May 22, 2007
Four days.That's how long it took from introduction to passage for a video game bill currently before the New York State Senate.
Rep. Andrew Lanza (left) introduced the measure, S05888, just last Thursday. A press release issued yesterday by Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno trumpeted the passage of the bill, saying:
The New York State Senate today passed legislation, sponsored by Senator Andrew Lanza (R-I, Staten Island), that would take steps to crack down on video game violence, and combat and reduce children's exposure to violent and inappropriate materials within these games.
The bill (S.5888) would establish the Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence to review the [ESRB] rating system and its effectiveness, and recommend additional steps that can be taken to curb children's access and exposure to such "adult-only" material...
The bill would also require New York State's retailers to place ratings labels on all video games, and establish a Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games...
Speaking in support of his bill, Sen. Lanza apparently couldn't resist drawing on the shock value of controversial amateur game V-Tech Rampage (which he mistakenly refers to as V-Tech Massacre), even though his legislation would have no effect at all on this non-industry, non-retail, non-rated, non-professional Flash game:
The recent release of 'V-Tech Massacre,' a sick game which exploits the Virginia Tech University tragedy, is a painful reminder of the culture of violence which has severe consequences on our youth and society...
Not mentioned in the press release, but highly problematic for the New York bill, is section S 614, which incorporates the kind of content-based retail restrictions which have doomed so many other bills to the First Amendment scrap heap:
No person, partnership, or corporation shall sell or rent or attempt to sell or rent at retail a video game in contravention of the rating affixed thereto
The measure now goes to the State Assembly for consideration.
Comments
"The program will also seek to increase awareness of the ratings system on games, and the importance of appropriate parental supervision."
Exactly what a lot of us have been saying here for so long. It is up to the parents. Likewise games, if a parent buys Grand Theft Auto without knowing or caring what the game content is like (clue is in the name really!) and then lets their child play it in their room where they cannot see what is happening on the screen, then the parent is completely to blame.
However, aside from this one positive step toward actually helping the situation and promoting understanding, the usual foolish and unworkable notions are present.
"under current State law, there is no requirement that retailers place labels on video games sold in New York."
Call me stupid, but as far as I know, if you wish to sell your game through a retailer, it MUST have an ESRB rating? These labels are ALREADY on the games, the problem is that they are ignored.
"The panel, which will include parents, educators, experts in child psychology, child welfare advocates, concerned citizens and industry representatives"
Now this worries me. They claim they want to educate parents and teachers, which is good. But then in determining whether or not the ESRB is doing a good job, they are including the same parents and teachers who already don't understand it? Concerned citizens? This sounds like it's going to be Reverend Lovejoy's wife... I understand that they have to take into account the views of different people, but asking these groups to be involved in evaluating the ESRB rating system is like asking Fred Phelps to be on a comittee about gay marriage. It screams bias and appears to me to be pandering to these groups for publicity and approval.
"Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision, and we cannot sit back and allow them to be exposed to this senseless violence anymore."
Here he hits the nail right on the head about what the problem is. No adult supervision. Not the game content. Not the fact that if they wish, a company can make a video game containing adult or mature content. The fact that parents are sitting back and using video games as baby sitters, when they are completely out of touch with video games as a medium.
If Mr Lanza cut down this bill to just the educational part, I believe it would be a positive thing. All they have to do is instill a few facts in parents' heads:
Video games are not just for children.
For this reason, there are video games with mature content, like books, movies, music, etc.
Children should only pay age appropriate games, just as they should only read age appropriate books, watch appropriate movies, etc.
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to monitor your children's consumption of media and ensure they do not read/see/listen to/play anything they should not.
There are ways of finding out what games are appropriate and it is up to you to use these tools to make an informed decision.
That would be too much like laying the blame at the parent's feet (where it belongs), and that will not go over to well with voters. Henceforth, they have to castigate and condemn the video game industry, set up a comittee to ensure they are doing a good job, enforce a law which will lead to information being printed where it already exists and take the focus of the problem away from parents which is defeating the purpose completely.
...
the overall cost comes down to how quickly it gets shot down in court... the faster it gets shot down, then the less hours the game industries lawers get to work and be payed for... lets hope for a quick court death.
Y'know, times like these i can't help but wonder where all the gov't lawers are and what they saying; particularly the AG... are they just blindly nodding 'yes' to what the politicans want to do, or are they saying 'no' and then banging their heads against the wall as the politicans ingore them...
Kinda wish our AG was as active as the one in Utah...
