly can keep their "For everyone" with games only going up to T. So M games become exclusively PC, and all those games that would've been M as a storytelling technique, such as, oh, shall we say, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, No More Heroes, well those wouldn't exist, save maybe a PC exclusive. Oh but how much money can they make as a PC exclusive that can't be attained in stores?(Stores also refused to carry an AO Manhunt 2) Well gee that's not very much at all. Guess we're left without those games. Good thing we have the government censoring artistic expression! God we wouldn't want anything that was Mature as a necessary part of its artistic presentation, that would be terrible.
Then why do these companies allow 18-rated games on their systems in the UK?
18 is legally equivalent to AO in our system, it just doesn't have the pornographic stigma.
Your argument appears flawed to me.
Xagarath on
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Really? You're really going to say that in the event of the government censoring material purely based on its target audience with no moral or ethical reason to, it's the artists fault?
The government isn't censoring anything. The M rating is there so that people would know that a person under the age of 18 isn't supposed to buy that game. This is because games with an M rating are given the M rating because they contain content that is deemed inappropriate for persons under the age of 18. This isn't the government just arbitrarily stating that you can't sell games with bunny rabbits to black people, they're simply enforcing an already excisting agreenment between the ESRB and the game makers that M rated games aren't suitable for children.
Also, the reason why AO games aren't wanted on consoles is because AO pretty much "porn game". M rated games would still continue to be sold on consoles because they don't have that stigma, and I do not believe they would gain that stigma even if the government started enforcing the "don't sell M rated games to minors" rule. After all, the AO rating would still be there for that purpose.
The problem with issue is that I remain entirely unconvinced that giving even a five year old access to something like GTAIV would have any harm whatsoever. Would I want my five year old to have it? Absolutely not! But my "absolutely not!" is based on my own upbringing and not because I believe a five year old will be irreparably harmed by seeing a gun squished into someone's ass.
Well, going back to my argument... why don't we let the parent decide then?
I don't care how it is implemented, but a five year old shouldn't be able to buy GTA IV without their parent being present.
You say a retailer should have the right to decide whether that five year old walks out of the store with GTA. I say the parent has the right and responsibility to make that decision.
You say:
The system shouldn't discipline retailers either, because retailers should be able to define who they are willing to sell to and not sell to as well as parents having the responsibility to moderate their child's media consumption.
Why should a teenage clerk at Gamestop have the right to decide whether or not that kid walks out with that game? There is no way in hell that should be their decision. It should be up to the parent. They should have to be present and make a decision in the situation where a child is trying to buy a game that is rated above their age.
I really don't see what is so controversial about this argument... let the parents decide what is and isn't suitable for their children.
The whole argument over who can and can't or who should and shouldn't play certain games is a load of BS. It is the parent's responsibility to choose what is appropriate and what isn't for their own child. The second you start letting the government decide these things you turn the society into a nanny state. This absolves parents of any blame for what their children do and that is out and out wrong. Parents needs to step up to the god damn plate and stop letting tv and games raise their children. I have been playing games my whole life but my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong. A lot of parents today, not all, are not involved in their kids lives and this is the true problem we have as a society. The parents I refer to are the people who raise these little sociopaths and then wonder where they went wrong. I'll tell you where they went wrong, by being a friend first and a parent second. They buy their precious little angel any game they want and spoil them rotten. No wonder we have a whole generation of foul-mouth little morons spewing bile on just about any online game.
Bottom line: Parents need to be parents. If you don't think your kid should play GTA4, then don't fucking buy it for him. Tell him/her no you can't have that. If they get mad at you, too god damn bad, be a responsible adult.
Bretzy on
Even tho I seek perfection, I wear my scars with pride.
But are we really? Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles? They certainly can keep their "For everyone" with games only going up to T. So M games become exclusively PC, and all those games that would've been M as a storytelling technique, such as, oh, shall we say, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, No More Heroes, well those wouldn't exist, save maybe a PC exclusive. Oh but how much money can they make as a PC exclusive that can't be attained in stores?(Stores also refused to carry an AO Manhunt 2) Well gee that's not very much at all. Guess we're left without those games. Good thing we have the government censoring artistic expression! God we wouldn't want anything that was Mature as a necessary part of its artistic presentation, that would be terrible.
Then why do these companies allow 18-rated games on their systems in the UK?
18 is legally equivalent to AO in our system, it just doesn't have the pornographic stigma.
