All this does is add a layer of censorship where the government gets to decide stuff that it simply has no bussiness deciding. The body of evidence we had to have before putting warnings on Tobacco products was substantially greater than what we’ve got now. And if children playing games is such a social crisis, why is it that violent youth crime and violent crime is down like several fold while video game play is going up exponentially. Their is a good argument that video games can have some ill effects but it doesn’t amount to a strong body of science where classification (a soft form of censorship) of speech is concerned. Federal Regulation is to be the option of last resort only to be gone to when their is a real need for it when free market forces are creating a society that needs the government to step in for society to move on properly because it’s threatened by bussiness. Not because we are a bit annoyed with something, or we don’t like it. There is no reason for the government to be involved in this mess; and it is a violation of free speech to go in and write rules on a federal level about what children can and cannot see or play without a compelling state interest which their is insufficent evidence to support. If we knew for certain that their were harmful effects caused by video games, not that video games can be a contributory factor in certain circumstances, not that we think, not that we’re even fairly sure of, but instead were certain that would be one thing. But the evidence points in several directions at once about what level of impact playing violent games has upon children.

Why do you assume the state knows best? Blanket solutions made by a government that has next to no contact with gamers, aren’t going to be as well tailored as speciffic solutions imposed by parents who live with the child every day. In my personal experience with children playing Soul Calibur (rated teens) is more likely to lead t o real life violence than playing Mature rated Halo. Inevitably fighting games lead to real fights wheras I play Halo with my brother and he doesn’t get any more violent over it. As such Halo and Half-Life are allowed in the house whereas Soul Calibur and Tekken are not.

Another interesting query is what about socially controversial content. I’m not talking BMX XXX or GTA stuff. Something like Shadow Hearts covenant which features gay characters. You can’t pretend like the Federal board (probably the FTC) won’t see political pressure to make sure that such a game is rated M or AO because of that. A ratings board that carries the imprimatu of government can never really be independent. Which is really the bigger problem is you can’t be both inependent and a federal regulatory agency. I don’t know where you get your delusions that you can be both independent and answerable to an elected offical. You’re either one or the other you can’t be both.

Putting control of these materials in the hands of parents puts control into the hands of the weakest link. I find it both desirable and necessary that the government enforces these restrictions. When applied to games, this at least means that kids won’t be playing Virtual Slaughter 16 and that can only be a “Good Thing”.

interesting that someone brought up the bulger case. i’m very familiar with it. familiar enough to know that there was no evidence that the boys had even seen childs play 3 and that the retractions posted in the newspapers were very small and far from the front pages. people still think there was a direct link. no such defence, or testimony was ever put forth in their trails or as part of the investigation into their crimes.

here’s a trial where the tabloid newspapers actually broke laws by publishing the names and photos of the accused killers.

childs play 3 was to my knowledge never banned, but many retail and rental chains pulled the film, and i distinctly remember seeing one video store on the news BURNING their copies.

i’m not saying that videogames are the first thing to fall victim to this in the uk… and music is a different case in that for the most part the ‘PARENTAL ADVISORY’ sticker is a voluntary ratings system not legally enforced… but they’re certainly the current scapegoat. no one is blaming horror films and marilyn manson anymore. the problem is, that video games have been the scapegoat for a very long time, and there’s no sign of things getting any better, just signs that things are getting worse.

it might surprise you to learn that i draw a firm line at censorship. i’m against it in everyway. no film should ever have cuts mandated, or be out right banned, but legally enforcing a rating, perhaps because it’s something i grew up with, isn’t the same thing at all.

there’s a fine line between thought police and sensible governmental control i admit, but it exists and classification is the right side of that line to me. it would be better for most kids if their parents took an interest in what games they were playing. i know parents that have written letters to blockbuster and local game stores to say ‘let my son buy and rent anything’. these aren’t irresponsible parents, but parents who can see that their kid isn’t anything but a well mannered and responsible individual.

so long as the law isn’t making it illegal for a kid to be given or play that game, then to me it’s on the right side of the line. so long as the ratings are only based on whether or not the game is violent or sexual, and aren’t based on any political or social philosophy it has… then it’s on the right side of the line.

i’m not proposing we turn control over to the government. the bbfc in the uk do a fine job. yes, it can go horribly wrong, but so long as the classification body is independant, to both the government and the game industry… so long as is kept an eye on, it can and quite probably will evolve into something worthwhile. the bbfc was awful when it started out, now they’re pretty much on the nose. legally enforcing ratings has actually allowed for less censorship in video games ultimately in the uk, which is something i’m glad about.