New clearer videogame classifications/labelling and warnings on explicit online videos: your thoughts?

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

We thought you might be interested to see that, as trailed in the Mail yesterday (you need to scroll right down to the blue box at the bottom of the article), the Prime Minister is "pledging to turn the dial back on the creeping sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood with new restrictions on explicit music videos, violent computer games and internet porn".

The Government is planning to introduce, by July, a new system of clearer age classifications and labelling for video games, and clear warnings on explicit videos shown online (YouTube etc). They also plan to limit advertising near schools and look at a clamp down on "advergaming".

Much of this was recommended in the Let Children Be Children report by Reg Bailey - who, you might remember, did a webchat on MN last year following our Let Girls Be Girls campaign.

So... we'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the Government's plans. Good stuff or not? And, if good, does it go far enough?

Also, if you've seen or heard anything unsuitable for children on TV (pre-watershed), radio, online or in an ad, do feel free to report it to the UK media regulators through Parentport and/or start a thread about it in our dedicated Parentport topic.

Well, in theory it's great of course.

But what is actually going to change?

There are still going to be 9 yr olds watching and playing with horrifically violent and sexually explicit stuff because they have parents who let them.

Fags saying they're going to kill you, but how many people stop smoking because of a big black and white label?

I also am a bit about advertising near schools. It's in family homes that gaming happens, and while grown men pretend to be murderers and god knows what online in full view of their kids how is not advertising the latest game outside the school going to help?

Yet again, as usual with most govt proposals to make society a warmer snuggly place, it's all a load of wishywashy wordiness.

I thought games were already rated, and youtube videos?

Who defines explicit?

How on earth do they think they can implement anything to do with the internet? It is not possible!

Cannot legislate against feckless parenting.

Not on games or videos. The labels which are on there say enough, it's the stupid parents who choose to buy violent/sexually explicit games and videos for their 6 year olds who need attention. It should be a criminal offence IMO.

I have to agree with the previous posters, certainly when it comes to what's watched in the home. The problem arises with sharing clips on mobile phones. All it takes is for one child to come to school with an offensive clip and it can be on dozens of other phones in seconds.

I agree that something needs to be done, but I'm at a loss as to what that should be. I feel the genie may be out of the bottle.

Games are already rated, so that seems a little strange.

Urgh. This rears its ugly head again.

Look at the packaging, see the age restricting ratings and DON'T BUY 18 RATED GAMES FOR YOUR KIDS! Inevitably it's the people buying them for their kids who end up complaining about this "issue". If they're too stupid to read then what right have they got to blame others (game developers/shops) for their piss poor parenting?

What ThorDaddyman said. I don't think the age rating stamped on the front of games needs to be any clearer, people just need to stop deciding to let their kids play it regardless of said rating and then blame developers when Little Johnny gets corrupted at age 13 by the violence and prostitution on Grand Theft Auto.

The parent decides what the child plays, not the people who make the games. This whole argument baffles me every time - if people are going to let kids play games that are obviously unsuitable for them, then changing the ratings is going to make very little difference.

"if people are going to let kids play games that are obviously unsuitable for them, then changing the ratings is going to make very little difference."

Quite!

No Simon Cowell shows before 9pm.

Or after.

I agree parents are the key. But often they don't KNOW what playing violent games does to children. Why would they? As far as they are concerned they have played Grand Theft Auto and yet not ever stolen a car. Perhaps a better option is education of the parents than slapping a number on the game which seems to work as a sort of goal for the kids anyway 'wow we can play an 18 game'

I agree with who - educating the parents is at least worth a pop.
As so often on MN posters seem to assume that there are only two sorts of parents: them well-informed, intelligent ones who operate firm discipline in their children's best interests at all times and make every decision based on sensibly weighing up all the facts, and other crap feckless parents who couldn't care less about their children's best interests.

Every attempt to intervene in parenting is met by a chorus that Type A parents don't need interference because they already make all the best decisions for their families, whilst Type B parents will just ignore it because they're so awful.

I reckon that there are a fair few parents who are, like most of us, slightly crap but essentially well-meaning, and who would listen to an explanation of why videogames have a rating, what sort of content gets a game an 18 rating, and what sort of things little Jimmy is likely to hear if he plays online FPS games with adults on XBox Live at 2am (eg the recent "tea bagging" discussion).

Ok at the risk of being flamed here goes.

My DSS at the age of 13 has some 18 games - only some, there are some we do not allow.
He does play the shooting Modern Warfare/Black ops type games, we have no problem with this.
He does not have no matter how much he moans any Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row games, we think the content is too adult, whereas we find the shoot em ups ok.
We do have very strict rules for online Xbox live, he is only allowed to be friends with people who he knows, not mates of mates, or mates dads etc, only people he actually knows. If there is anyone talking on it he must mute them. He breaks this rule he has a console ban for one month, no arguments.

I agree that changing ratings won't matter as some parents will not care what they play on or watch, for us we have looked at the information available about the games and made the decision that these are ok for him under certain circumstances. I fully expect people to say we are wrong etc, but I don't always agree with everyone elses parenting decisions either. In fairness a lot of the time he likes racing games or fifa, but he does have the 18 games (and 15 to be fair as he is only 13) and we buy them for him.

Sorry that should say "anyone talking on it who he doesn't know he must mute them.