Your argument appears flawed to me.
Because the companies based in Europe are working within a system whereby their media is simply given the same treatment as other forms of media? How many theaters in America show NC-17 movies? And how many show unrated versions of movies? Really not that many. How many theaters in Europe show movies that are legally age-restricted? I imagine a lot more.
Censoring video games in America would put them on a different level from all other forms of multimedia presentation. Now, sure, you may suggest that censorship of all forms of media is ok, but there all we'll have is a cultural head-butting like crazy.
Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles?
Because they do that in plenty of other countries. As I mentioned earlier, age restricted games are sold on consoles in the UK, in Australia, in most European countries, etc.
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?
You're basically admitting what we all know to be true - games companies target mature games at immature audiences. Do you support that?
Younger gamers will ALWAYS want to buy a product that older kids like or they perceive as being more mature. It's just part of childhood. As a result, games and movies will always try to push the ratings to appeal to them while still providing a product they can easily buy. If we shifted around the ratings, they'd want even more mature content.
Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles?
Because they do that in plenty of other countries. As I mentioned earlier, age restricted games are sold on consoles in the UK, in Australia, in most European countries, etc.
Because in other countries the form of media being censored is par for the course. I'm sorry, did Jack Thompson start in on European or Australian law? If games are already age-restricted in other countries do we really have people complaining about how games should be age-restricted? Censorship in other countries, yeah, it's fucking dumb in my opinion, but saying "WELL IT TOTALLY WORKS DIFFERENTLY IN A PLACE THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE" really isn't actually a convincing argument.
You make a point about how the bottom line is that the parents should decide. Maybe I'm just not reading it, but I don't believe the government is part of that bottom line.
Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles?
Because they do that in plenty of other countries. As I mentioned earlier, age restricted games are sold on consoles in the UK, in Australia, in most European countries, etc.
Because in other countries the form of media being censored is par for the course. I'm sorry, did Jack Thompson start in on European or Australian law? If games are already age-restricted in other countries do we really have people complaining about how games should be age-restricted?
You make a point about how the bottom line is that the parents should decide. Maybe I'm just not reading it, but I don't believe the government is part of that bottom line.
The bottom line is also parents deciding in the UK.
Our system simply prevents the children doing things of their own accord.
In most countries, legislation is seen as a way to improve things. If there are age ratings set by a classification board, then it just seems natural to enforce those ratings by law in order to ensure that children don't buy games that are unsuitable without parental consent.
In the US (and especially amongst people who post on the Internet), the prevailing mentality seems to be: "the Government can stay the hell away, I don't trust them". That's a shame.
Why should a teenage clerk at Gamestop have the right to decide whether or not that kid walks out with that game? There is no way in hell that should be their decision. It should be up to the parent. They should have to be present and make a decision in the situation where a child is trying to buy a game that is rated above their age.
I really don't see what is so controversial about this argument... let the parents decide what is and isn't suitable for their children.
If parents actually took the active role in their children's lives that they're supposed to, it shouldn't matter what the clerk at Gamestop does or does not sell to those kids. It was the clerk who let the child buy the game, but its the parents that let the child come home and play the game.
You suggest that the burden be placed on the retailers to get the parents involved (ie: the clerk won't sell the game without a parent present). The parents should be involved anyways.
There is a simple solution to this problem, and it doesn't require stores to implement new policies, or the government to write new legislation. It just requires parents to man the fuck up and take care of their children already.
In most countries, legislation is seen as a way to improve things. If there are age ratings set by a classification board, then it just seems natural to enforce those ratings by law in order to ensure that children don't buy games that are unsuitable without parental consent.
In the US (and especially amongst people who post on the Internet), the prevailing mentality is: "the Government can stay the hell away, I don't trust them". That's a shame.
Oh no, I love me some legislation.
The Government can stay away from limiting artistic expression. It's not a "trust" issue, it's that artistic expression needs to be allowed to flourish and experiment. I also have a problem with the government restricting scientific research, again not because I don't "trust" them, but because it's just a bad idea to suppress any flourishing of science and culture. The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
There is a simple solution to this problem, and it doesn't require stores to implement new policies, or the government to write new legislation. It just requires parents to man the fuck up and take care of their children already.
I agree entirely.
In an ideal fantasy world, where parents never let their children out of their sight until they reach the age of 18, this would be the best idea.
In the real world, kids have some degree of independence. They might choose to abuse that independence and go off to buy a copy of GTA IV, despite being only six years old. Hopefully, the retailer would have some sort of backbone, and would say to the kid: "come back with a parent, and then you can buy it". Unfortunately, not all retailers are like that.
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites.
We just (correctly) assume that a fair portion of them are. :P
Incidentally, there are countries, like Denmark, with no censorship or regulation at all beyond things like child pornography, and it apparantly works fine for them.
I'm just pointing out that the UK system is at least no worse than the US one. It depends partly on the social conventions of the country.
There is a simple solution to this problem, and it doesn't require stores to implement new policies, or the government to write new legislation. It just requires parents to man the fuck up and take care of their children already.
I agree entirely.
In an ideal fantasy world, where parents never let their children out of their sight until they reach the age of 18, this would be the best idea.
In the real world, kids have some degree of independence. They might choose to abuse that independence and go off to buy a copy of GTA IV, despite being only six years old. Hopefully, the retailer would have some sort of backbone, and would say to the kid: "come back with a parent, and then you can buy it". Unfortunately, not all retailers are like that.
I just don't understand why we're so idealistic about Government control. "Don't you see? If the Government restricts thing then all the worlds problems will go away!"
My fantasy world at least clings to protected artistic expression.
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
Yeah, I guess I'm just getting pissed off at all the: "why should the Government have anything to do with parenting?" comments.
I mean, the obvious answer is that by creating this sort of legislation, it assists parents. Hell, it can be implemented by industry groups too if they want to avoid the Government being involved.
We already have this legislation in Australia, in the UK, and elsewhere, and it works. So I don't really see why I'm arguing, other than to refute the blanket-statements that enforcing ratings is a bad idea. To me, it seems it is the best way of ensuring that parents can do their job effectively in this regard.
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites.
We just (correctly) assume that a fair portion of them are. :P
Incidentally, there are countries, like Denmark, with no censorship or regulation at all beyond things like child pornography, and it apparantly works fine for them.
I'm just pointing out that the UK system is at least no worse than the US one. It depends partly on the social conventions of the country.
Sure, and as I've said, there's a larger issue of censorship in general that would just turn into "No your country sucks!", but when discussing Jack Thompson and attempts in the US to impose governmental censor of material, chiming in with "Well it works that way with movies over here!" isn't really the point. Censorship in the US is against some of the founding ideas of the nation.
The problem with issue is that I remain entirely unconvinced that giving even a five year old access to something like GTAIV would have any harm whatsoever. Would I want my five year old to have it? Absolutely not! But my "absolutely not!" is based on my own upbringing and not because I believe a five year old will be irreparably harmed by seeing a gun squished into someone's ass.
Well, going back to my argument... why don't we let the parent decide then?
I don't care how it is implemented, but a five year old shouldn't be able to buy GTA IV without their parent being present.
You say a retailer should have the right to decide whether that five year old walks out of the store with GTA. I say the parent has the right and responsibility to make that decision.
You say:
The system shouldn't discipline retailers either, because retailers should be able to define who they are willing to sell to and not sell to as well as parents having the responsibility to moderate their child's media consumption.
Why should a teenage clerk at Gamestop have the right to decide whether or not that kid walks out with that game? There is no way in hell that should be their decision. It should be up to the parent. They should have to be present and make a decision in the situation where a child is trying to buy a game that is rated above their age.
I really don't see what is so controversial about this argument... let the parents decide what is and isn't suitable for their children.
Oh, sorry, I thought that was self-evident in my opinion.
The solution is that the parent should (a) monitor what they are doing/watching/playing and (b) should impart whatever values they think are appropriate onto their children. There are many, many children that actively choose not to watch R-rated films despite being given ample opportunity to do so because their parents impressed on them the value of not doing so.
See, I don't think the government should provide a crutch for parents. I think parents have the right to err and to learn from their errors. I think that is actually very important. I don't think any government should account for every possible parental failing, nor should it attempt to curtail or thwart childhood curiosity. That is a parent's job.
I don't think kids should be legally prevented from purchasing games. There has been no definitive causal link between violent or sexual media and developmental damage. Therefore anything else are arbitrary societal decisions as to what is appropriate for a certain age and what is not and that should not be enforced by any government body, ever, period.
