March 27, 2008 -
Dr. Tanya Byron's long-awaited review of the effects of video games and the Internet on children has been released in the U.K.
While much is being written about Byron's report, the key points, as described by the Mirror, include:
-Giving video games a more "robust" movie-style age classification.
-Making it illegal for retailers to sell any video game to a child younger than the age rating on the game box. At present, only the most violent and sexually explicit games are regulated.
-Developing a new code of practice aimed at regulating social networking sites, such as Bebo and Facebook, including introducing standards on privacy and harmful content
-Undertaking a new publicity campaign for parents to understand the sort of digital material their children are accessing on the Internet and how they can block it.
-Introducing new laws banning Internet-assisted suicide.
-Creating a national council to implement the strategy.
The British government has reportedly confirmed that all of Byron's recommendations will be implemented. For her part, Byron told BBC Radio:
In the same way you wouldn't let your 11 to 12 year-old watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which is an 18-rated film, you really shouldn't be letting them play 18-rated video games.
The Guardian reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was quick to support Byron's recommendations:
If our children were leaving the house, or going to a swimming pool or going to play in the street, we would take all the care possible about their safety. Is there proper policing, is there proper safety?
When a child goes on to the computer and on to the internet or on to a video game we should be thinking in the same way. It's really difficult for parents because we didn't grow up in the computer age, many of us.
We've got to make it easier for parents and get the information to them in a more simple form. We've got to get the classification clearer so that people know 12-plus. When someone is trying to sell a game they've got to give the proper information.
Byron added:
I'm making some pretty tough recommendations to the prime minister, to the government, about the video game classification system and about the internet generally and how we can empower parents and teachers and all adults to help children be safe.
I'm asking the prime minister to change legislation so that from 12 upwards children or parents can't buy games unless it's for the right age of the child.
A widely-cited Times Online report, which carried the headline, Computer Games to Get Cigarette-Style Health Warnings seems to overstate the case a bit. While Byron does call for a revamped content rating system as well as ratings that appear on the front of game packaging, GP found no reference to "cigarette-style" warnings in her report.
Those who were rooting for either the PEGI or BBFC classification systems to be favored by Byron will be disappointed. As Next Generation reports, Byron recommends:
Reforming the classification system for rating videogames with one set of symbols on the front of all boxes which are the same as those for film.
Lowering the statutory requirement to classify video games to 12+, so that it is the same as film classification and easier for parents to understand.
Her report recommends a blending of PEGI and BBFC:
In the context of this Review, where my remit has been to consider the interests of children and young people I recommend a hybrid classification system in which:
- BBFC logos are on the front of all games (i.e. 18,15,12,PG and U).
- PEGI will continue to rate all 3+ and 7+ games and their equivalent logos (across all age ranges) will be on the back of all boxes.
GP: The Byron report will have far-reaching effects on the video game industry in the U.K. In addition, readers can expect that it will be closely studied by political figures, activists and industry types in the U.S.
UPDATE: PC World's Matt Peckham has a rant about the "cigarette-style" warning labels...
WANT A COPY ? Click: Byron Report (report + supporting materials)
Comments
Here Here
(And the fact we are already regulated on advertising, sale, and censorship)
I could just as easily turn round and ask if your happy for your country to market and allow unrestricted access of mature media to kids but its not because thats what I believe to be true, it would only be to make an exaggerated and caustic comment as you did.
It would be hard to explain why, but I'll try.
The first problem this would pose is that it violates the First Amendment, which is designed to protect expression by the people in whatever form they choose. Video games are a form of expression, as they bear the influences and opinions of their creators in their designs, even if they are not explicitly set out in the story. Thus, preventing access to these games by the populace would be preventing this expression from getting out, and thereby violating the first Amendment.
It would also be admitting that the games can harm those that they are not intended for. Mature video games are not intended for a child's viewing, true. However, they have never been shown to cause a child harm either.
It might also stem from a general dislike by the US populace for Federal intervention. Frankly, we do not like our government attempting to run our lives. We do not like being spied on, and we do not like being told what we can and cannot see. Ratings would signify the government telling us what content is appropriate for us and for our children, and we believe that it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their child sees.
I love this quote. :D
From some of your past posts prior to the release of the I'm betting you are suprised to find something in it you loved :)
Sorry kinda off topic atm, But I'm from the Rhondda, the next valley over from Bridgend. From what I have heard locally, the suicides have had very little to do with the internet and social network sites. Obviously I don't know for sure, but if there was clear evidence that the suicides were linked via internet sites, there's would have been an even bigger fuss made about it, and people living close to the area (like I do) would know.
Back on topic. No big deal really. All it does is give the BBFC a harder job, and possibly confuse people (due to the dual ratings).
It essentially shows that the rating system is fine, just parents don't listen to it. If parents don't listen to it, I can't see much you can do really. You can make it illegal (as has been proposed) but i can see it being very difficult to prove in court.
The UK however is used to having ratings legally enforced (all movies are, and a lot of games are), so I can't see this making much difference tbh
JT is probably going through it now to see how he can "accidentally" misquote it to suit his own ends.
On the plus side, most British food is horrible, so maybe this is a good thing. However, I have to ask...
WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE FISH AND CHIPS!?!?!
Next up: An expose of Brits who do things differently from Americans inspite of the first ammendment! News at 11! ;)
The problem is that they don't agree. Politicians blame the game industry for the ills of the youth. The game industry disagrees. Politicians blame the game industry for making M rated games available to kids, when the game industry blames parents, since it is typically the parent who pays for the game (on a side note, how many 10 year olds with $50 are there).
It appears that she didn't call for further power to ban games, but simply that the power to do so already exists (see 7.3, 7.21, 7.22, 7.69 The PEGI Code of Conduct). Unless you mean extending the BBFC's ability to rate games as low as 12+ .
The idea that the government should have any legal authority over what mainstream media I can allow my own child to experience is extremely offensive to my core ideology. I am an American, though, and I realize that my American political perspective may be the primary factor in this offense. And so, I am honestly very curious how this idea is interpreted by U.K. citizens.
By what I can tell from the BBFC website, it currently is NOT illegal for a U.K. parent to allow his 11-year-old child to watch a "12+" movie. I ask in earnest: In the context of your system, should it be? Or, should it be illegal in the U.K. to let your kid play games above his age rating, but not movies?
Or, is Byron just giving lip service to the idea that the government should determine what media parents allow their kids to see? Should her comment be ignored? Is it an actual possibility that, as a result of Byron's suggestion, it would become illegal for U.K. parents to allow their children to view material the BBFC has judged unfit for them?
I would be well served if any of you U.K. posters, especially any of you who have prolifically supported the report in this forum so far, would share your points of view on this aspect of the issue. At this point, i am honestly not looking to argue -- just to be informed.
@mogbert
If you are talking about politicians here in the U.S. using the Byron report to promote more game restriction law over here, I am not too worried about that happening. As far as I can tell, the report doesn't really present any new anti-game evidence for politicians to exploit. It only compiles existing studies and statements for the U.K. government to consider. The most opportunistic politicians in the U.S. are often also the most jingoistic, just like the constituents to whom they pander. In other words, I can't see any U.S. politician (or even JT) getting much traction out of a "England censors its mainstream media so we should too" argument.
I agree there are some topics that are still being argued but in the end we aren't really getting anywhere. There is so much both sides do agree on we just need someone to say "Hey lets take action on the things we do agree on." instead of the argument on whose to blame continuing.
The idea that the government should have any legal authority over what mainstream media I can allow my own child to experience is extremely offensive to my core ideologies. I am an American, though, and I realize that my American political perspective may be the primary factor in this offense. And so, I am honestly, very curious how this idea is interpreted by U.K. citizens.
By what I can tell from the BBFC website, it currently is NOT illegal for a U.K. parent to allow his 11-year-old child to watch a "12+" movie. I ask in earnest: In the context of your system, should it be? Should it be illegal in the U.K. to let your kid play games above his age rating, but not movies?
Or, is Byron just giving lip service to the idea that the government should determine what media parents allow their kids to see? Should this aside be dismissed, or is it an actual possibility that, as a result of Byron's suggestion, it would become illegal for parents to allow their children to view material the BBFC has judge unfit for them?
I would be well served if any of you U.K. posters, especially any of you who have prolifically supported the report in this forum so far, would share your points of view on this aspect.