Fair enough ratbag, but you give up any right to complain about content and any effect it might have on your dcs by doing that.

My main problem is that people don't equate games and films in terms of the effect they can have on kids. (At this point I have to say that I'm yet to see any conclusive proof that there is an effect, but anyway...)
If you wouldn't let your kids watch Alien, why would you let them play the Alien games?
If you don't want your kids watching war films, don't let them play war games.

i also think the music industry should tone down their videos..they seem to sexualised, spk about sexual matter and very little clothing that leaves little to the imagination...am not old fashioned etc but seems the likes of these females and males with their bootys are targeted at young girls imo..and it is wrong...btw they are not on after 9pm watershed, you can flick through music channels all day and see them..they need regulating

as for games/ films etc they come with guidance, music videos dont unless it has flashing images

Agree to a certain extent thor but I also like to think my DSS has been raised so he know's it a game, certainly when someone was prosecuted for stamping on someone and blamed it on a game my DSS response was "that's a load of rubbish you make your own decisions"

However does that apply to people who smoke around kids, if the kids get poorly they are not allowed to complain, what if they take the kids out and the kids get sunburnt, and then skin cancer are they not allowed to complain then? Not being argumentative just curious as where the line is drawn, does that mean you should never have a drink too many around your kids, because if they turn into alcoholics it's your fault?

I also struggle to associate what you see leads you to follow. I wouldn't let him watch or play Alien, war films we don't mind, certainly war documentaries (such as the ones filmed recently in Afghanistan) we have no issue with at all, because if anything it shows that there is a real and very scary side to war.
Equally a lot of games such as three plus allow cars to be raced, and stolen even if in cartoon format, but if an eighteen year stole a car I'm sure it wouldn't be linked to a three plus game.

My worry is people are looking for something to blame, when actually people will commit criminal acts.

I was meant to finish that with regardless!

My concern is more with the emotional side of things. I don't believe that games or films can affect a person to the degree that they would change their behavior and become violent/addicted to drugs/murder prostitutes. That's impossible. Inspired maybe, but only if they were deranged enough to do it in the first place.

However, I do believe that violence in films and games could have an emotional effect on children if they're not mature enough to understand what they're viewing.

I do agree with you on that Thor which is why we absolutely refuse to allow Grand theft auto games in the house, maybe it's just us but I find being a pimp, beating prostitutes up for not earning enough money and taking baseball bats to them is far far too much for younger children, (or even us to be fair) DSS also asked for Saints Row, we went to Game (not for that, just passing through) we asked the advice of a sales assistant who said it made Grand Theft look like childs play, we said no way to that one too. Games which on line is just a shoot em ups (Black Ops etc), with not even realistic deaths are ok for us, but with the strict rules as applied in first posting.

I think its about balance, for us we are ok with that, but we are not ok with the more drugs, drink, sex & violence of some games. May seem wierd but I guess that's where our boundaries lie.

I do think if my DSS committed a crime we would have to look closely at everything though and not just us allowing an 18 game.

yes thor i agree to your comment "However, I do believe that violence in films and games could have an emotional effect on children if they're not mature enough to understand what they're viewing."...

as a parent i always explain how would they feel if they were in that position...to develop empathy....i must admit my ds who is 11 plays cod, modern warfare with his bil's as all his sisters and brother in laws are/ or were soldiers...(plz i know i dont know how it happened but i bred 3 gi janes lol)...ds has always been mature for his age as he was surrounded by much older siblings (16 yrs age difference)....but as soldiers they have instilled into him that respect for others is extremely important....

ratbag..as for those gta and saint rows games... ds played with his elder brothers in the front room whilst i was doing my homework and i was shocked when he said..look mum a dildo...i was mortified and told him to get it off...they are awful....must admit i naively thought they were racing car games, how wrong was i...i dont care how mature my ds is..he is not that mature

I think there are a lot of people like us doormat who don't mind COD etc, but do not allow the GTA and Saints row games because of the difference in content. If there is ever an 18 game DSS wants we check it out before committing to it, if we do not like it he doesn't get it. He's not always happy and we had massive arguments over GTA, we told him once he can buy it himself feel free but why it needs us there is no way he is having it.

Study: Violent Games Desensitise Players

I can't see that it will make a difference. They are already rated. I had massive rows with my DSs over it because I stuck with the ratings and friend's parents were more lax. Start any thread on here, a parenting website and many will tell you that it is up to them and what they think suitable.
It is also quite a problem if you have DCs above and below the age, if the 15yr old has the correctly rated game how do you keep it away from the 13yr old?

It is also quite a problem if you have DCs above and below the age, if the 15yr old has the correctly rated game how do you keep it away from the 13yr old?..exactly exotic fruits...

The next step in the study is to find ways to "moderate media violence effects" since the average child in elementary school spends 40 hours per week playing video games. ...quote from study captainhetty has posted.......i dont know any children that spend 40 hours a week on a game...

also from the study i find one of the reasons children get frustrated and throw joypad etc is because they are so close to the next level, so have to start again...

i would rather my child play a game than watch a soap opera, i think these are damaging as ppl still perceive them as real life and considering the very adult content in some of them..i mean albert square must have the highest rate of murders to any place in the same country.....to all those who dont allow games for children do you allow your child to watch soap operas...