The parents should put a stop to it, if they think it is right to do so, through their guidance. They should not be forced by the government to act as an intermediary between a retail chain and the child.
In the real world, kids have some degree of independence. They might choose to abuse that independence and go off to buy a copy of GTA IV, despite being only six years old.
There's giving your 6 year old a sense of independence, and there's letting him do whatever the fuck he wants to do. I personally would not allow a child to have a TV or computer in his bedroom. While I'm not specifically telling him not to play violent video games, watch R-rated movies, or look up internet porn, he probably won't do it knowing anyone can walk by and see what's going on. Its a pretty effective system.
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
Yeah, I guess I'm just getting pissed off at all the: "why should the Government have anything to do with parenting?" comments.
I mean, the obvious answer is that by creating this sort of legislation, it assists parents. Hell, it can be implemented by industry groups too if they want to avoid the Government being involved.
We already have this legislation in Australia, in the UK, and elsewhere, and it works. So I don't really see why I'm arguing, other than to refute the blanket-statements that enforcing ratings is a bad idea. To me, it seems it is the best way of ensuring that parents can do their job effectively in this regard.
Right but the first amendment to our constitution stops the government from making any law that restricts or infringes upon the freedom of expression, within certain reasonable limits. So not only for us to we have the legal thing of it being totally against the constitution, but the way our nation functions in our morality it is just plain wrong to restrict the freedom of expression. The government certainly can help. Hell, I would support a government program requiring explanations and education of the ESRB ratings at stores or anywhere else. I would support governmental programs that seek to help the parents decide which games are appropriate for their children, I would support the government stepping in in any number of ways that do not involve restricting or infringing upon the distribution of artistic expression.
My parents kept a reasonable tab on the things I watched and played as a kid. What they wouldn't let me watch or play, I'd find a way around. I remember installing Diablo in a hidden location so that I could play it on the family computer when they weren't around. I got caught, but it was years later and we all had a laugh.
One of the biggest problems in these debates is that people tend to forget that children are not these passive little corruptible things, waiting to be violated by violent and sexual media. Children are very much in control of what they watch and play, and by the age where they can attend a movie alone or go buy a game, they're perfectly capable of selectively choosing what they want to watch and internalize. They can separate reality and fiction, even extract parts of lessons when they other part doesn't match up with what they think.
Right but the first amendment to our constitution stops the government from making any law that restricts or infringes upon the freedom of expression, within certain reasonable limits.
In which case, I'm perfectly happy to accept the argument: "Prohibiting people from watching or buying games (or movies) based on their age is unconstitutional".
However, I object to blanket-statements that it is a crazy idea that has no merit.
Marlor on
Mario Kart Wii: 1332-8060-5236 (Aaron)
0
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
Yeah, I guess I'm just getting pissed off at all the: "why should the Government have anything to do with parenting?" comments.
I mean, the obvious answer is that by creating this sort of legislation, it assists parents. Hell, it can be implemented by industry groups too if they want to avoid the Government being involved.
We already have this legislation in Australia, in the UK, and elsewhere, and it works. So I don't really see why I'm arguing, other than to refute the blanket-statements that enforcing ratings is a bad idea. To me, it seems it is the best way of ensuring that parents can do their job effectively in this regard.
Right but the first amendment to our constitution stops the government from making any law that restricts or infringes upon the freedom of expression, within certain reasonable limits. So not only for us to we have the legal thing of it being totally against the constitution, but the way our nation functions in our morality it is just plain wrong to restrict the freedom of expression. The government certainly can help. Hell, I would support a government program requiring explanations and education of the ESRB ratings at stores or anywhere else. I would support governmental programs that seek to help the parents decide which games are appropriate for their children, I would support the government stepping in in any number of ways that do not involve restricting or infringing upon the distribution of artistic expression.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
Right but the first amendment to our constitution stops the government from making any law that restricts or infringes upon the freedom of expression, within certain reasonable limits.
In which case, I'm perfectly happy to accept the argument: "Enforcing age ratings is unconstitutional".
However, I object to blanket-statements that it is a crazy idea that has no merit.
I like blanket-statements that it is a crazy idea because I'm a US-based contemporary musician.
Man I've seen pieces performed that involve humping, depictions of sado-masochism, nudity, crazy amounts of alcohol consumption, rather obscene language, mass murder and right now that's just one opera that I'm describing. It is an incredible opera, one of my favorites, and if there was governmental restriction just on age I know that it would not get nearly as much performance as it does, simply due to the logistical problems that such a restriction would place on it. Sure, when it's performed most opera houses refuse to let in people of certain ages and they warn parents, but if it was legally enforced? If the government came in and said "You will be fined/punished in some way if a kid under 18 sees this"? Why would they even bother doing that show when others would not have that restriction. And if it wasn't going to be performed for that reason, then even if the composer had written it despite those restrictions it never would've had any impact if it wasn't performed, and the thing is revolutionary and visionary and an incredible work of art. That's why I hate censorship as a whole.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
But they would be infringing on who can access that expression, which is just as bad.
Do you think that children should be allowed to buy gore-filled slasher movies, or sexually explicit films? I really don't, no matter what artistic merit those films have.
Posts
I was in some organization a few years ago that gave a bunch of poor kids $50 and sent them loose in the mall to buy themselves a Christmas present. We were supposed to supervise. I saw one group awhile later though, where a kid who couldn't have been more than 10 years old had a copy of some GTA clone in his hand. I can't even remember the game, but I knew it was rated M, so I asked the guy (who happened to be in charge of this whole endeavor) if he knew that. He just kinda looked at me funny and said something like, "You think it'll be bad for him or something?" I think I threw a hissy fit and made the kid return it (probably retarding his social growth in the process) and looked like a total douche for the day. I have a feeling most parents (or people over the age of 30) are completely uneducated about this stuff, and really couldn't care to become educated about it. Maybe when the next gen grows up things will get better.
No one here is arguing that education over the system or parental and distributer discretion is a bad thing though.
If you knew beforehand that by constructing your piece in the way that it would fall within the parameters according to which the government tells you that you cannot sell your piece to someone who doesn not meet the requirements (18 years old, 2 years of artistic training), you have two choices: construct your piece so that it falls outside of those parameters, or construct it the way that you know your target audience will still be able to listen to it.
Just because some random 12-year-olds can't buy a game that was from the beginning designed to have mature content and to be sold for mature folk doesn't mean the government has censored anyone. You knew from the beginning that if you make your game a certain way, it'll be slapped with an M rating, and if it's slapped with an M rating you can't sell it to people under the age of 18 (or is it 17?). Your options are either to go with this, or from the beginning design your game so that it doesn't get slapped with an M rating. This isn't rocket science here.
It is possible to have enforceable ratings made my an independent body. This is how the UK system works, and the government has no direct influence in the decisions of our ratings bodies.
Nothing wrong with it as a system.
It just means that children can't buy GTA for themselves. Their parents can buy it for them.
You're basically admitting what we all know to be true - games companies target mature games at immature audiences. Do you support that?
I guess that's one difference between the US and most other countries.
In the US, the ESRB and CARA aren't Government bodies, whereas, in most countries the classification boards are Government-sanctioned (but independent).
Legislation about age ratings would require some form of Government oversight of the MPAA and CARA. This, of course, wouldn't be impossible, considering that this is the way it works in most other countries. It would simply require the Government to designate these as the approved bodies for classification.
Of course, legislation wouldn't be required if the industry self-censored, and had their own system for disciplining retailers who failed to enforce the age ratings.
You don't understand me. The system shouldn't discipline retailers either, because retailers should be able to define who they are willing to sell to and not sell to as well as parents having the responsibility to moderate their child's media consumption.
The retailer should have zero legal obligation to prevent minors from buying violent or sexual videogames. Not only because it is unconstitutional to enforce this here, but also because I believe companies have the right to enforce their own moral policies when there is no clear immoral action.
The problem with issue is that I remain entirely unconvinced that giving even a five year old access to something like GTAIV would have any harm whatsoever. Would I want my five year old to have it? Absolutely not! But my "absolutely not!" is based on my own upbringing and not because I believe a five year old will be irreparably harmed by seeing a gun squished into someone's ass. That I wouldn't want my five year old to see it is based on my taboos and not on any scientific fact or accepted theory and as there IS no accepted theory on this subject, I don't see how any government can enforce anything. It's all based on sensationalized bullshit at this point.
Really? You're really going to say that in the event of the government censoring material purely based on its target audience with no moral or ethical reason to, it's the artists fault? Like, you see that as a cogent argument? That hey, the Government decided it, so I guess it's the artists fault for not falling into the Governments restrictions on expression! Also this one dude said that the government was wrong, guess we'd better lock him up, after all, he should've tempered his argument to fit into what the government wants!