I work in the industry, and if im writing for an 18 rated game, I dont want the expletive loaded dialog and violent content im making to be seen by young kids. We can say 'its the parents responsibility to control what their kids see' until we're blue in the face, but we just end up looking hypocritical when we say we want to to keep these games out of the hands of kids, but then argue against measures that help solve the situation.
Over here if the media/politicians start railing against violent video games, I feel confident that we can turn around and fight our corner saying we do all we can to stop mature content games falling into the hands of children. Surely as long as the industry resists this kind of bill in the US, you're just opening yourselves up to a never ending battle where gamers will come across as the enemy?
So please someone explain to me, what exactly do we gain by fighting these actions?
It's funny how this has never happend in Norway. In fact, the only time games have been mentioned in the media as something negative was GTA: Vice City (described as chainsaw murders on pregnant women). Other mentions have been netrual or positive, and murder has yet to be connected.
Feel your pain friend. You guys across the pond tend to have a bit of trouble with the way out legal system works. I'll try and break it down simply for you but it's way early and I'm tired.
1. First amendment: To my understanding, your version of this law is far weaker and less respected then ours. IN america, the First is pretty much the Hard FAST rule. You break it, you bought it, and it's defense has been central in the death of every single game bill to date.
2. Equal Protection: I don't remember which amendment this was, 4 or 14, but it's exsistance has been a major hurdle for these laws. As current, all media in america, save for public tv, tends to be rated by industry instead of government, since government censorship here is viewed with nothing short of contempt. Don't know how it is over there, but the whole big brother thing? Doesn't fly well over here. So when these bill attack ONLY video games, not movies, music or tv, they run afoul of Equal Protection under the law and usually end up canned.
3. Precidence: I think thats how it's spelled. Every time a bill is beaten, the ruling against it becomes one more weapon the industry can stack against future bills. Since the same law can't be tried twice without being gored and remade, beating one helps beat the next, and the next, and so on. Eventually, so much precident will build up, that it's pointless to even try to legislate games. It happened with movies in the 60's and 70's!
Finally, America has a different mentaility then you all. We hold the idea of "less government" sacred, least some of us do. While over seas many places, UK, Germany, Middle East, and more, excersize strict control over media, America rejects government authority in the lives of it's citizens, and has been doing so for 200 plus years. Yes, theres been some exceptions, but 10 times now, games have not been one of them.
With this bill, it will be 11.
You all may like having government run your media. We don't, we wont take it, and the ESA makes sure it doesn't happen.
And so far? They never LOST!
So, the videogame industry will file suit, win this and have New York pay for braking the law.
"we just end up looking hypocritical when we say we want to to keep these games out of the hands of kids, but then argue against measures that help solve the situation."
How will the creation of a comittee to investigate the ESRB help solve the situation? The ESRB is the most powerful and straightforward tool that parents and guardians have in determining whether or not a game is suitable for their children (outside of going on the internet and doing some research, but I'm talking about in a store when the kids brings you the game and says "I want this one!"). Criticising and casting doubt on the ESRB ratings (which I have no doubt this comittee will do, seeing as they intend to include people and groups who are either biased or ignorant about the subject of video games), will lower parents' trust in them, when instead they should be promoting the ratings system and explaining it to people.
Adding another superfluous sticker/rating to the game only serves to muddy the water even further.
No-one is arguing against keeping violent video games out of children's hands, we are only pointing out that the way they are trying or suggesting to do it is at worst based on lies/bias/self promotion, or at best unenforcable. Will they have a little squad going into every single video games store in New York, checking every single copy of every single game to make sure this unnecessary rating label is present?
How will a comittee of biased and uninformed people working to "recommend additional steps that can be taken to curb children’s access and exposure to such “adult-only” material" be helpful or constructive in any way. We ALREADY know what steps can be taken to curb kid's access to inappropriate media, the problem lies in the fact that parents will not take, or do not understand this responsibility!
It's not "Virginia Tech University". It's either "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University" or just "Virginia Tech".
Also, the law is obviously unconstitutional, at least for focusing on video games instead of all media, and also probably for violation of free speech (depending on the exact provisions of the law).
I do kind of understand how you feel, and as a natural libertarian myself, I can sympathize with the desire for not wanting government interference. However when it comes to artistic freedom, over here we have it appears more license than many forms of media in the US. Television here for instance, is far more provocative than American network TV, and as Sidewinder from Norway said, we dont really get games being attacked by our media, except in certain extreme cases. The fuss in the US over a few very poorly animated sex minigames in the Hot Coffee mod (a mod for an already mature rated game, lets not forget) was pretty much incomprehensible over here.
