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

Who's responsible for crappy Netflix performance on Verizon?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilson@pm I doubt it. Google seems to be distancing themselves from G+07/25/2014 - 9:31pm
Papa MidnightGoogle+ Integration is coming to Twitch!07/25/2014 - 8:41pm
MaskedPixelanteThis whole Twitch thing just reeks of Google saying "You thought you could get away from us and our policies. That's adorable."07/25/2014 - 2:52pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - hopefully that's the case, but I wont hold my breath for it to happen.07/25/2014 - 1:08pm
SleakerUpdate on crytek situation is a bit ambiguous, but I'm glad they finally said something: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-25-crytek-addresses-financial-situation07/25/2014 - 1:07pm
E. Zachary KnightMan Atlas, Why do you not want me to have any money? Why? http://www.atlus.com/tears2/07/25/2014 - 12:06pm
Matthew WilsonI agree with that07/25/2014 - 10:45am
james_fudgeI think Twitch will have more of an impact on how YouTube/Google Plus work than the other way around.07/25/2014 - 10:22am
IanCWelp, twitch is going to suck now. Thanks google.07/25/2014 - 6:30am
Sleaker@MP - Looked up hitbox, thanks.07/24/2014 - 9:40pm
Matthew WilsonI agree, but to me given other known alternatives google seems to the the best option.07/24/2014 - 6:30pm
Andrew EisenTo be clear, I have no problem with Google buying it, I'm just concerned it will make a slew of objectively, quantifiably bad changes to Twitch just as it's done with YouTube over the years.07/24/2014 - 6:28pm
Matthew WilsonI doubt yahoo has the resources to pull it off, and I not just talking about money.07/24/2014 - 6:15pm
SleakerI wouldn't have minded a Yahoo purchase, probably would have been a better deal than Tumblr seeing as they paid the same for it...07/24/2014 - 6:13pm
MaskedPixelanteIt's the golden age of Hitbox, I guess.07/24/2014 - 6:08pm
Matthew Wilsonagain twitch was going to get bought. It was just who was going to buy it . Twitch was not even being able to handle the demand, so hey needed a company with allot of infrastructure to help them. I can understand why you would not want Google to buy it .07/24/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew Eisen"Google is better than MS or Amazon" Wow. Google, as I mentioned earlier, progressively makes almost everything worse and yet there are still two lesser options. Again, wow!07/24/2014 - 5:43pm
Andrew EisenI don't know. MS, in my experience, is about 50/50 on its products. It's either fine or it's unusable crap. Amazon, well... I've never had a problem buying anything from them but I don't use any of their products or services so I couldn't really say.07/24/2014 - 5:42pm
Matthew WilsonGoogle is better than MS or Amazon.07/24/2014 - 5:33pm
Sleaker@AE - I've never seen youtube as a great portal to interact with people from a comment perspective. like ever. The whole interface doesn't really promote that.07/24/2014 - 5:28pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician