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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightGot that same recommendation on Twitter. So I guess that is a good sign.09/15/2014 - 8:39pm
prh99Portlandia, though I don't watch a lot of sitcoms. Heard it was good though.09/15/2014 - 8:02pm
E. Zachary KnightSitcom recommendations for someone who like Parks and Rec but hates The Office: Go.09/15/2014 - 6:08pm
NeenekoEven if they do change their policy, they can only do it moving forward and I could see the mod/pack community simply branching.09/15/2014 - 12:50pm
Michael ChandraAs for take the money and run, the guy must have a networth of 8~9 digits already.09/15/2014 - 10:33am
Michael ChandraMe, I'm more betting on some form of mod API where servers must run donations/payments through them and they take a cut.09/15/2014 - 10:32am
Michael ChandraEspecially since they want it for promoting their phones. Killing user interest is the dumbest move to make.09/15/2014 - 10:32am
Michael ChandraGiven how the EULA actively allows for LPs, I'm not sure Microsoft is ready for the backlash of disallowing that.09/15/2014 - 10:31am
Matthew Wilsonthey wont do that, the backlash would be too big.09/15/2014 - 10:25am
ConsterSleaker: how is that a flipside? Sounds to me like that's basically what Notch himself said, except rudely.09/15/2014 - 10:18am
MaskedPixelanteOn the plus side, no more lazy Minecraft LPs, since iirc Microsoft has a strict "no monetization period" policy when it comes to their stuff.09/15/2014 - 10:13am
james_fudgeBut it continues to sell on every platform it is on, so there's that09/15/2014 - 10:09am
james_fudgeOh, well that's another matter :)09/15/2014 - 10:08am
E. Zachary KnightNothing against Notch here. I think it is great that he made something so cool. I just can't understand how it is worth $2.5 bil09/15/2014 - 9:59am
InfophileWhat a world we live in: Becoming a billionaire was the easy way out for Notch.09/15/2014 - 9:42am
james_fudgelots of hate for Notch here. I don't get it. Sorry he made a game everyone loved. What a monster he is!09/15/2014 - 9:37am
SleakerOn the flipside, Notch has been a horrible CEO for Mojang, and the company has grown on sheer inertia, DESPITE being mishandled over and over.09/15/2014 - 9:33am
SleakerI can understand Notch's statements he made to Kotaku about growing bigger than he intended, and getting hate for EULA changes he didn't enact.09/15/2014 - 9:32am
MaskedPixelantehttp://pastebin.com/n1qTeikM Notch's statement about the MS acquisition. He wanted out for a long time and this was the easiest way.09/15/2014 - 9:08am
ConsterEh, I can't blame him.09/15/2014 - 9:01am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician