Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s Access to Violent Games? Poll Offers Schizophrenic Results

November 3, 2010 -

In advance of yesterday’s oral arguments for Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, the First Amendment Center polled over 1,000 adults for their opinion on where responsibility should fall when it comes to deciding whether kids should be able to buy or rent violent videogames.

86 percent of the respondents indicated that a “great deal” of the burden for such choices should fall on parents, while 43 percent indicated that videogame manufacturers and retailers should carry a “great deal” of the responsibility. Only 28 percent thought the government should wield a “great deal” of influence over such decisions.

On the flip side however, 68 percent of those polled said that “yes, the government should be able to prevent the sales or rentals of violent videogames to children under 18.” Only 31 percent said that the government should not be involved in such a policy.

It’s probably relatively fair, or at least interesting, to add up the “great deal,” and “fair amount” choices that respondents were asked to choose from when asked about doling out responsibility for a minor’s access to violent games. Doing so would total 94 percent for parents (86 + 8), 73 percent for retail establishments (43 + 30), 65 percent for game manufacturers (43 + 22) and 56 percent for the government (28 + 28).

Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center., added, “Mom and Dad are still in the best position to keep inappropriate content out of the hands of kids.”

Gallup conducted the poll on October 29-30.

Full results here (PDF).

Comments

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

I've said it a million times. One minute everyone wants the government off their back and out of their business. Next minute they demand the government enforce into law what they should be enforcing as parents or even just responsible human beings.

"With free speech either all of it is ok or none of it is." Kyle Broflovski

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

I think they might be taking the idealistic view that the restriction of sale that currently happens would be made law, and therefore universal.

I doubt they understand or care about the fact that Government intervention is unnecessary and could cause problems for the industry (and why would they?).

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

So you want a realistic, down-to-earth show...that's completely off-the-wall and swarming with magic robots?

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

One kid seems to love the Speedo man... what more do they want?

----------------------------------------

"Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

---------------------------------------- "Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

I have a feeling that even if they believe the ratings work and have seen it work for their kid, they worry that a friend will have the game because of his lax/uninformed parent, and their kid will be exposed to it that way. It becomes "I do all I can, but other kids' parents are not as good as me." That's why I still think we need to make more efforts to disspel parents' fear of M-rated games as a negative influence. Then if their kid does want a violent game, they can shrug it off and say, "I don't get why you like this violent stuff, but boys will be boys, and I know it's not going to affect you."

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

Yes becuase the companies that sell the product are the reason why a child is playing GTA. Well maybe santa claus brought it for xmas last year. Blame him.

Or its the fast food companies fault that a kid is overweight beacause they forced the parents to buy them food.

Lol shakes head. I found these stories to be very amusing but at the same time very sad. 

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

Parents not wanting to parent.  Seems to be happening more and more these days.

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

That, and that those same parents want everyone to do the parenting in their place.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

It should always be the parent's job to keep violent games like GTA away from kids, no one else. Not even the government. 

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

Has anyone ever compared this law to children seeing R rated movies in the theater without a parent?

----------------------------------------

"Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

---------------------------------------- "Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

Quite often. 

Both in the 'but this is already illegal, so why not for games!' and 'no, that is a common mistake, it is not illegal' ways.

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

What your kids can and cannot play is your call.  No one else's.  Not the retailers', not the manufacturers', and not the government's.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

Facepalm. And then they complain about why the government is invading their private life.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Who Should be Responsible for Limiting a Minor’s ...

I know it get ridiculous.  What the heck are up with these parent?  Sometimes I  don't understand why people keep saying they don't want the government snoop on peoplem but yet they want the government want to watch the children.  I think schizophrenic, and Bipolar disorders would be more of a good term.

 

Also Kotaku are asking gamer who should be monitoring the children playing video game, suprisingly every gamers said Parents (although some are putting sarcasm like Spiderman should be watching the children).

 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Papa MidnightI don't think I've used the forums since the Wordpress days.10/02/2014 - 12:13pm
NeenekoI keep forgetting we even have forums.10/02/2014 - 11:48am
ZippyDSMleeA shame we can't have good convos in the forums, seems to me its time to nuke and restart fresh on them.10/02/2014 - 11:45am
Papa MidnightOh, no problem! Just wanted to let you know that it's what we're discussing. By all means, join in!10/02/2014 - 11:36am
E. Zachary KnightNeeneko, No problem. In juicy conversations, key points of discussion get pushed off quickly.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoA rather scary censorship. I have known too many people and small companies destroyed by such pressure, so this unnerves me at a pretty personal level.10/02/2014 - 11:36am
NeenekoMy bad, I always have trouble working out what is going on in shoutbox10/02/2014 - 11:34am
Papa MidnightTo a point stated earlier, it very much is a form of indirect censorship. Rather than engage in rhetoric and debate, one side has instead chosen to cut-off opposing viewpoints at the knees and silence them via destroying their means of income.10/02/2014 - 11:28am
Papa MidnightNeeneko: the topic of Intel's dropping of Gamasutra is indeed part of this very ongoing conversation.10/02/2014 - 11:26am
NeenekoThis can't be good... http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/10/02/1558213/intel-drops-gamasutra-sponsorship-over-controversial-editorials10/02/2014 - 11:25am
Andrew EisenAnd there's also the consideration that the fact that a former IGN editor was one of the people who worked on the game's localization may be unknown (although in this specific case, probably not. Drakes been very visible at events IGN covers).10/02/2014 - 11:24am
Papa MidnightAlso, let's face it: people seem to believe that a conflict of interest can yield only positive coverage. Who is to say that Audrey Drake did not leave on bad terms with IGN (with several bridges burned in their wake)? That could yield negative coverage.10/02/2014 - 11:23am
Papa MidnightThat's a fair question, and it's where things get difficult. While Jose Otero may not have any cause to show favor, Jose's editor may, as may the senior editor (and anyone else involved in the process before it reaches publication).10/02/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenWould such disclosure still be required if Fantasy Life were reviewed by Jose Otero, who wasn't hired by IGN until sometime after Drake left?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
Papa MidnightIn that case, a disclosure might be in order. The problem, of course, is applying it on a case-by-case basis; As EZK said, what's the cut-off?10/02/2014 - 11:19am
E. Zachary KnightAndrew, a disclosure would probably be in order as she likely still has a strong relationship with IGN staff. My follow up question would be "What is the statute of limitations on such a requirement?"10/02/2014 - 11:09am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, my hyperbole was intended to illustrate the difference and similarity between direct censorship and indirect censorship.10/02/2014 - 11:07am
Andrew EisenOpen Question: Former IGN Nintendo editor Audrey Drake now works in the Nintendo Treehouse. Do you think it's important for IGN to disclose this fact in the review of Fantasy Life, a game she worked on? Should IGN recuse itself from reviewing the game?10/02/2014 - 11:07am
E. Zachary KnightSleaker, My thoughts on disclosure: http://gamepolitics.com/2014/09/25/what-your-gamergate-wish-list#comment-29598710/02/2014 - 11:02am
Sleaker@EZK - using hyperbole is a bit silly. I'm asking a serious question. Where's the line on disclosure as relates to journalistic involvement in the culture they report on?10/02/2014 - 10:59am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician