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

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
PHX Corphttp://www.craveonline.com/gaming/articles/801575-sony-refuses-offer-refund-playstation-game-fraudulently-purchased-hacker Sony Refuses to Offer Refund for PlayStation Game Fraudulently Purchased by Hacker12/18/2014 - 1:43pm
NeenekoMakes sense to me, and sounds kinda cool. One cool thing about Minecraft is the meta game, you can implement other game types within its mechanics. There are servers out there with plots, an episodic single player one sound kinda cool12/18/2014 - 11:07am
MaskedPixelantehttps://mojang.com/announcing-minecraft-story-mode/ Umm... what?12/18/2014 - 10:24am
NeenekoThat would make sense. Theaters probably can not afford the liability worry or a drop in ticket sales from worried people. Sony on the other hand can take a massive writeoff, and might even be able to bypass distribution contracts for greater profit.12/18/2014 - 10:03am
ConsterNeeneko: I thought they cancelled it because the major cinema franchises were too scared of terrorist attacks to show the film?12/18/2014 - 9:55am
Neeneko@Wonderkarp - there is still a lot of debate regarding if the movie was a motive or not. Unnamed officials say yes, the timeline says no.12/18/2014 - 9:10am
NeenekoSomething does not smell right though, Sony is no stranger to being hacked, so why cancel this film? For that matter, they are still not giving in to hacker's original demands as far as I know.12/18/2014 - 9:06am
PHX Corp@prh99 Not to mention the Dangerous Precedent that sony's hacking scandal just set http://mashable.com/2014/12/17/sony-hackers-precedent/12/18/2014 - 8:25am
Matthew WilsonI hope its released to netflix or amazon12/18/2014 - 12:11am
prh99Basically they've given every tin pot dictator and repressive regime a blue print how to conduct censorship abroad. The hecklers veto wins again. At least when it comes to Sony and the four major theater chains.12/17/2014 - 11:55pm
MaskedPixelante"It's not OUR fault that our game doesn't work, it's YOUR fault for having so many friends."12/17/2014 - 9:48pm
Matthew Wilsonapparently tetris did not work because he has a full friends list12/17/2014 - 9:21pm
WonderkarpSo Sony cancelled the release of the Interview. was it ever confirmed that the Sony hacking was done because of that specific movie?12/17/2014 - 8:54pm
MaskedPixelanteWow, Ubisoft went four for four, I didn't think it was actually possible.12/17/2014 - 8:37pm
MechaTama31Oh, ok, I was mixing up "on Greenlight" and "Greenlit".12/17/2014 - 8:23pm
Matthew Wilson@phx you beat me to it. how do you screw up tetris?! my ubisoft this is just stupid. no one should ever preorder a ubisoft game again! ps people should never preorder any game regardles of dev.12/17/2014 - 6:28pm
PHX Corphttp://www.ign.com/videos/2014/12/17/what-the-heck-is-wrong-with-tetris-ps4 I give up on ubisoft12/17/2014 - 6:01pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician