Age restrictions on silly things.

[Hawaiian Eskimo]

Age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco? Completely understandable, given that it can actually cause harm. Age restrictions on media and what's you're allowed to see?

What the hell?

This "protecting the children" crap is going too far. People seem to be forgetting that it's the job of the "parents" (these exist anymore?) to control what their kids see, not the job of businesses.

I recently went into Gamestop (remind me not to go there again) to buy Dead Space 2, an M rated game. Clerk told me I couldn't buy it, because I was only 16. So I left, and you know what? I went to another store, and they didn't even card me. If they obviously don't want my business, then I'm not going to go there anymore -.-".

Also recently (the event that led me to actually write this), I tried to watch a video on Youtube. Couldn't watch it, because I wasn't under 18 and I'm not the type of person who lies about that crap. And I don't see the point in creating a second account just to watch around 1 video a month.

The video in question? A god damn classical music piece. The video shows a little bit of skin, that's it. And yet you can go to another video, and listen to all the music you want about drugs, murder, and rape, without the age restrictions.

This is ridiculous.

[Rageaholic]

Yeah, a lot of age restrictions are just stupid. Like I hear movie theatres can get in trouble if they let a minor into an R rated movie. If that's true, then WTF? It's not the governments business what movies people see.

"protecting the children" has become "restricting they're rights".

[Andara Bledin]

One thing to remember as regards games and age restrictions is that the US has a voluntary system in place for restricting access to games because if we didn't, then the government would do it for us, and we really don't want that.

^-.-^

[Hawaiian Eskimo]

Yes, having the government requiring these age restrictions would be very bad indeed.

Although one of the bits I don't understand is why any business that wants to make money (all of them) would reject a sale from a customer for non-legally required reasons like this. To corporate, $60 should be $60, no matter who it comes from, right?

But if they want to shoot themselves in the foot and miss out on all that potential revenue from 16 year olds with money to burn, that's their right. I'll just give my money to a company that doesn't do that.

[Andara Bledin]

Again, to keep the government from getting into the act.

If stores don't follow age restrictions, then there will be regulations to force stores to follow them. So stores follow them so they won't have to worry about fines for not following them.

^-.-^

[BlaqueKatt]

Although one of the bits I don't understand is why any business that wants to make money (all of them) would reject a sale from a customer for non-legally required reasons like this. To corporate, $60 should be $60, no matter who it comes from, right?

Ah yes, but remember this is a highly litigious society we live in, and all it would take is one "parent" of a "speshil sneauxflayke" to sue or threaten to sue because of the "emotional distress" the child suffered.

[HYHYBT]

More generally... it's hard to get people worked up about an issue, even enough to make an issue of it, unless either it affects them directly or you can work the "for the good of the children" angle. And the people affected by age restrictions are mostly not eligible to vote. So tightening restrictions is going to be a safer bet for politicians in nearly all cases.

That's why you get restrictions on movies and such... but also the ones for alcohol and smoking (very small percentage of eligible voters are under 21, and very few of those bother with politics); it's why you get ridiculous restrictions on young drivers (there was a recent thread on this, but one item I don't think was mentioned is that in some states, if you're under a certain age an accident can cost you your license even if you were not at fault), etc.

[Hawaiian Eskimo]

What I love is that those wonderful laws are imposed on the portion of the population that *can't* vote, although that's a whole other subject deserving of its own thread.

There were wars fought over that, you know *eyeroll*

[blas87]

You can also thank politicians like Billary Clinton who are the first to blame video games and movies and music when there's a school shooting or massive newsbreaking violent scene somewhere.

[Cheshire]

Just one more example in the irony of a highly sexualized and prudish country.

[Plaidman]

Eh, there were people who were 16 or 17 that bought games that were age ristricted, got in trouble then blamed the games. Parents rather then being smart and punishing the kids for being stupid and trying to blame others sued the places that sold the age ristricted game.

You said it yourself in your OP that parents should decided what their kids can watch and do. So how do you prove that? Teens lie all the time. It's pretty damn easy to tell a clerk when your 15 "Oh yeah, my parents are fine with me watching/playing that" When in fact your parents are hardcore anti-games and don'te ven know you own a Playstation 3 that you snuck in.

