Education, Not Regulation, On Video Games For Kids
from the much-more-likely-to-be-effective dept
Over the last few years, we've seen grandstanding politicians waste millions of taxpayer money pushing through (and then defending in court) a bunch of laws that would ban the sales of certain types of video games. Repeatedly, this taxpayer money has been thrown away as court after court after court after court has explained how such laws are illegal. Adam Thierer, who has been following the space for a while, notes that the latest bit of legislation being pushed in Washington DC (for the city, not the federal government) is quite different. It's actually focused on helping to better educate parents and children about video game ratings, what they mean, and how to determine if a video game is appropriate for someone at a certain age level. Thierer hopes that this is a turning point, and that others will start to focus on this "education, not regulation" approach to dealing with video games and kids -- but that's probably wishful thinking. Video games and kids are an emotional issue that politicians can play up, because no one wants to have someone say that they're "for" giving violent video games to kids. It's entirely a political issue, rather than a practical one. Even if politicians know that banning certain types of video games is illegal, they'll still pass the laws, because it makes them look concerned about children and gets them attention from parent groups.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's hope, yet.
The problem is, I think, that we are almost constantly being lead by the generation before us if not two or three generations... I propose an upper age limit to being a politcal leader... we need people who grew up around the internet and video games (at least atari) to make informed decisions about it-- I wouldn't expect my grandfather to understand that the internet isn't reallymade of pipes, despite what he heard on TV... or what IP Adresses are, let alone that they are a faulted way of identifying people.
At least the judge in the article knows a violation of free speech when he sees it. There may be hope yet, but I doubt it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's hope, yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's hope, yet.
Neither do you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo... Oh wait, never mind
Luckily, I had me a little reread and caught my stupidity. It's still kind of early in the morning for me. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regulate the Prole Children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe has a Great Point
1. To ensure that the individual is mature enough to deal with certain problems.
2. I don't know why else...
So what would be the reason for maximum?
1. Old age.
2. Staying in touch with what is happening in todays world, dealing with today's technology, today's kids.
I don't know there are plenty of other reasons, but I am still asleep and can't deal with it right now.
But Age limits on Politicians, you must be 30-60.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joe has a Great Point
I'm 42 by the way...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age maximum?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Age maximum?
They have no clue, nor do they care to learn, yet they are given the right to regulate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Video Games
/I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's hope, yet.
http://wwwcdf.pd.infn.it/~loreti/science.html
oh, and i'm all for giving violent video games to kids to a degree... i'd be a hypocrite otherwise. mortal kombat was great :) nothing's more amusing for an adolescent than ripping your friend's head and spine from their body :D (and no, i didn't turn into a violent person)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wii already incorporating this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Video games turn kids violent" is about as dumb as "porn turns teenagers into rapists" or "McDonalds is why I'm fat"
Politicians just isolated *one* thing and are trying to push it down people's throats. When really, there is alot more to care about than video games when it is to "think of the children". But really, it would require them to actually care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wussup
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why abbreviate the word sorry?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ratings exist for a purpose. And as far as I know, a mature rating game or something can only be sold to someone of proper age to buy it.
Now should violent games be banned from store shelves?
In what basis ?
Should it be banned because kids can see the package?
What about other types of entertainment such as books, movies, and so on. Why can violent themed movies, books be on display and games shouldnt?
Why can I find a movie or book like "The Perfume" or "Gladiator", horror movies and so on and shouldnt be able to find say Grand Theft Auto?
Why is TV Wrestling acceptable. with all those kids going to the arenas and Splinter Cell be banned?
Why can I see a "barely dressed" model on a magazine cover or even on outdoor ads, and a similiar display on video game is "too much"?
Why do we accept the erotic nature of many popular artists, we make talk shows about its views. and so on. Even going deeper. We make public TV trials of people breaking up, of people betraying, and so on.
I just find all this fuzz around video games a bit out of touch with reality.
In my opinion, the games arent the problem..Nor displaying them. Nor selling them.
Im not sure how it works in the US, but as far as im aware, selling an AO game in the US follows the same rules (but applied to games) as selling NC-17(movie rating) porn movie ? Selling a Mature follows the same guidelines as an R movie?
Can a 10 year old child but a Mature movie?
As far as im concerned there are fines for doing this..
And what about the parents?
The parents that are so bold to criticize violence yet they offer theyre 10 year old child a game rated Teen or above...
I think our society is living in denial. And frankly this isnt a cultural problem . its pretty much a global problem .
It goes from the US to EU, Eastern nations. Its really global problem.
Frankly the law is not the problem .. PUBLIC RESPONSABILITY IS.
So perhaps it would be much better spent money if instead lawsuits politicians should force public responsability educational systems for all ages.
There are many parents who have a big problem raising kids ..They really dont know how to deal with them. They arent bad persons. They simply are unable to reach theyre childs . And frankly they also live in denial that perhaps theyre not reaching theyre child properly..
And in the other side, we also arent taking into count that indeed there are those people that even with good parents, simply decide to do violent acts .
As the article points. EDUCATION, is better than denial.
"Hiding", is worst than explaining.
I think we will raise much better people if we explain. If we enpower them to really decide not to do the bad thing.
And still in the violences subject. Study human history.
And really. are we really more violent than we were 50, 100 or 1000 years ago?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]