This message is regarding the proposed legislation to prohibit children from buying or renting games that are violent and sexually explicit.
I have some questions regarding the new laws you are proposing. To my knowledge, there are no laws that prevent children from reading, buying, or otherwise getting access to books with violent or sexually explicit content. There are no laws that do the same regarding television programs or movies. Self-regulation there is deemed effective by your administration and so apparently no laws are needed, yet in your press release you cite studies that show such content in these other mediums are also dangerous.
Also, while you cite studies that show it is possible for children to get access to the video games in question, you don't cite studies that show that a significant majority of underage children get the permission of the parents to buy games with an M rating, or the studies that show that most purchases for the games in question are already being made by parents and not children. If this is the case, why is the law needed to prevent something that isn't happening, and why do you cite studies in a manner that suggest otherwise?
Also, I would like some clarification about the wording of your laws. While you are specifically targetting excessively violent and sexually explicit video games, I read somewhere that the wording of the laws would technically label any video game that displays someone getting hurt by someone else as "excessively violent". Such games would include Super Mario Bros, Donkey Kong, Deer Hunter, and Pikmin, which depict characters hurting others but can be said to not be "excessively violent". If you continue to push for these laws, will such wording be made more accurate and more focused on the games you are meant to target?
I don't believe your laws will actually prevent children from playing games that are violent or sexually-explicit. They target a specific industry even when other industries are also as big of an influence. This fact alone makes your laws questionable. The intended effect they have will be minimal since they ban children from buying/renting games even though they already don't do so on their own. Also, if the wording is as bad as I've heard, it will lump decent, more appropriate games into the same mix as the games your press releases explicitly target.
I also think that there is a chance that this will actually cause more problems for parents because the perception the law creates is that the children are protected. This is a dangerous perception to create since the law will not only be ineffective at preventing children from playing games deemed objectionable, but it may also allow parents to become more lax regarding the games their children play.
There are studies that show that parents already make the majority of the video game purchases for children under the age of 17. A law that requires it isn't necessary. Why make them when a more productive thing to do is inform parents of the games that are questionable? Why make them when a more productive thing to do is make use of the site http://www.safegamesIllinois.org to provide such information?
While I agree that games that are rated M should not be marketed to children, I also think that parents are ultimately the ones that are making the decision to buy such games. If your administration is already saying that it is effective for the movie industry to self-regulate itself, an industry that your administration also says has content that can cause harm to minors, I do not understand why laws should be applied to one industry and not the other.
Thank you, and I look forward to your responses to my questions.
Gianfranco Berardi
"Please send us your thoughts and comments so we can work together to help pass this much needed legislation and help parents protect their children from violent and sexually explicit video games."
To do so, go here. It's unfortunately hard to navigate to that point.