Parents may decide what their under 18 kids can see and watch, but they aren't around them 24/7. What do you do if your a teen and buy something that your parents forbid you from doing? Do you get a refund? Too easy to get a game, copy it/beat it or wahtever, and then return it stating "oh my parents state I cant play this. Give me my money back".


Hope that's explained well....

As for drinking, I know that body hasn't really stopped growing at 18 nor your mental capiticies and all that good jazz. But I still love the fact that you can be ordered to murder for your country, you can die for your country, your 18 year old daughters can be paided huge amount of money to guzzle semen for porn movies, take several dicks in various holes, (Same with the gay porn). But my GOD! SHE DRANK BEER!!! ARREST HER NOW!! MY GOD! YOUR SOLDIER SON just got home from a tour where his entire company was blown to hell, and he had to murdered ten people with guns dares to drink a shot of whiskey?! ARREST him and fine him! How DARE he!

[Mytical]

People do not want to be responsible for anything, including parenting their children. It's all societies, teachers, other people's fault..its 'Not me', its everybody else.

There is also the fact that America is messed up. Yes, I am American. America seems obsessed with sex, violence, etc while making those subjects 'taboo'. Unfortunately almost all (not all mind) children go through a rebellious stage and anything they are told NO to..they want to do worse then anything. The more taboo it is, the more they want to do it. Heck heaven help you if you even hint you are having 'the talk' to a child. *sighs*

Combine that with the confusing message Plaidman talks about, and things get seriously messed up for kids. Instead of having frank, open discussions about things....wait getting back off track. Bottom line is, lack of information, making it taboo, and then expecting other people to raise their children is more to blame then anything. Of course this won't be admitted. It's some video game, or movie, or Dungeons and Dragons, or .. or ... or .... but its 'not me'. (I call the current era the 'Not me' era if you are wondering )

[Andara Bledin]

There's nothing "current" about the "not me" issue other than the fact that it's still going on.

Video games are just the current demon of society in a long litany that includes movies, TV, rock music, pool halls, radio, jazz, and square dancing. Next up: virtual reality sims.

^-.-^

[MadMike]

Eh, there were people who were 16 or 17 that bought games that were age ristricted, got in trouble then blamed the games. Parents rather then being smart and punishing the kids for being stupid and trying to blame others sued the places that sold the age ristricted game.

If I had been dumb enough to blame my behavior on a game, I know exactly what my parents would have said -- "Well, then you won't be playing that game anymore!"

[lordlundar]

At current, there is a fight between anti-violent game groups and the gaming industry as to whether or not violent video games are a cause of the problems in youth. This is not a new thing and the last time this was brought up, the ESRB was founded to serve as an industry sponsored and approved voluntary measure to essentially "throw a bone".

This fight has brewed up again, thanks in no small part to the Columbine Massascare and Sony vs. Strickland, where both times blame for the murderous actions of the people involved has been blamed on violent video games. It has become so invasive that with every mass shooting that occurs, there is someone ready to say "violent games are the cause!" and someone will believe it, usually a politician of sorts. And then comes the push for a government mandated system or a legal enforcement of the ESRB (both of which are actually in violation of the 1st amendment in fact) which tend to be rushed and/or poorly researched which does nothing but cost taxpayers money.

So how bad are they wanting this? After the hurricane ripped apart most of Louisiana, the politicians there shelved a bill to supply funding to reinforce the levies just to give priority on a failed anti-games bill. The government of Oklahoma lost their bill in court and had to pay the legal fees for both sides, all of which came from taxes. And right now, the bill drafted by Leeland Yee of California is in the Supreme Court awaiting verdict. Meanwhile the state of California is broke but instead of fixing the problems there, he is intent on wasting more time and money passing this bill.

To date, there has not been a study indicating that violent games cause violent behavior. There have been tons to show a correlation, but most are horribly done pieces of toilet paper anyways. So how does the gaming industry and gaming community keep these legal attack dogs away and avoid the same crap that was the Comics Code Authority which effectively killed the comics industry for about 50 years? By showing to these freaks that there is no need for it by showing that the voluntary system is successful and working as intended.

So I'm sorry that your disappointed that Gamestop wouldn't let you buy the game, but at least if you can get your parent's permission, you can still buy the game. Consider that if the politicians had their way, you would be banned from it regardless of what your parent says, or that there wouldn't be the game available in the first place as most publishers wouldn't produce games that they couldn't put on the shelves.