As for the legal angle, I do see your point, but I think the crux of my question is 'why is it the industry that is defending these actions?'. As the law is so firmly on our side, we probably never will lose one of these cases, but why are we taking sides on this, when it gives us nothing but bad publicity, and more importantly, stands in the way of something that could not only help protect youngsters, but also help the industry legitimize in the process.
Our country is run by these hidden agendas and the greed is threatening to consume America. That's why they pass all of these frivolous unconstitutional laws. They're out to make a quick buck at the expense of what they see on TV and think is an "easy target."
Here in the Netherlands, our "first amendment" has only one exception, and that is on discrimination. You can say almost anything, yet you can't discriminate someones race, sexual orientation, religion, age, sex (male/female). Basicly, you are forced to make an opinion about the whole of the person on his/her actions.
Violence in media is still protected. Goverment control is only AFTER something had happened (No pre-emptive banning on any media). And even then, tons of regulations must be met before anything gets banned.
The goverment still does not have control, even though it looks at first glance that it has. But it only can sort control on "decency" (mainly sex) and discrimination and only about specific elements at a time .
The whole concept of "tolerance" pretty much comes from this. The only thing we absolutely do not tolerate is intolerance.
The irony is that the US has more (self)censorship then the Netherlands have, even though in theory the US should have less censorship. A big pain in the Firs Amendment in the US is the FCC. A government controlled entity that controls content on public TV (?). This is directly against that little First Amendment line: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.
New York is run by morons.
Sorry if I wasnt clear, i'm not talking about the specifics of this bill in particular, but rather the resistance to the measures designed to make it illegal for stores to sell games to underage gamers. If you consider section S614..
"No person, partnership, or corporation shall sell or rent or attempt to sell or rent at retail a video game in contravention of the rating affixed thereto"
..what exactly is undesirable about that? Thats what I dont understand.
You ask many questions that dumbfound most of us who live in the US with half a brain. CSI, 24, and many other mainstream television shows have violence far exceeding what any person should see. Our news programs show nothing but death and violence, glorifying every rampage, or mass killing. Our comedies are little more than slapstick and lude sex jokes.
So why in the hell is the hot coffee scandal such a big deal? Especially given the context in what it was found? These are questions I can't even begin to answer.
As for why we all oppose the government intervention into ratings, that I can attempt. Sure, the govt wins a battle and can form regulatory committees to investigate the ESRB. It seems a morally good thing to do. Next they can make laws regarding who plays what game. Pretty soon, enough precedence has been set, and the government is deciding what games are suitable, and which aren't. In the end we could end up a nanny state. Look at Germany, games are banned for sale there all the time. I am not sure if this happens in other countries, but the cold fact is a government is deciding what is appropriate for its people to see. Why is it the right of one individual to dictate what another individual should see? Whats to stop incredible leaps in censorship? Once a government gets the ball rolling, it is hard to stop.
It is the same with gun control. Most people will tell you it is
"The right to bear arms"
However people rarely know the actual wording which is far more important:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's our national reset button. If we were ever invaded, or at some point the government took control and stopped serving the people, that is the final trump card we as citizens can play. Of course, start with basic gun legislation, ban certain weapons, move up until eventually nobody has any weapon that is a threat to the parties in power. Move along.
Video games, gun control, censorship of certain literature in school, it is all about power and exerting it over the citizens. That is why I personally oppose the legislation.
Sorry for the length bud.
It all comes down to the snowball effect. If the government comes in and says what can and cannot be sold to children, they will use that legislation as a tool in the creation of another more strict law governing video games, until they have complete control of games that can be created. They will be able to stop the distribution of games that they feel threatens their position or their control.
These politicians like Lanza, do not want to stop with this law. They want to get rid of games completely, unless it depicts their perfect little world.
The game industry is not against stopping kids from getting these games. That is never what they have a problem with. We are making efforts to give parents the information and tools that will help them pick appropriate games, not just for the kids but for themselves. We are making more stides in this fight than any politician could ever make.
Games are not just for kids. Until politicians and the anti-game activists realize this, these laws will keep coming. These games they want to ban are desinged and marketed toward adults. It is not our fault that little Jonny's parents bought him "Sex and Murder Simulator 3". It is their fault. We have given them every thing they need to know about a game, but it is up to them.
Game legislation is bad. IT is not just bad for video games, but for all media. If they pass these laws, nothing will stop them from making more strict laws involving other forms of media. That is what we want to stop.
If you want to see more of what we want to prevent, pick up Fahrenhiet 451 by Ray Bradbury. That is a world we do not want to live in.