@mogbert
If you are talking about politicians here in the U.S. using the report to promote more game restriction law over here, I am not too worried about that happening. As far as I can tell (so far), the report doesn't really present any new anti-game evidence for politicians to exploit. It only compiles existing studies and statements for the U.K. government. The most socially conservative politicians in the U.S. often also the most jingoistic, just like the constituents to whom they pander. In other words, I can't see any U.S. politician (or even JT) getting much traction out of a "England censors its mainstream media so we should too" argument.
"Having considered the evidence I believe we need to move from a discussion about the media 'causing' harm to one which focuses on children and young people, what they bring to technology and how we can use our understanding of how they develop to empower them to manage risks and make the digital world safer."
I wouldn't bet on it though. He could learn a lot on how to communicate effectively and without hyperbole from Dr Byron.
"It is extremely well balanced, and many of the recommendations she makes are simply enforcing things that developers, publishers and games companies do already voluntarily anyway."
Ah, but there's the rub. Look at the laws that have been struck down here in the U.S. as unconstitutional. They're promoting concepts that the industry generally supports (e.g. don't sell M-rated games to 8 year olds, etc.). The idea is that the government should not be the ones enforcing these ideas - the industry should.
It appears to me that the UK government is intending to use this report as grounds for taking that responsibility upon itself, rather than leaving it to the industry. THAT is what worries me about the above quote, not the notion that little kids shouldn't play mature games.
"I’m very intrigued by the comments of a few US posters who seem concerned by games being regulated like films here, I understand the 1st ammendment makes this bizarrely illegal in America, but it blatantly hasn’t killed the film industry here and is unlikely to have a major impact on the games industry. What is the real concern?"
Fair question. It's a "slippery slope" sort of thing, I think. Once they have legislative control over one aspect of industry sales and censorship, it's rather inevitable that they're going to try to creep into other aspects. And that first little victory makes all the difference in the world in determining just how far they manage to go.
I guess it is a little hard for us to look at this in such a manner as to disregard freedom of speech.
I'll chip in with my take. Byrons report stated she recommends keeping the system more or less the same as it is. With a minor addendum that any game that should be certified 12 or above should display the correct BBFC logo. I have no problem with that at all and to my knowledge neither do the bulk of the UK citizens. I agree with the BBFC classification system and I agree that retailers should not provide media to children if they are underage i.e. selling a 18 cert game or movie to a 15 year old.
Now Byron was quoted in the Guardian as saying
"I'm asking the prime minister to change legislation so that from 12 upwards children or parents can't buy games unless it's for the right age of the child,"
Nowhere in her report did she state or even mention it should be a parent should be prosecuted for buying media for a child they were not entitled to. In fact most of the report goes into education parents so they can make an informed choice.
As a UK citizen, I disagree in the strongest possible terms that parents should be charged if they buy media for their children that have a wrong classification. Now, I am going to come across as an apologist, but I feel that Mrs Byron has poorly chosen her words in the Guardian interview. It just seems so odd that her personal view takes such a tangent from her own recommendations. But I cannot say for certain either way. Ideally, I would like further ellaboration on her statement.
Hope this is of interest.
Anybody else have a MAJOR problem with this? First off this really will give government the authority to say what is and is not appropriate for children they never met and it takes away choice from the parents.
We're sorry we won't let you get grand theft auto for your kid, we think it's too violent. "But my kid is mature for his age and I've seen him play the game and I think it's fine." Sorry ma'am"
I honestly hope reatailers tell parents to lie and say the game is for them (even if it's manhunt for a 13 year old).
Okay, back up the "What the Fuck!?" train.
Is this saying that they will ban the sale of such a game to a legal adult if they make the decision that it is acceptable for their children? No, screw the "different culture mate!" bullshit. This is pure wrong. I can't fathom how the British put up with the system how it was and now this.
And no, I won't accept the "different cultures!" response.
And yes, that was of interest. Thank you!
"A parent who wants to buy the game for thier child still can. "
I'm pretty sure this would be false if Byron's recommendation went through.
Also, regarding the "retailers get punished, not industry"... it seems to me that with the repercussions of "goofing up" and selling a game to an underage customer, there's a good chance some retailers may find it safer to simply refuse to carry games of sufficiently high ratings (as opposed to just demonizing the AO rated games like they are now).
My first impression is that this seems a lot like the FTC report from last year. A lot of the laguage and suggestions had the same feel to them.
