Ministers plan clampdown on 'unsuitable' video games

A legally enforceable cinema-style classification system is to be introduced for video games in an effort to keep children from playing damaging games unsuitable for their age, the Guardian has learned. Under the proposals, it would be illegal for shops to sell classified games to a child below the recommended age.

At present only games showing sex or "gross" violence to humans or animals require age limits. That leaves up to 90% of games on the market , many of which portray weapons, martial arts and extreme combat, free from statutory labelling.

Ministers are also expected to advise parents to keep computers and games consoles away from children's bedrooms as much as possible, and ask them to play games in living rooms or kitchens facing outward so carers can see what is being played.

Ministers are also expected to recommend blocking mechanisms to protect children from seeing unsuitable games, emails or internet sites. Discussions have already been held with internet service providers to see if an agreement on a standardised filter can be reached.

A review of violence and video games has been commissioned by Gordon Brown from the former television psychologist Tanya Byron. She is officially due to report next month, but education and culture ministers have a sense of the report's direction. She has previously said she would examine the current classification system to see if it is confusing for parents.

The report's contents, which include a lengthy review of the literature on the impact of video games on children, has been discussed between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Ministers are anxious to strike a balance between the entertainment, knowledge and pleasure children gain from highly profitable internet and computer games, as well as the dangers inherent in the unregulated world of the net and its overuse by children.

Under the Video Recordings Act, most games are exempt from the British Board of Film Classification and only lose this exemption if they depict, to any significant extent, gross violence against humans or animals. Other games can be classified by a separate, entirely voluntary pan-European scheme administered by the Video Standards Council.

Policing such regimes is difficult as it is possible to buy games over the net and simply tick the box stating the purchaser is over 18.

A new British Standards Institution specification proposed by Ofcom, the communications regulator, and the industry is expected to allow the developers of filtering products to test them against the standard designed to protect children and other users from illegal or unsuitable content. Companies that pass the test will be able to display a child safety online kitemark.

Ministers hope the Byron review will act as a way of calming the debate about video games which has become increasingly polarised and based on prejudice. They say they are also willing to examine proposals made by a Tory MP earlier this week for an internet standards authority to be set up to ensure that service providers offer a two-tier system with users able to pick content suitable for adults or children.

In a further sign of Tory concern, Julian Brazier will bring forward a private member's bill this month giving powers for a new body to appeal against decisions of the BBFC in its classification of video games and DVDs.

Hugo Swire, a former shadow culture secretary, has suggested that the default setting for internet content would be for children, with a password or pin needed for unfiltered material.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...s.digitalmedia

yet more censorship, they need to educate parents, the fact is if a kid can tick a box online a buy the game, why do they have a card? if its the parents card then why are they not watching what they are doing. parents need to be more active with their kids and to watch what they are doing. the current age rating scheme is fine as if you are under that age you still wont be allowed to buy it BBFC or not. And as for the internet, it was designed for adults, not kids, although it seems to be going that way, im sure kids have better things to do than be on the web at a young age.

I've been playing games since i was 4 years old and i'm now 21. My parents have never really ever prevented me from playing any particular game i wanted to play. they educated me enough for me to know that real life violence etc is wrong.

I am living proof that games don't corrupt a child no matter how violent they are! the certification as it is is perfectly fine.

"At present only games showing sex or "gross" violence to humans or animals require age limits. That leaves up to 90% of games on the market , many of which portray weapons, martial arts and extreme combat, free from statutory labelling"


As for the above, why do games containing weapons or martial arts or extreme combat need to statutory labelling! they are the sort of things people and children can come across every day on the news, in childrens cartoons and whatever and it does no harm whatsoever.

If a child is being monitored frequently and being taught correct behaviour by his parents, video games and movies or tv shows the kid watches will not manipulate the child into a mean lean mass murdering machine - those kids are just mental in the first place.

so game ratings dont need to be enforced atm? im pretty sure shops do check them , at least have when ive bought games. this screams nanny state to me, people have to stop blaming exposure to content on other people, we should accept as a nation that people will see unsuitable things from time to time, and its our job to educate and regulate ourselves. after all, if parents took more interest in what games a child has on his/her console maybe they could prevent them bieng played and or bought if caught early enough.

This is pretty damn stupid. Don't they have more important things to worry about? Like global warming, or pollution, or depletion of the Ozone layer? Get you damn priorities strait.

Actually, if I read that right it means that games will now have age ratings that can be more heavily enforced which puts responsibilities on the retailer to uphold them. If that is the case, it doesn't actually sound that bad.

I do agree that parents need to be better educated and/or take responsibility to what their kids are reading, watching and playing. 'It's just a game' is a lousy excuse for ignorance.

Of course they can have a real life war and rape a country for their oil killing hundreds of thousands in the process.

Is this really about protecting children? Or is it about making a world of sissy people that let the government walk all over them?

I've been watching violence for years now, i still remember the terminator premiere on hbo in 85. And i have yet to hurt people or practice violence.

So this censorship crap, coming from a government that murders, assassinates, and rapes real life people, gets a thumbs down bonehead award.

Bush would say "stupidification accomplished".