As another Brit, I'm with you! Surely allowing the age ratings that all games are already given to have legal status hurts no-one, and would improve the industries severly tarnished reputation.
We all get that the American constitution protect peoples rights to do pretty much whatever they like. So people have the right to make games with any content they like.... that's fine, got no problem with that.
But allowing any kid to walk into a shop and buy (unchallenged) material that is not suitable I'm sure we can agree isn't right!
To discuss specifically this piece of legislation, I'm not sure I see the problem with, what is effectly, an oversight commitee on the ESRB. It's not like they haven't be controversial enough to justify it.
I do understand the slippery slope argument, but I think its one that can be overplayed. Looking at my country and neighbouring countries again as example, we have legislation that prevents minors from buying games and imposes penalties on retailers for allowing such breaches, but we dont have government interference in game content, and if such interference was attempted we would fight tooth and nail to resist it. I think its more a matter of drawing a line in the sand where you think is right, which then allows you the confidence and moral justification to defend your position. The problem I have with the 'dont let them have an inch or they'll try and take a mile' arguments, are that our opponents can then turn around and say 'Why listen to these people on anything, they wont even help us stop kids buying unsuitable games'.
Germany is a strange one incidentally, some of the buzz coming from there is pretty frightening stuff. The Crytek incident was deeply disturbing to everyone in the industry, and offers a pretty worrying sign of what could happen in many more places unless we get a clear message out to the non-gaming majority that we are a responsible, respectable industry.
As others have stated, we fear the snowball effect. And there's precedence in history. Nazi Germany for a quick example of the snowball effect. And many books have been written on the subject of EXTREME censorship, the end result we wish to prevent. Fahrenheit 451. 1984. Even Brave New World to an extent.
Another problem is that they wish to enforce the ratings. Three problems with this.
First, we don't enforce any ratings on anything else. Not by law at least. The closest we come is that movie theaters ID people for R rated movies and won't let people under 17 in.
Second, the ESRB is in no way regulated by the government. It's a private organization funded by the video game industry. The ratings, like all ratings, are subjective and intended only as a guide. And the government has no right to use them as the basis of law. Think of it this way the ESRB could rate all games E. Sure, this would completely undermine their purpose, but no government agency could prevent this.
Third, we don't really have half the problem with underage kids getting games today that they want you to think we do. I believe the FTC report put the failure to enforce the ESRB ratings at 42%, while the failure to enforce the MPAA rating was an abysmal 70% or better (sorry I don't remember the precise percentages, but I know they are around that level; should be posted on earlier postings if you're interested). Most retailers ID you when you purchase a M rated game anyway.
I hope we've helped you guys understand.
What you ask is impossible. No credible source will make that connection.
I understand the situation with games, however the comparison with movie theatres is interesting. Is the age restriction on R movies law, or is it an agreement between the theatres?
If it's law, why is putting an age restriction on purchasing games such a huge jump?
Also what about drink, or cigarettes?
Personally I consider a failure of 42% pretty appalling by the way, that's a huge number of game being purchased by children who (it's recommended) shouldn't be playing game of that nature.
In the UK of course people find a way to circumvent the age checks (as with everything else) but I for one feel a sense of satisfaction every time I see a retailer refuse to sell a 10 year old kid GTA (which is more often than you might think)… but then I’m prematurely a grumpy old man :)
And noone here is suggesting any differently. Keep your nanny-state politics out of the U.S., thanks.
I challenge any with this opinion to visit any major retailer in the US (EMA members), who accout for upwards of 85% of all video game sales) and try to have a kids buy an M game. There is some gray area with older teens (15/16) sometimes, because the clerks aren't perfect, but overall, VOLUNTARY enforcement has improved drastically over the past 2 years, and is approaching the highest enforcement you can expect short of treating video games like booze, smokes, or porn.
When the voluntary enforcement work to this extent, these types of laws are simply not needed.
And where is the parent in your scenario?
If 85% of sales already adhere to a voluntary code, what harm does making it law?
Since games are politically under siege why not conceed the point, let them have thier law and take the heat out of the fire.
"And where is the parent in your scenario?" - In my experience, usually at the counter buying the 18 rated game for their children... but that's a lack education thing
http://www.theesa.com/archives/Media%20Coalition%203.29.06%20testimony%2...
Well, I can dream.
Because, under our Constitution, if a less-restrictive alternative is in-place, and works, there is no legal reason to restrict Free Speech. And for many other reasons that others hav detailed here.
