October 27, 2006
The Washington, D.C. City Council is pushing ahead with legislation designed to block kids from buying violent video games.As reported by The Hill, the proposed law is known as the Youth Protection from Obscene Video Games Act.
Currently in committee, the measure is sponsored by Council member Adrian Fenty (left), who is expected to win election as D.C.'s mayor on November 7th.
The bill uses the industry's own ESRB ratings as a guide, which is legally problematic. Case law has established that a private standard cannot be the basis for public law.
Fines proposed under the bill could be up to $10,000 for those who sell M-rated titles to underage buyers. In addition, non-retailers (such as, say, parents) who provide M-rated games to a child under 17 could be hit with a $1,000 fine.
Councilman Fenty discounted the constitutional issues at a recent hearing:
"I'm, ready, willing, and able to pass this legislation and let the courts decide whether or not the video-game industry should be held to the same standard they’ve already agreed to.
Fenty has been working on the video game violence issue for some time. GamePolitics previously covered a June, 2005 hearing on the measure. A video of that proceeding (lengthy, but well worth watching) featrues testimony from the Peaceoholics community group as well as from the ESA and ACLU.
UPDATE: We apologoze for linking the wrong hearing. Here's the correct link...
Comments
The first time someone tries to arrest a church group for showing a group of kids "The Passion of the Christ" with parental consent, Fenty gets laughed out of office.
@ Hank the Tank
Bullying is something that catches most kids by surprise. They really have no consept of bullies before they meet one. I say we empower the kids, let them know that there are mean rotten people out there, teach them self worth at an early age, and teach them there is nothing wrong with a butt-kicking, or kicking a butt that deserves it.
@SlyFox
Christianity is like Communism. It always sounds so good on paper, but put it in the hands of people and it becomes dangerous.
@Zatch
I'm not saying the govenment should play nanny, I'm saying the gonvernment should play reproductive police. Parent licenses. There are s lot of people out there that should not be reproducing. Christianity introduced before a child can tell right from wrong is brainwashing of the worst kind. If you wanna be born again when you are 18, more power to you. If it were illegal to expose a child under 18 to Christianity, we'd have a lot fewer Christians and a lot more logical thinkers. Just like the tobacco companies say "Hook em young"
"Increasing the police force doesn’t do jack, they tried that. The goal is now to cut off the issue at the source."
Source please.
"I think a 4 year old should be able to play GTA and to hell with it even if he did kill somebody because of it. As long as the games are fine I don’t give a rats ass."
...So you're saying that if video games really did cause violence in kids you wouldn't care?
Also, I don't think a 4-year old should be playing GTA
"except with kids they immitate whatever they are shown/interact with, that’s part of being a child."
What is your definition of "kids"? I don't think you give them enough credit
There is also the "ounce of prevention is a pound of cure" logic to it as well.
Again I'm not for it. I'm a gamer, I think a 4 year old should be able to play GTA and to hell with it even if he did kill somebody because of it. As long as the games are fine I don't give a rats ass.
But I do understand why they want regulation on it, and why it's needed.
Rise in children stealing cars
Rise in children robbing people with guns
Several attacks/rapes commited by children on adults
All of these commited by teens and the jump just started recently…. about the time of GTA getting huge.
I’m not blaming GTA for it, but this is what people in DC want from Fenty.
Just about everybody that’s not a gamer (read everybody not bothering to post here) wants laws against violent games, and as soon as the government makes it’s own ratings system (since it can’t use the ESRB’s due to legal issues) they’ll have it.
Wait till 08, my dollar is on creating an effective legal way to fine retailers over games, to be one of the reasons the winner get’s elected. [/quote]
Instead of wasting money on unconstitutional legislation,simply increase the police force and funding for neighborhood watch programs. Increase the penalty for these crimes and I think you'll see a drop in the rates for those crimes. Simple and done.
This is about gaining ill informed voter support nothing more.
Do you honestly believe anything that you just said about Christianity? Young children are going to be good and bad regardless of religion; it's simply behavior. To put it in a very optimistic light, it's a learning experience for young children just like it is for young animals - bad behaviour results in action from the parents, thus the child learns what is socially acceptable.
