WP1: Is legal regulation on video games justifiable?
What would be the most concerning problem for many teenage gamers in the world? Surprisingly, for many passionate teenage gamers in the world enjoying various types of games, one of the contexts that matters the most is the video and online game regulations by the government. Most countries follow the ESRB rating system, which is to provide information about what is in a game for the consumers so that consumers can make informed choices. However, certain countries, in addition to the ESRB rating system, follow government-led game-related regulations that could be seen as different from national and international perspectives. In other words, some countries, from a national perspective, seem to have a different answer to the key question: Should games be regulated by the government?
Two of the famous countries for government-led game regulations, China and South Korea, seemingly have similar structures of the regulation. Both countries, by law, focus on limiting adolescents’ gaming hours. For South Korea, the ‘Forced Shutdown System’ existed starting from November 20th, 2011, announcing that “Internet game providers shall not provide Internet games to adolescents under the age of 16 from 0 a.m. to 6 a.m.” by the law. The law existed until January 1st, 2022, and reformed itself to another law of ‘Game Time Selection System, also known as the ‘Selective Shutdown System’. The changed form allowed the adolescents to allow activate the shutdown system at the time adolescents want, with the permission of the parents. China, on the other hand, applied stricter legislation that “teenagers can only play games between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends and holidays”, announced by the National Newspaper Publishing Bureau (NPPA), which is in charge of online game deliberation in China, on August 30th, 2021. On this issue of game time regulations, some say that government should provide systems and legislations in relation to game time limitation because adolescents are individuals to be protected. However, such a compulsory system can be considered as a kind of overprotection, and instead, enforced game time regulation is not necessary as it is against the international laws related to youth human rights and right to freedom and these laws help teenage individuals to learn about freedom of choice and to manage their own time between academics and stress relief.
Although adolescents are individuals to be protected, this kind of overprotection using the regulation system or compulsory measure is a violation of youth human rights and a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Therefore, the system of regulating internet game time of the youth could be seen as a violation and regulation of the right to freedom. Moreover, adolescents who paid money to purchase games properly own the games they purchased as property. Thus, the ‘Shutdown system’, could be seen as a system that violates the right to freely control the property of adolescents under the age of 19. Despite the issue related to human rights, others may argue that the creation of game time regulation was inevitable due to the different national viewpoints based on such competitive academic atmosphere of the country. Therefore, while teenagers obviously reacted negatively to these legislations, many of the adults, mostly the parents, fairly welcomed the game-time limiting system, as parents were concerned about internet games, which was described as “an opium of the soul,” by the media. Then, with adults concerned about various negative effects that games have on teenagers, are there any merits to the claim that young video game buyers should be able to play whenever they want?
While online games may become an obstacle for students’ academic performance, there is also a merit that online games could function as stress-relieving entertainment. In fact, engaging and enjoyable gaming habit reduces stress by triggering dopamine secretion, allowing one to feel pleasure, satisfaction, and motivation. Moreover, gaming can create a flow state, that is similar to meditation. Adding on, as students run a marathon for their acceptance into the university they want, video games could provide them with instant rewards, which help to reduce the stress of achieving long-term goals. It is true that excessive games will interfere with their academic achievements, but it will be more helpful to encourage them to learn their own time management through freedom of choice to plan a time balance between academic work and stress relief, rather than forcibly restraining their gaming time by various systems and legislations. Legal regulations also will call for will of disobedience by teenagers who are in puberty, creating a chance that the legislation could work contrary to the original intention by the government. Therefore, rather than legitimately limiting the game time of adolescents by law or system, informing them to think about spending and planning their time so that playing games does not affect their academic behaviors and grades could potentially be a better solution for both the present and future of adolescents.
It is evident that adolescent children are less restrained than adults and internet games could lead to impulsive crimes or actions. For this reason, in developed countries and other countries, it may be possible to protect adolescents from falling into antisocial behavior or deviations, and regulate to some extent what is expected to be harmful when teenagers encounter. However, as the gaming time regulation, or the ‘shutdown system’ is not a law that regards adolescents as human beings and suppresses unexpected accidents or deviations, but simply attempts to regulate teenagers as parents or society’s property, exclude youth opinions, and if they tempt to not want the law, the government is more likely to regulate and criticize them regardless of such international laws related to the youth human rights and right to freedom. Therefore, game time regulation is legislation that is opposed to the exemplary method of teaching oneself to be autonomous and aware of deviations. The fact that the system violates and regulates the right to freedom rather than respecting it shows that the game time limiting system is not needed in society at all, regardless of national circumstances and the competitive academic atmosphere.
Bibliography
1. Lee, Jiyeon. “South Korea Pulls Plug on Late-Night Adolescent Online Gamers.” CNN, Cable News Network, 22 Nov. 2011, https://www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/world/asia/south-korea-gaming/index.html.
2. Brooke, Sofia. “What to Make of the New Regulations in China’s Online Gaming Industry.” China Briefing News, 29 Dec. 2021, https://www.china-briefing.com/news/what-to-make-of-the-new-regulations-in-china-online-gaming-industry/.
3. Lal, Kabir. “Do Video Games Reduce Stress? (Backed by Research).” Healthy Gamer, https://www.healthygamer.gg/blog/do-video-games-reduce-stress.
