Over the last month or so, we have seen a law in California about selling violent video games to minors being upheld as unconstitutional, as well as a veto by Gov. Hunstman of Utah Bill H.B. 353, which also sought to regulate the sale of violent games to minors. The defeat of these attempted measures has clearly left parents with the responsibility to be involved in their childrens video game purchases and playing.

In both of these cases, the voluntary rating system established by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was pointed to as a system that is already in place that helps retailers, parents and kids understand what content is found in a particular video game and why the rating has been applied to these games. Nearly 100% of video games sold through retailers today has the ESRB rating clearly printed on the packaging. Responsible parents should learn to use these ratings in the same way they have for movies using the voluntary movie ratings system.

Besides the well known ESRB ratings like E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature, the ESRB goes into greater detail about the content found in the game by using 'Content Descriptors'. Here is a look at what categories these fall into:

• Alcohol Reference - Reference to and/or images of alcoholic beverages   
• Animated Blood - Discolored and/or unrealistic depictions of blood    
• Blood - Depictions of blood    
• Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts    
• Cartoon Violence - Violent actions involving cartoon-like situations and characters. May include violence where a character is unharmed after the action has been inflicted    
• Comic Mischief - Depictions or dialogue involving slapstick or suggestive humor  Crude Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving vulgar antics, including “bathroom” humor    
• Drug Reference - Reference to and/or images of illegal drugs    
• Fantasy Violence - Violent actions of a fantasy nature, involving human or non-human characters in situations distinguishable from real life    
• Intense Violence - Graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict. May involve extreme and/or realistic blood, gore, weapons and depictions of human injury and death    
• Language - Mild to moderate use of profanity    
• Lyrics - Mild references to profanity, sexuality, violence, alcohol or drug use in music    
• Mature Humor - Depictions or dialogue involving "adult" humor, including sexual references    
• Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity    
• Partial Nudity - Brief and/or mild depictions of nudity    
• Real Gambling - Player can gamble, including betting or wagering real cash or currency
• Sexual Content - Non-explicit depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including partial nudity
• Sexual Themes - References to sex or sexuality    
• Sexual Violence - Depictions of rape or other violent sexual acts    
• Simulated Gambling - Player can gamble without betting or wagering real cash or currency    
• Strong Language - Explicit and/or frequent use of profanity    
• Strong Lyrics - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol or drug use in music    
• Strong Sexual Content - Explicit and/or frequent depictions of sexual behavior, possibly including nudity    
• Suggestive Themes - Mild provocative references or materials    
• Tobacco Reference - Reference to and/or images of tobacco products    
• Use of Drugs - The consumption or use of illegal drugs    
• Use of Alcohol - The consumption of alcoholic beverages    
• Use of Tobacco - The consumption of tobacco products    
• Violence - Scenes involving aggressive conflict. May contain bloodless dismemberment    
• Violent References - References to violent acts

These detailed breakdowns of what a consumer can expect to find in a game are a great tool to help parents make decisions on not only if a games rating is appropriate, but why it is rated for that age.

Parents should also use valuable video game reviews at Web sites like:

What They Play
GamerDad: Gaming With Children
Common Sense Media

In attempting to help parent manage these game playing decisions, Net Nanny is proud to be the first parental control software solution to set age-based gaming restrictions using the ESRB rating system and the first to block desktop PC games based on the above content descriptors.



This new feature is continuing to involve and improve as Net Nanny is continually updated, as always your feedback on this new feature is valued and appreciated. You can leave a comment or send us an email here.

Last month I blogged about how the Australian government's decision to drop the educational NetAlert program and move forward with mandatory ISP filtering would do little to help protect families down under from the dangers on the Internet. 

To the surprise of many, including myself, it appears that the plan "has effectively been scuttled" according the the Sydney Morning Herald.  The fallout appears to come from independent Senator Nick Xenophon's decision to join the Greens and Opposition in blocking any legislation required to get the scheme started.

"The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has consistently ignored advice from a host of technical experts saying the filters would slow the internet, block legitimate sites, be easily bypassed and fall short of capturing all of the nasty content available online," the Morning Herald stated. On the heels of this, Senator Conroy still plans on moving ahead with the trial and even expanding it's scope outside of blocking illegal web site content. Senator Conroy recently said there was "a very strong case for blocking" other legal content that has been "refused classification." According to the classification code, this includes sites depicting drug use, crime, sex, cruelty, violence or "revolting and abhorrent phenomena" that "offend against the standards of morality".

Besides facing opposition from online consumers, lobby groups, ISPs, network administrators, some children's welfare groups, the Opposition, the Greens, NSW Young Labor and even the conservative Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who famously tried to censor the chef Gordon Ramsay's swearing on television, Senator Conroy faces the toughest battle against the families he believes he is protecting. A poll from 2 weeks ago found that only 5 per cent of Australians want ISPs to be responsible for protecting children online and only 4 per cent want Government to have this responsibility. Parents actuallly want to take responsibility for what content their children consume. 

Parental control?
Imagine that.

A very enlightening analytical report has come out of the European Union, conducted by the Gallup Organization, upon the request of Directorate General Information Society and Media. You can read the full report here.

This survey was designed to study parents views about their children's use of the Internet, to determine parents strategies to supervise their child's Internet usage and their own awareness of safety measures.

Some results of note:

• Half of the parents who did not use the Internet themselves said that their child had online access. Nine out of 10 children – who were Internet users – accessed it from home.   
• The biggest risk in parents eyes (65%) was that their child might see sexually or violently explicit images on the Internet: 45% were very worried.   
• Parents in all countries mentioned that they have various rules and restrictions when their child used the Internet. For example, approximately eight out of 10 parents listed online shopping, talking to people that their child did not know in real life and spending a lot of time online as activities that were not allowed for their child.    
• Almost three out of 10 Dutch parents (28%) and a quarter of the parents in the UK (24%) said that, when their child asked for their help, this was because they had been contacted by a stranger, were bullied or harassed online or saw violently or sexually explicit images online.  

On the use of monitoring and filtering software

• Half of the parents participating in this survey answered that they had installed filtering software on the computer that their child used at home. Monitoring software was not as popular, but was still used by almost four out of 10 parents (37%).    
• There was considerable variation across countries in the use of monitoring and filtering software: more than half of the British parents used such software compared to only 5% of the parents in Romania and Bulgaria.  

Reasons for not using monitoring and filtering software

• More than six out of 10 parents – who did not use filtering or monitoring software – simply saw no need for such software since they trusted their child on the Internet. Fourteen percent of the parents who did not use filtering or monitoring software did not know how to obtain or use it. Only a minority (3%) did not use such software because they did not believe in its efficiency.  

There are many observations that come from reading this detailed look across the countries that make up the EU about cultural differences and parental perspectives. One that sticks out to me is how many parents trust their kids on the Internet, without using the Internet themselves. This is a generation gap that must be crossed. As a parent, I find this issue to be particularly troubling. I trust my kids, and I know what TV shows, movies, games and books my kids read or view, I know what friends they are talking to on the phone or whose house they are at...why wouldn't I want to know what they are doing online?