Also you're advocating giving a private organization legal binding, 'cause that's not another can of worms at all.
Hey how does that work without governmental interference and censor, but instead educated parents and distributors? You make a game intended for Mature audiences, the distributor informs the parents that the game is not suitable for children, if the parent doesn't already know, and/or refuses to sell the game to the child based on the rating(And before anyone says "LOL DISTRIBUTORS WILL SELL EVERYTHING TEHY WANT TO MAEK MONIES" remember that the profit from sales of in-store games is really low, and they are more likely to keep sales if they don't have irate moron parents who refuse to shop there because they forgot to check the rating, which is why many distributors do have policies regarding the sale of M games to children. It is then the game distributors choice as to how to temper their work to fit in the age guidelines.
Oh it seems that we're meeting up at the same place, but only one way violates the fucking constitution.
But are we really? Manhunt 2 was given an AO rating, and was pulled from the Wii and PSP until it was redone with an M rating, because Nintendo and Sony didn't want their products associated with "Adults only" entertainment, but instead were looking for a family experience, E to M. So now if it's illegal to sell to minors any game which is rated for Mature audiences... well gee why would Ninty, Sony, or Microsoft allow releases on their consoles? They certainly can keep their "For everyone" with games only going up to T. So M games become exclusively PC, and all those games that would've been M as a storytelling technique, such as, oh, shall we say, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, No More Heroes, well those wouldn't exist, save maybe a PC exclusive. Oh but how much money can they make as a PC exclusive that can't be attained in stores?(Stores also refused to carry an AO Manhunt 2) Well gee that's not very much at all. Guess we're left without those games. Good thing we have the government censoring artistic expression! God we wouldn't want anything that was Mature as a necessary part of its artistic presentation, that would be terrible.
Plus, the whole thing is a non-issue as its just more preaching to the choir. Unless they can get on an actual news channel with these findings, its meaningless. But the "real" news channels pander to the market that thinks that video games are destroying our children, so they won't run with any story that doesn't suggest that games will turn your kids into murderers, rapists, or both. This is just like that, but backwards.
I neither support it or oppose it. It's a non issue to me. Or at least, the singling out of games compared to TV, cinema or books as some kind of exception is a non issue.
I saw Aliens when I was about 8 years old. And I'm sure a lot of other kids have had similar experiences with supposedly 'adult' material well before the age of recommendation. Has it affected me in any significant way? Can't say really.
My parents have never really cared about government ratings, they were able to make their own decisions on what was suitable for me. I think that's the bottom line here.
Who really cares whether the product is a mature game marketed for immature individuals other than the parents of those children, the very same people whos responsibility it is to manage their childs exposure to such material.
So much of the censorship issue is just lazy irresponsible parents looking for a scapegoat and/or someone to blame for their childs behavior, when the fact is they themselves have nearly full control over the social development of their children.
So basically my point is who cares if some company markets GTA4 to kids, not that they are in any way at all? Why single out games as being any worse at this trait than a billion other products, such as cigarettes or movies.
Sadly, they'd probably take the Samurai Jack route, and make all the villains become robots. And then we're right back to collision detection games.
Then why do these companies allow 18-rated games on their systems in the UK?
18 is legally equivalent to AO in our system, it just doesn't have the pornographic stigma.
Your argument appears flawed to me.
The government isn't censoring anything. The M rating is there so that people would know that a person under the age of 18 isn't supposed to buy that game. This is because games with an M rating are given the M rating because they contain content that is deemed inappropriate for persons under the age of 18. This isn't the government just arbitrarily stating that you can't sell games with bunny rabbits to black people, they're simply enforcing an already excisting agreenment between the ESRB and the game makers that M rated games aren't suitable for children.
Also, the reason why AO games aren't wanted on consoles is because AO pretty much "porn game". M rated games would still continue to be sold on consoles because they don't have that stigma, and I do not believe they would gain that stigma even if the government started enforcing the "don't sell M rated games to minors" rule. After all, the AO rating would still be there for that purpose.
Well, going back to my argument... why don't we let the parent decide then?
I don't care how it is implemented, but a five year old shouldn't be able to buy GTA IV without their parent being present.
You say a retailer should have the right to decide whether that five year old walks out of the store with GTA. I say the parent has the right and responsibility to make that decision.
