Save the Children (Game Legislation)

Link to news article
I hate getting vocal about game legislation news stories, as I feel too much like my voice falls on deaf ears. My protest posts are lost among the thousands of others here on Gamespot, and my support posts are crushed. Perhaps by blogging about it, my opinion won't be lost (as quickly).

On the matter of whether violent game sales to minors should be regulated, I'm on the fence. I feel that the determination should be made on a per-case basis. Some people (of all ages) are more impressionable than others. But the most common counter-recommendation to any violent games legislation here on Gamespot is that parents should better monitor their kids. Are you kidding me?

This argument, made quite often by teens (but not teens alone), is dependent on the notion that parents are actually capable of exerting total control over their children. I throw out into the vast internet the question of whether any of these protestors has ever defied their parents. I'd find it hard to believe anyone who said no.

Teens everywhere find ways to disobey their parents - whatever the rule. Some of my Counter-Strike clanmates recently received close-to-failing midterm marks in some of their classes. Their irate parents have sensibly put limitations on play-time, but cyber cafés, dual-income lifestyles, and friends' houses offer plenty of opportunity to continue doing what we should all agree is the wrong thing.

This isn't to say that all children who defy their parents are delinquents. A strong sense of independence is absolutely necessary for personal growth. Furthermore, many of these individuals would be totally unaffected by the majority of the "objectionable" in games today. But that is not universal.

Now, undeniably, some pieces of media are simply too violent for some people. I hope it's agreed that there is a certain group of individuals that should not be exposed to violent games. The parental responsibility argument is proven unrealistic, so the only practical way to ensure that this type of media stays out of impressionable hands is to restrict minor access en masse.

While not perfect, film restrictions work very well. The MPAA is analagous to the gaming industry's ESRB and rates films on a comparable scale. The MPAA's Restricted rating is roughly equal to the ESRB's Mature. Admission to Restricted movies is confined to individuals over 17 and those accompanied by parents or guardians. The system works very well at keeping Restricted tickets out of minor hands. There is, of course, the inevitability of cinema-hoppers and the near futility of regulating them (another beyond-parental-control instance).

This system, along with education for parents, is the perfect solution. It should be legalized. The ESRB has clear, realistic guidelines for its rating system and should have the capacity to legally restrict minors' game access. The only issue that should be facing government (in any country) is the process of officializing the ESRB (or comparable organization).

To the proposals currently facing state governments in the United States (of which I am a part-time resident), I am firmly opposed. I believe most game legislators to be ageing fuddy-duddies too far removed from their young constituents to properly govern them (nevermind the minors they represent). The trend of increasingly liberal media content restrictions continues and they're missing the boat, so to speak.

When I was young, no children's movie dared ever to portray pre-teen sexuality. Today, my stepdaughter can't watch the Disney channel without being exposed to the rigors of being a sexually-frustrated junior high school student. Pointedly, there is a chasm between yesteryear's appropriate content and today's.

That is why I take issue with Scott Wyatt's proposed law in Utah. It's worded with the sensibility of a 1950's conservative in mind. Wyatt borrowed his wording from Louisiana's pending game restriction law, stating that, "a game is inappropriately violent if it 'appeals to the morbid interest of minors in violence.'" Cue sarcasm.

Well then, let's begin with the backlog.  Contra, Double Dragon, Mike Tyson's Punch-Out, Kung Fu, and Duck Hunt must all be reconsidered. Let's keep this filth off the streets, folks - especially that Duck Hunt. Instead, schedule a family-friendly hunting trip - featured in the "Just for Kids" section of the Utah Office of Tourism website (Link: search "hunting"). End sarcasm.

The wording of Wyatt's bill is vague and impractical. A huge majority of games employ some form of simulated violence as gameplay. The inclusion of "morbid" is inappropriate commentary on the nature of children. Children do not change. Counter-Strike is the new Cops and Robbers and the appeal is no more morbid now than it was then. The vagueness of the law allows for far too much subjectivity and I fear it will result in a mass of better-safe-than-sorry restrictions - and that will hurt the industry. I feel that only an independent organization can properly and responsibly classify games. I place my trust in the ESRB.

Now, as I stated in paragraph two, I am on the fence when it comes to
violent game restriction. Truly, I'd rather that the determination to be made
on a per-case basis. But I also see its impracticality. So to all the
objectors crying constitutional violation or for parental education
alone, I say that if one death is prevented by an en masse violent game
restriction: it's worth it.