As Hank said, your ideas on Christianity seems a bit off the mark. Please do a little research next time.
Barney caused Columbine
"Let me explain. Children were brought up in a seemingly loving environment. Too loving in fact. They were exposed to constant posative messages, never once were they told that there are jerks out there that will hate you just because they do. Everyone is going to be your friend. Fast forward to the school years. Kids encounter bullies, they don’t know what to do “These people are supposed to like me” they think. Then they have two routes to take; Introvert because they don’t understand why these people aren’t their friends like Barney said they would be or Become violent, beat these kids for not liking you."
So being told about bullying and before you experience it will make everything better? BS.
Your views on Christianity are a bit... skewed to say the least.
I believe God only forgives sins if a person is sorry for doing bad deeds. Also, not all Christians believe non-Christians are goin to hell. Christianity does not breed "insane irrational thinking", people do.
@ Mister Gone
You sound like the same type of person who wants the government to play nanny with everyone's kids. Oh, and Christianity isn't going to warp anyone's brain. I'm an atheist but I dislike it when people try to label all Christians as being brainwashed or anything of the sort.
The thing about games is since they are interactive they hold more influence then a book or a movie.
Ironically, this was given as a reason why TV was bad. Because without interaction, you were being "fed" thoughts. Made it much worse than books or radio, which involved you imagining the image...
Now maybe something else would set them off, but it might not be as bad.
I'm sorry, but the trigger has absolutely nothing to do with the severity of the action it finalizes. If it were true, then you could measure how severe a person's reaction will be to certain stimuli. Instead, reactions range all across the board.
Kids can unintentionally hurt themsleves or other while biking, playing football and hockey, so therefore those are bad for kids to, right?
"As for the game. Yes if the game wasn’t there something else could serve as the catalyst. However that doesn’t mean much. If a child wanted to hurt somebody and didn’t have a gun he could use a bat. Obviously one is much worse, and in America children handle both guns and bats safely all the time, it’s rare that something goes wrong."
The point i was trying to make was that kids who are violent or aggressive to begin with will be violent or aggressive regardless or whether the games are there for them to play or not. So while a game Might be a catalyst for some fucked up kid the fact is it's not the games fault for causing it aa another catalyst out there would effect him anyways.
"The thing about games is since they are interactive they hold more influence then a book or a movie. Now maybe something else would set them off, but it might not be as bad."
Bullshit! This is pure speculation and nothing else. There is no study that shows that interactive media has more of an effect then non-interactive
media. It COULD actually be the opposite and interactive media has less of an effect on kids as it may allows a release of their pent up aggression, frustration and anger from blasting characters in the game, leaving less of it after they're done playing.
It's not to far fetched look at itaily and franch they start teaching thier kids how to handle alcohol in their teens a glass or 2 with dinner once every other day or so is genaraly good for the body well whine is, beer and the like dont have the antioxidants in it,my point being parents have the right to teach thier kids what they want as long as its not harmfull to others within reason ,look at gun use and hunting its all the same thing,its within reason to keep M rated games out of the hands of "kids" however unlike guns and booze this is not a issue for the courts or for law makers the game industry is doing a good enough job at it.
Parents sadly even have the right to teach thier kids to dislike and hate others based on the stupidest things as long as they and the kids behave themslefs.
This really is a black and white issue ,its quite obvious that guns and booze need to be controlled thus they are controlled,games/media on the other hand has not been proven by the "world" to be worth making laws over unless you are a dictatorship or have vague censorship laws that let you ban game on grounds of promoting vandalism and to let a game based on greek mythos with alot of bloody demon splitting,yet to ban another game set in a fictional world based on bloody demon splitting.
My point is its good to have retailers not sell M/R media to kids because kids need guidance ,however we don't need laws or courts took into the mattler until most of the world thinks violence is porn so until the day hell freezes over the industry just need to enforce its age rating rules,the game industry gets a A- on doing it the movie industy gets a whopping c- even a D.
My question do you do you think that kids don't need to be at least shielded from violent media when they are by themslefs?
How would have have the industry deal with trying to keep age rules in place?
Ever feel like you know more about law than the people actually in office? I must say though, I like the tone The Hill article takes with this whole situation.