You say:
Why should a teenage clerk at Gamestop have the right to decide whether or not that kid walks out with that game? There is no way in hell that should be their decision. It should be up to the parent. They should have to be present and make a decision in the situation where a child is trying to buy a game that is rated above their age.
I really don't see what is so controversial about this argument... let the parents decide what is and isn't suitable for their children.
Bottom line: Parents need to be parents. If you don't think your kid should play GTA4, then don't fucking buy it for him. Tell him/her no you can't have that. If they get mad at you, too god damn bad, be a responsible adult.
Because the companies based in Europe are working within a system whereby their media is simply given the same treatment as other forms of media? How many theaters in America show NC-17 movies? And how many show unrated versions of movies? Really not that many. How many theaters in Europe show movies that are legally age-restricted? I imagine a lot more.
Censoring video games in America would put them on a different level from all other forms of multimedia presentation. Now, sure, you may suggest that censorship of all forms of media is ok, but there all we'll have is a cultural head-butting like crazy.
And that includes whether or not they can buy a game far beyond their age recommendation.
Because they do that in plenty of other countries. As I mentioned earlier, age restricted games are sold on consoles in the UK, in Australia, in most European countries, etc.
Younger gamers will ALWAYS want to buy a product that older kids like or they perceive as being more mature. It's just part of childhood. As a result, games and movies will always try to push the ratings to appeal to them while still providing a product they can easily buy. If we shifted around the ratings, they'd want even more mature content.
Because in other countries the form of media being censored is par for the course. I'm sorry, did Jack Thompson start in on European or Australian law? If games are already age-restricted in other countries do we really have people complaining about how games should be age-restricted? Censorship in other countries, yeah, it's fucking dumb in my opinion, but saying "WELL IT TOTALLY WORKS DIFFERENTLY IN A PLACE THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS CASE" really isn't actually a convincing argument.
You make a point about how the bottom line is that the parents should decide. Maybe I'm just not reading it, but I don't believe the government is part of that bottom line.
Our system simply prevents the children doing things of their own accord.
In most countries, legislation is seen as a way to improve things. If there are age ratings set by a classification board, then it just seems natural to enforce those ratings by law in order to ensure that children don't buy games that are unsuitable without parental consent.
In the US (and especially amongst people who post on the Internet), the prevailing mentality seems to be: "the Government can stay the hell away, I don't trust them". That's a shame.
If parents actually took the active role in their children's lives that they're supposed to, it shouldn't matter what the clerk at Gamestop does or does not sell to those kids. It was the clerk who let the child buy the game, but its the parents that let the child come home and play the game.
You suggest that the burden be placed on the retailers to get the parents involved (ie: the clerk won't sell the game without a parent present). The parents should be involved anyways.
There is a simple solution to this problem, and it doesn't require stores to implement new policies, or the government to write new legislation. It just requires parents to man the fuck up and take care of their children already.
Every generation complains of the next one being lazy, and vice versa.
I know that in twenty years my kids will be having the exact same discussion 'why arent our parents more pro-active in our social development?'
and I'll just be all 'fuck you I'm playing halo leave me alone'
Oh no, I love me some legislation.
The Government can stay away from limiting artistic expression. It's not a "trust" issue, it's that artistic expression needs to be allowed to flourish and experiment. I also have a problem with the government restricting scientific research, again not because I don't "trust" them, but because it's just a bad idea to suppress any flourishing of science and culture. The problem with Europeans is that they assume all Americans are gun-toting Bushites. Funnily enough, all broad-spectrum stereotypes of cultures are wrong, isn't that interesting?
I agree entirely.
In an ideal fantasy world, where parents never let their children out of their sight until they reach the age of 18, this would be the best idea.
In the real world, kids have some degree of independence. They might choose to abuse that independence and go off to buy a copy of GTA IV, despite being only six years old. Hopefully, the retailer would have some sort of backbone, and would say to the kid: "come back with a parent, and then you can buy it". Unfortunately, not all retailers are like that.
Incidentally, there are countries, like Denmark, with no censorship or regulation at all beyond things like child pornography, and it apparantly works fine for them.
I'm just pointing out that the UK system is at least no worse than the US one. It depends partly on the social conventions of the country.
I just don't understand why we're so idealistic about Government control. "Don't you see? If the Government restricts thing then all the worlds problems will go away!"
My fantasy world at least clings to protected artistic expression.
