I have no problem whatsoever with mandating ratings for violence in

[cali]

video games, tv shows and movies. Our culture is hideously violent, and parents deserve an instrument that enables them to pick through the entertainment offered to kids.

My son's 21 now, but no way was he allowed to have violent video games in the house when he was 13 or 14 or 15. On the other hand, depending on the movie, I had no problem with him seeing an R rated film. We didn't have TV, so that wasn't in the equation.

[endarkenment]

1. mandated ratings are government censorship

I have a problem with that. You should too.

[Flabbergasted]

12. If the government made violent video games illegal it would be one thing

But ratings?

How is it even suppression? It is a warning to parents so that they know what their children are watching or playing.

What about porn? Should this be rated and put in the back of the video store? Is that suppression?

The one thing these items share is their lack of a culturally redeeming value. It is not as though they are suppressing knowledge, information, or art.

[endarkenment]

14. How is it even suppression?

How is it not? If you have to go to a government agency to get a stamp of approval for your video game, that is pure and simple government censorship of free speech.

[Flabbergasted]

15. So if ratings are illegal per the constitution....

because it's suppression of free speech is it therefore illegal to regulate movies and video games in any way?

[endarkenment]

18. You are changing the subject.

I didn't mention anything about legality or constitutionality, I said that a government mandated rating system was censorship and suppression of free speech. The courts have allowed all sorts of censorship and suppression of free speech, I just happen to think that is wrong, and that censorship is wrong, and I am opposed, consequently, to any government agency dictating mandatory ratings to any content producers.

[SteppingRazor]

2. There already are ratings for video games, TV and movies, so what are you trying to say here?

Of course, movie ratings are the only ones that have any teeth, but all three of these media have ratings.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. The problem with formal ratings of anything is that it is de facto censorship

Ratings are not just objective after-the-fact observations about a product.

Products are made to conform to ratings standards, which means that the ratings actually dictate content, not merely describe content.

We see this clearly in movies, where a PG-13 has a much higher potential gross than an R. So somebody in the MPAA says you can say "shit" only five times in a PG-13 movie, or any other arbitrary standard you can think of, and that is what film-makers will conform to, even though it is not an artistic decision anyone would have made on their own.

Private groups are welcome to rate things, and should. It is fine for information about content to be out there for parents to have better idea what's in things.

But when the government is involved, it is a genuine problem. (MPAA ratings are not government ratings, and are still highly deforming... a formal government rating system would magnify those problems.)

For instance, would violence be treated the same way in a war game based on which war it was? Based on whether Americans were the good guys or bad guys? Consider the difference between Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan versus some horror film... both Spielberg films were cut a lot of slack when shown on TV because of their important and positive messages. In the case of Schindler's list, frontal nudity was allowed on broadcast TV because it was "important."

I agree that the nudity in Schindler's List was not erotic, but where did that standard come from? Surely nobody would promulgate a set of rules that said, "Nudity is okay if the nude people are being herded to their death." That would be a terrible standard! I'm using this as an example of how content standrds always end up being highly subjective and particular expressions of social attitudes, social virtues, points of view... "I know it when I see it."

The violence in Private Ryan is incredible by any standard--one of the most violent films ever made--but it was shown uncut because it's a patroitic and uplifting story.

Would anyone want the government dictating the uplift of any given message, or it's patriotism, or religious merit? Would a nude Adam and Eve in a very pious bible story be treated differently from the same nudity in a different kind of story? A private organization like the MPAA is one thing, but would anyone want to see the government parsing gore in video games based on how "patriotic" they games are?

And there's no way around it. Seemingly sensible content standards almost always end up being just what some guy thinks.

This is a sore point with me because I'm kind of an expert on the history and effects of movie ratings and censorship schemes. (Everyone has their specific "things" and that's mine.)In every instance, they end up being used to reward or punish based on arbitrary social values more than specific content.

The place of nudes in western painting are a good example. Artists had a set of favorite scandalous Bible stories that could 'justify' nudes... like Susannah and the Elders. So the social stricture wasn't against nudes per se, it was against nudes that were not dressed up in biblical (or mythological) garb. There is no sense to that... it was (and is) an arbitrary standard, but the point is that what was being enforced was something much deeper than nudity vs. clothing.

Good nudity, bad nudity. Good violence, bad violence. Those should not be government's calls to make.

So "voluntary" industry ratings are often bad (like the MPAA) and government ratings would be disastrous. Even MPAA ratings are not actually voluntary. They were created and are maintained ONLY to forstall government censorship.

It's a tricky area. The violence in Grand Theft Auto is seen differently from in a game where the player is an FBI agent, rather than a car-jacker. I'm not for car-jacking (!) but that's an example of how rating "violence" quickly becomes rating "law-abidingness"... that may be a worthwhile standrd, but it's not the kind of view-point neutrality that is supposed to govern all government restrictions of creativity.

Private groups, however, are as welcome to rate products as producers are to make them. I'm all for truly independent assessments of products being out there. Such assements can be as arbitrary as they want to be, because it's someones opinion.

[frazzled]

4. Very good explanation of the issues

Thank you for pointing out the difference between private and governmental ratings, and the potential censorial nature of the latter.

Which brings us back to politics of course. It's not something that anyone is talking about very much, but one of the most sobering things I recall about Rudy Giuliani during his tenure as mayor was his attempt to close down an exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum--and defund the institution itself--because of art he considered to be offensive. He had to be forcefully shot down by the courts: literally stopped from carrying out his personal, censorious vendetta. It says more than anything else to me about his potential dictatorial ways.

[cali]

5. Thanks for taking the time to explain this so well

It's convinced me that I'm wrong about gov't mandated ratings, but I'm still troubled be the alternative. Products wouldn't have to have a private group rating displayed, so parents wouldn't know by picking up a particular game if it contained violence or sexual content that they preferred their kids not be exposed to.

[Armstead]

7. It's more up to us

Parents have to do their jobs.

And as a society, we have to begin reemphasizing the notion of corporate responsibility.

[cali]

8. That's easy for you to say and it was easy for me to do

But I recognize that it's not that easy for most parents. Parents need help all the time. Wading through the products pushed to kids is hard for a lot of folks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Not easy at all, and I am sympathetic

But the end result is that the MPAA of the Video Game Manufacturers Organization or whoever ends up raising your kids to some degree.

The values expressed by ratings are usually closer to a parent's values than not, but they will never conform perfectly to a parent's standards.

Actually, I favor that socially, if not legally. I do not think parents should have complete control over their children's socialization. Society is the water we all have to swim in, and there is a proper tension between parental values and social values. (The child will not live her life in the context of her parent's values.)

The parent's values should be one (very strong) voice in the chorus.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. In practice, the industry will regulate itself to forestall censorship

That's how it has usually gone.

But the ratings cannot be mandated legally. (People have tried time and again to give MPAA rating legal weight, but it is an unconstitutional delegation of authority. The government cannot say it is illegal for a child to see something based on a private industry groups' opinion.)

In practice, you would have a situation where people could make unrated video games, but Walmart wouldn't carry them. So the marketplace forces manufacturers to buy into the rating system.

That's what Blockbuster did with the NC-17 rating. When blockbuster announced they wouldn't stock NC-17 movies that rating all but disappeared. There have been something like only 25 NC-17 ratings ever given out, because it is better to just skip the process and be unrated.

Businesses can compete for the family-friendly market just as they can compete for the blood-and-guts market, and concerned parents come to rely on Walmart or Blockbuster's editorial sensibilities.

Not ideal, but that's how these things shake out.

[MethuenProgressive]

6. kick & rec

:kick:

[JTFrog]

9. I have problems with a group of folks

who want to protect my kids from video game violence but have no trouble putting them in the actual line of fire in Iraq and Iran.

Those are some fucked up priorities.

[Recursion]

13. I wish ratings in general were more fine-grained

I know a lot of parents who don't like MPAA ratings because they are too hard on sex and too easy on violence (and I'm sure other parents feel the opposite). Maybe the best kind of rating would be a short review-like thing describing the rater's issues and reservations about the film/game. I guess that's hard to fit in a box, though.

Congrats on raising a kid TV-free, btw.

[killbotfactory]

16. Do we rate books?

Or is that an acceptable form of possibly violent entertainment?

[cali]

17. Alas, as a nation, we don't read anyway.

Look, Kurt changed my mind with his cogent explanation of why gov't mandated ratings are not a good thing, but I think comparing books to video games is specious. The best video game in the world is not as good as a a good book. And in a way, children's books are rated. Almost all of them tell you for which ages they're appropriate. As a mother I was fine with just about whatever my voracious reader kid picked up. At 14 he was reading everything from Burroughs to Banks to Fitzgerald to Vonnegut. And I was delighted. When at the same age he wanted Grand Theft Auto, my response was sorry, no.