March 28, 2007
GTA ads can remain on buses and trains in the Denver area.As reported by the Rocky Mountain News, directors of the Regional Transportation District (RTD) rejected a campaign led by the Parents Television Council and the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood to ban ads for games rated M and above.
Similar bans are already in place in Boston and Portland, Oregon. As in Boston, it was a series of ads for GTA: Vice City Stories which prompted the call for future restrictions. Currently the RTD only excludes advertising for tobacco products.
According to the Rocky Mountain News, the Operations, Customer Service and Marketing Committee of the RRD recommended the ban. But the board, after meeting with an attorney in private, voted 12-3 to allow the game ads. Said board member John Tayer:
It was a tough decision because I think our hearts as a board were with trying to limit exposure to advertisements that promote violence. But the overwhelming weight of the legal advice was that if we pursued this, we would face an uphill battle in court.
ESA representative Peggi O'Keefe spoke to the RTD board, calling the ban:
...both unnecessary and unconstitutional. This proposal . . . would restrict fully protected expression on the basis of content," she said. "Such restrictions are constitutionally impermissible.
Comments
Now if only the other cities in Colorado would follow suit...
Wait, Correction: victory against those who would look like they care about the children.
Don't get your hopes up. The Denver DA has said that he still intends to prosecute any and all possession of marijuana under the State statute, which still stands as of the last election.
As for the article itself: "Similar bans are already in place in Boston and Portland, Oregon"...Ahhh, Portland. You can burn US soldiers in effigy, defecate in public...but you better not display ads for mature video games on public transit...Portland, one of the few cities able to make Boulder, CO look boringly normal.
kinda feels like the twilight zone
Seriously, hooray for common sense.
Someone explain that one to me. I'd expect an advertisement that promotes violence to some something like, "Go out and shoot someone today! Buy a gun!" not an ad that shows a few illustrations and some text. Because, if I'm not mistaken, box art does not promote violence.
I think this entire situation would've never happened if the transit authorities didn't believe the hype that videogames cause violence (even though teen crime rates and violence in general is incredibly low compared to years passed).
At least they made the smart choice here for a couple of the right reasons, but honestly, they shouldn't even nbe considering violent content. It's not something you can debate and yet several other states have already cut themselves off from a major source of revenue because they can't take the 2 seconds to rationalize the choices.
yes, but they weren't being consistant nor fair about it.
an M-rated game is equivalent to an R rated movie.
or to put it better: why can't you advertise a Sopranos game, but you can advertise the Sopranos TV show? that's inconsistant.
It's obvious the real reason here is money. They don't want to restrict ads for the best-selling games. Successful games mean continued ad revenue. M-games are the best selling, for the most part, and something the PTC doesn't realize is that it indicates that general consensus is PRO-Mature-rated games. God of War II would be terrible if they made the content fit "T" for example.
So in summary, read beyond the public statements as they boil down to:
1) Game ads are a major source of ad dollars
2) Our riders are mostly adults
3) The ads themselves are not M-rated (see the cover of Vice City Stories, it has NO violent or overtly sexual content)
4) The PTC does not represent our best interests.
The PTC drives me bonkers. It goes like this: if you agree with the PTC as an individual, use their advice. If you don't agree, ignore them. Recognize the PTC is a very small percentage of a minority of Americans (which can be proven statistically).
Now if we could get the governments to do the same.
It's like saying ban all adverts for cars because they might be dangerous in the wrong hands (a lot more dangerous than a computer game in fact).
So, yes, this is a good decision.
Surely they're allowed to have policies on what is and isn't permitted as long as they're consitent and fair.