Yeah, I guess I'm just getting pissed off at all the: "why should the Government have anything to do with parenting?" comments.
I mean, the obvious answer is that by creating this sort of legislation, it assists parents. Hell, it can be implemented by industry groups too if they want to avoid the Government being involved.
We already have this legislation in Australia, in the UK, and elsewhere, and it works. So I don't really see why I'm arguing, other than to refute the blanket-statements that enforcing ratings is a bad idea. To me, it seems it is the best way of ensuring that parents can do their job effectively in this regard.
Sure, and as I've said, there's a larger issue of censorship in general that would just turn into "No your country sucks!", but when discussing Jack Thompson and attempts in the US to impose governmental censor of material, chiming in with "Well it works that way with movies over here!" isn't really the point. Censorship in the US is against some of the founding ideas of the nation.
Oh, sorry, I thought that was self-evident in my opinion.
The solution is that the parent should (a) monitor what they are doing/watching/playing and (b) should impart whatever values they think are appropriate onto their children. There are many, many children that actively choose not to watch R-rated films despite being given ample opportunity to do so because their parents impressed on them the value of not doing so.
See, I don't think the government should provide a crutch for parents. I think parents have the right to err and to learn from their errors. I think that is actually very important. I don't think any government should account for every possible parental failing, nor should it attempt to curtail or thwart childhood curiosity. That is a parent's job.
I don't think kids should be legally prevented from purchasing games. There has been no definitive causal link between violent or sexual media and developmental damage. Therefore anything else are arbitrary societal decisions as to what is appropriate for a certain age and what is not and that should not be enforced by any government body, ever, period.
The parents should put a stop to it, if they think it is right to do so, through their guidance. They should not be forced by the government to act as an intermediary between a retail chain and the child.
There's giving your 6 year old a sense of independence, and there's letting him do whatever the fuck he wants to do. I personally would not allow a child to have a TV or computer in his bedroom. While I'm not specifically telling him not to play violent video games, watch R-rated movies, or look up internet porn, he probably won't do it knowing anyone can walk by and see what's going on. Its a pretty effective system.
Right but the first amendment to our constitution stops the government from making any law that restricts or infringes upon the freedom of expression, within certain reasonable limits. So not only for us to we have the legal thing of it being totally against the constitution, but the way our nation functions in our morality it is just plain wrong to restrict the freedom of expression. The government certainly can help. Hell, I would support a government program requiring explanations and education of the ESRB ratings at stores or anywhere else. I would support governmental programs that seek to help the parents decide which games are appropriate for their children, I would support the government stepping in in any number of ways that do not involve restricting or infringing upon the distribution of artistic expression.
One of the biggest problems in these debates is that people tend to forget that children are not these passive little corruptible things, waiting to be violated by violent and sexual media. Children are very much in control of what they watch and play, and by the age where they can attend a movie alone or go buy a game, they're perfectly capable of selectively choosing what they want to watch and internalize. They can separate reality and fiction, even extract parts of lessons when they other part doesn't match up with what they think.
In which case, I'm perfectly happy to accept the argument: "Prohibiting people from watching or buying games (or movies) based on their age is unconstitutional".
However, I object to blanket-statements that it is a crazy idea that has no merit.
The government wouldn't be infringing on anyone's freedom of expression. The game companies would still be allowed to express themselves artistically however they please.
I like blanket-statements that it is a crazy idea because I'm a US-based contemporary musician.
Man I've seen pieces performed that involve humping, depictions of sado-masochism, nudity, crazy amounts of alcohol consumption, rather obscene language, mass murder and right now that's just one opera that I'm describing. It is an incredible opera, one of my favorites, and if there was governmental restriction just on age I know that it would not get nearly as much performance as it does, simply due to the logistical problems that such a restriction would place on it. Sure, when it's performed most opera houses refuse to let in people of certain ages and they warn parents, but if it was legally enforced? If the government came in and said "You will be fined/punished in some way if a kid under 18 sees this"? Why would they even bother doing that show when others would not have that restriction. And if it wasn't going to be performed for that reason, then even if the composer had written it despite those restrictions it never would've had any impact if it wasn't performed, and the thing is revolutionary and visionary and an incredible work of art. That's why I hate censorship as a whole.
Do you think that children should be allowed to buy gore-filled slasher movies, or sexually explicit films? I really don't, no matter what artistic merit those films have.