Besides the fact that similar laws have not worked in the past, the council has found a few things that aren’t true:
-depictions of rape and other violent sexual acts
Still haven’t seen one commercially available game in the US with this type of content.
-ESRB has determined that M and AO games aren’t appropriate for minors
Nope. They’re merely age recommendations. If you say it’s okay for your kids, it’s okay for your kids.
-The bill is dragging M and AO games into the Miller Test again.
We’ve seen that’s a no-no. Look at the name of the act for goodness sake. Youth Protection from Obscene Video Games. Sorry, but not all M and AO rated games are obscene. Not even a significant percentage.
Andrew Eisen
The false marketing regulations should apply to proposed legislation, too. Notice how mr. Fenty says this is a question of the video game industry holding to their own standards. It isn't, or at least it's a lot more than that. Fining parents for letting their children play violent games is a pretty strong intrusion by the government into completely private matters.
Also, note the title of the bill. Now, what is the case law concerning violence and obscenity again?
I can't wait til these mid-term elections are over and people leave this issue the hell alone again. For another two years, at least.
The ink won't even be dry before the injunction comes down on this one.
But since there's no way in hell a law like this will ever be allowed to pass, I'm not too worried.
Ok big brother step down, I agree with the poster above me I am all for stores not being able to sell M rated games to minors, but to sit their and fine parents for getting something for their kids? The government has no right to step in there.
I seriously doubt this will get passed, all I can say is keep an eye out on the ballots and vote to keep crap like this from passing.
I don't necessarily object to games rated Mature and up being limited to those 17+ when sold in stores. In Ontario, where I live, I believe this actually does have force of law and it hasn't really harmed the industry. However, fining parents for providing their children with M17+ games? What happens when little Tim's dad buys a copy of Gears of War for himself and Tim borrows it to go over to a friend's house? Is he liable for the "damage" this is going to do and thus, subject to a fine?
If you see Fenty, play Weird Al's "You're Pitiful" to him when this law is defeated.
Here it is on Youtube, in case you're not familiar with it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jNBlC4UMC8
Jeebus, do these people not know anything of precedent??
I’m, ready, willing, and able to pass this legislation and let the courts decide whether or not the video-game industry should be held to the same standard they’ve already agreed to
THEY'VE ALREADY DECIDED THAT!! The answer is NO. Would it be possible to get a REALLY big rolled-up newspaper and start beating these people on the faces with it? It works for dogs...
This is a lot like amending the constitution to make it illegal to burn the American flag. It will never happen, but everyone looks more patriotic trying.
Adam Fenty could try to draft a bill that would actually benefit parents and still be constitutional. Like telling retailers that they must post information about ratings, to educate parents. But Adrian Fenty won't do that, because "the children" aren't what he's thinking about.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaw.htm
Holy shit! That guy is a sick fucker!
Anyway, I don't want to drag this off topic so on the subject, if they are going to apply this to computer games, then the ONLY way they can even pretend to be doing anything other than victimisation is to apply it to ALL media types, anything other than that is purely sensationalism.
Gah, why do these politicians make such really stupid laws? Is it November 7th yet? My voting pen is getting itchy...
Fenty got into office largely due to his stance on games. DC has had a massive rise in youth crime (in specific car jackings, armed robbery, and assaults on women) since GTA came out.
So this isn't shocking at all.
If I want my children to live in a very spartan fashion then I can make them. If I think they can play a T rated game when they are 10 or a M rated game when they are 16, that is my choice. Take your fine and shove it.
The future me is a very very annoyed person.
The ESRB is mearly a tool for parents to use to see if a game is proper for their kid. If they beleive that their, say, 15-year old is mature enough for GTA, then what the gov. thinks is suitable for her child should not supercede theirs.
Have you talked to a kid today? Have you seen how they act? It's apparent that someone needs to tell parents how to raise their damn kids, they sure aren't doing it themselves.
So if you don't want video game legislation, vote republican, if you want it vote democratic.
In the end what happens will be decided by who we vote into power. Because if we vote enough liberal anti-gaming advocates into power we will get a government ratings system and some actual laws with bite (read fines) behind them.
If we vote the other side, we will be bogged down in this sort of legal BS till it goes away.