I am glad to see a lot of calls for voluntary action. The education campaigns she calls for are great. I also like her suggestions for a better reading rating.
I do have some problems with her request for mor government regulation. Expanding the BBFC's authority and such. I still have qualms with that. I will cede the argument however. I am from the US. We have differnet cultures. Many of the British people are fine with their system. So I will not argue, but simply voice my displeasure.
I am glad to see that she basically told those Chicken Littles out there that the sky is not falling. Video games are not the doom of us all. I also like how she basically laid out the studies from all angles and came to the conclusion that no study has shown any sort of damaging or beneficial effects on children to any significant degree. The part about releasing anger and frustation was great. There are no studies that show that effect.
I liked the review overall. It was fairly well balanced and if the respective bodies follow up with it, a lot of improvements could be made to the state of UK gaming.
But thats a catch-22. It sounds as if you want everyone from the developers down to the retailers to just play fair but isn't that just idealism?
I disagree that the UK Government is going to use this as a way to siezing the BBFC's role. Personally, I have seen no evidence beyond paranoid rants on forums.
But, yes I have a but, I trust my Government more than I trust yours. I say the classification system works in the UK and its free from influence. I do not think at the current time the US political system could be capable of dealing with this situation in a fair and impartial manner. To work properly your politicians would need to stop the patriotic flag waving, suspend the 'think of the children angle', put an end to playing for points with the voters and be willing to tackle the film industry at the same time. In otherwords, its not bloody likely to happen.
"Yes, its your business to be a bad parent. I think the Byron Review was trying to look at ways to fix that."
Do you know him, or his child? Do you know why the game was rated 18? How exactly is it that he's a bad parent for making the decision himself instead of letting the BBFC do it for him?
There are sites/chats/etc. on the net where very detailed information can be found regarding various methods of suicide. I don't mean like Wikipedia, I mean more of a DIY guide, complete with instructions on how to require all the materials required, set them up, etc.
(yes, I realize "DIY suicide" is rather redundant, but it was the best term I could come up with >.>)
@Lumi
As it stands you can buy a 18 cert dvd and show it to someone under the age of 18. I believe you can even give it to them. The legality is in retailing it. It is illegal for Game, GameStation, Argos, Zavvi, HMV, etc to sell your 16 year old cousin a copy of GTA: SA in the UK. It is perfectly acceptable here for the kids parent to buy a copy of the game and give it to them and I agree with that 100%.
It if makes you happy Kneejerk from my perspective the US does seem to be inching closer and closer to becoming book burning censorcrats.
I can't believe this, are we almost agreeing on something? I think this has to be the first time :)
I think that book burning censorcrats are a negative.
As far as I can tell you think its a positive.
So, eh. *shrug*
I'm not sure how to respond to this except with laughter. But different strokes for different folks. I like freedoms and I guess some don't. I suppose there are some slaves out there who would feel naked without their collar.
Ever see V for Vendetta?
I used to ask a question to my friends and my friends' parents (I am 25). I used to say "Whould you let you underage kid see porn or horon movies with you?". They naturally answer "No". "Then why do you let them play videogames that are not suitable for them?". At that time they start talking about their inability to control the kids or to spectate them as they play an so on...
This report must be taken seriously by everybody, especially us gamers. I have not read it all, but the points that I read where exactly spot-on.
I wonder what would Jack say about it...
"Is this saying that they will ban the sale of such a game to a legal adult if they make the decision that it is acceptable for their children?"
The comment you quoted is not in the report (really, you should give it a read, your head won't explode) but it is in an interview in the Guardian. I posted the link above somewhere.
If, at face value, her quote is saying parents should be charged for letting their kids play games not certified for their age group then I agree with you that is totally wrong. I should point out that this would be an unprecidented piece of legislation in the UK. To my understanding there is nothing like it on the books. Hell, IIRC parents can even give their kids alchohol if its done at home in the UK.
The only thing that bugs me is the guardian quote just seems to run against the grain of what she has said in the report. I suspect it may be a miscommunication but thats only a hunch on my part. I have nothing to back it up with and its not worth arguing over.
I'm not sure what Jack would say, but I know he would type it with one hand.
"I suppose there are some slaves out there who would feel naked without their collar"
Yeah, I suppose a 5 years in Guantanamo Bay will do that to you ;)