Chanel Hawks
English 102.003
Dr. Kathleen Hellen
December 10, 2016
It’s the Parents Job to Control the Violent Content Their Children are exposed to in Video Games
As an active college student and an avid gamer with young children I was recently forced to consider it’s the parents’ job to control the violent content my child is exposed to in video games. My 10 year old was involved in a school fight over an online video game interaction with a classmate that ended in the classmates’ characters death. Unbeknownst to me my son double crossed his friend in order to win. The gamer in me was delighted that he made such an executive decision and now holds the winners title but the mom in me was appalled at this cut-throat behavior and pure carelessness for a friend. How could my child do this to another child? Why did this child feel the need to go as far as fighting to express his feelings? Did my son ask for the fight in a hypothetical sense? I knew immediately it was ultimately my fault. I, as his mom, am responsible for my child. It’s the parents the job to control the violent content their children are exposed to in video games.
Often as parents we point fingers at everyone else who could possibly have a hand in controlling these issues to lessen the blow of the facts. One who constantly takes on much of the blame without merit is the government. It has been tried many times in court to pin the blame on the government so they can prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors. In a Supreme Court ruling on June 27th, 2011 Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association, the court struck down a California law that barred minors from buying or renting any game with an “M” rating or higher. There are a number of game ratings stemming from “EC” for Early Childhood, to “M” for mature, to “AO” for adult only. These ratings warn parents and inform children of the content displayed in the game. The ruling was stemmed from the law being unconstitutional in the eyes of the government. The states should have no authority in restricting ratings to which children are exposed to. Even if laws were passed, only 9% of the smallest portion of the video game market would be barred from purchasing. (Wilkens, par. 13)
It’s the parents job to monitor the child’s actions when video games are involved. The children rarely purchase video games for themselves and if they do the parents have more than likely given them the money for the purchase. The children then go home to play the game all under the care of their parents or guardians. Parents have direct contact with the children every day and can heavily influence the child’s behavior. Pointing fingers at anyone else just seems unethical in this case.
Game makers and marketers have been on the front line of this controversy for decades. Many parents and government officials point the finger at them for being responsible for children being exposed to the violence in video games, government officials have been called upon for action as well. Where is the parent’s responsibility in this matter? Parents have pointed fingers for a long time but not accepting the responsibility of their own actions. A Logan, Los Angeles video game store owner by the name of Scott McUne says, “It is not our job to be parents,” as he came under fire for the sale of “M” rated video games to teenagers. (Ferguson, par. 4). An “M” rating means mature audiences only and carries an age limit of 17. McUne says he assumes his mid-teen customers have been instructed on proper video game consumption. (Ferguson, par. 4). This assumption as with many officials and video game makers and marketers comes natural. No one has a more important job to protect the children than their parents. Parents may argue that children can play these video games at a friend’s house, parties, school, or arcades. Seriously parents, who spend more time with their children than you? Many children and by children, I mean anyone under the age of 18, are easily influenced. From a parent to another parent, we know that. It is our job to protect them from things that may cause them harm or aid them in causing themselves harm. This brings me to a case on parents blaming others for not controlling the violent content their children were exposed to. In June 2003 Parents of Alabama teen Devin Moore filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the makers and marketers of Grand Theft Auto. This is an extremely popular video game among teens still today. Their claims were Moore spent months playing the game, secluding himself in his room for hours upon end, grades slipping in school, little social interactions, until ultimately killing 3 public servants. Now I can’t, for the life of me, understand how this is the fault of the makers and marketers of Grand Theft Auto. Moore’s parents allowed him to come home from school every day, go to his room, turn on Grand Theft Auto, and play said game until bedtime. Only to do the same thing every day for the next few months. Moore was 15 at the time. The outcome to him playing this video was him acting out a scene completely from the video game. On June7, 2003 Moore walked up to a vehicle waiting at a red light. He yanked a man from it and proceed to joyride around town. He was then pulled over by police and taken into custody. As Moore waited to be processed, uncuffed, he lunged at the officer filing his documents, took his gun and shot him at point blank range in the head. He proceeded down the hall as another officer came running after hearing the shot, Moore then shot him at point blank range in the head. Moore then continued to the dispatchers’ office and shot him 5 times, once in the head. (Wilkins, par. 1). Grand Theft Auto style as every gamer knows. This was said to be a trained killing spree by the parents, who also said he was taught by the video game itself such accuracy and ruthlessness. The parents did not win the case and Moore was tried as an adult. As parents, your job is to protect your children from the violent content they are exposed to. No one has more influence over them than you.