Look, I'm not telling you or anyone else from other countries that each of your individual countries' laws are wrong, I'm just telling you how it works here in the U.S. And this bird just won't fly here, and the U.S. courts have continually proven this.
"Is the age restriction on R movies law, or is it an agreement between the theatres?"
It is an agreement between the theaters. There are no laws regulating movies, books, comics, or music.
I'd like to take a few of your points here, if I may..
"First, we don’t enforce any ratings on anything else. Not by law at least. The closest we come is that movie theaters ID people for R rated movies and won’t let people under 17 in."
Like Jez, i'm interested to know if theres any legal enforcement of this, or is it done completely voluntarily by the movie houses?
"Second, the ESRB is in no way regulated by the government. It’s a private organization funded by the video game industry. The ratings, like all ratings, are subjective and intended only as a guide. And the government has no right to use them as the basis of law. Think of it this way the ESRB could rate all games E. Sure, this would completely undermine their purpose, but no government agency could prevent this."
I think you're missing the point here, if measures were brought in to make the rating system a legal requirement, then either the ESRB would become responsible for sensibly rating games, or it would be superceded by a federal agency. If they did a sensible job, then there would be no need for that, and if they didnt, then they deserve to be replaced.
"Third, we don’t really have half the problem with underage kids getting games today that they want you to think we do. I believe the FTC report put the failure to enforce the ESRB ratings at 42%, while the failure to enforce the MPAA rating was an abysmal 70% or better (sorry I don’t remember the precise percentages, but I know they are around that level; should be posted on earlier postings if you’re interested). Most retailers ID you when you purchase a M rated game anyway."
Again like Jez, im pretty appalled by a 42% failure rate, thats really very poor, and could well explain the pressure that the industry has been coming under. Surely this sums up the point exactly, if there is no punishment for enforcement, then in many cases retailers simply wont bother to enforce.
Overall, thanks for the discussion guys, its interesting hearing how people actually feel over there. I still feel like this stance can only end up backfiring in the long run, but I do very much hope im wrong on this, and that everything works out ok for you all. Best of luck!
The movie theatre thing is not law. It is the MPAA's voluntary efforts to give themselves a good name. There is little difference between the percentage of kids who by R rated movie tickets and M rated games.
Where the MPAA fails and the ESRB succeeds in in the retail level. The ESRB has a 42% failure rate in enforcing the ratings at the sales counter. That is a 58% Success rate. The MPAA has about a 72% failure rate in enforcing ratings at the sales counter. That is a abysmal 28% success rate.
Do you see the problem here. Movies are far worse off than video games, but no one cares. That is the problem.
If the government were to pass legislation that focused on TVand Movies as well as games, then it would not pass, because many politicians are in the pockets of the MPAA and television broadcasters and they would pull out all funding for the politician's campaigns. So they don't make those laws. The video game does not put money in the pockets of the politicians. If we did, we would see fewer proposed laws. But that is not what we want. We want politicians and parents to be educated about the ratings in order to enforce them. We do not want to by that support.
The ESRB is at 42% in 2006, down from 65% in 2003.
The movie industry is at 72% in 2006 and is down from 73% in 2003.
Do you not see the success in that for the ESRB and the failure in the MPAA?
Oh, I hope that even with the fresh deals of the V-Tech, that our government still follows the constitution, last thing we need are bills from the likes of this Lanza guy getting threw to be passed as laws.
"The bill would also require New York State’s retailers to place ratings labels on all video games, and establish a Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games…"
This is the only thing that should get passed minus the deal about labels, since video games already have freaking ESRB labels on them, its not the video game companies fault that the parents don't read what the labels stand for.
You're asking the wrong question. The question should be, "If 85% of sales already adhere to a voluntary code, why does there need to be a law?"
Our entire legal system is overburdened as it is. As long as the ratings are industry-controlled, it keeps stupid laws from being passed, such as criminalizing (IE, fines, jail time, etc.) the act of failing to enforce an arbitrary standard. If the ESRB becomes a government-controlled or overseen agency, it paves the way for such bills.
You look at the above paragraph and think, "Why would fining someone for selling Porn Star Model Session 13 for XBox be a bad thing?" Well, you see, there's already laws regarding selling pornographic materials to minors that seem to be doing their job; there don't need to be any more.
"Okay, but what about super-violent games?" There aren't any studies that show any sort of genuine harm from violent media. That alone should be enough to keep us from criminalizing the sale of them. However, that doesn't seem to be enough for politicians, who keep listening to flawed studies and biased groups who insist that there is.
While I do agree that parents should be in control of what their children are doing, enforcing that becomes difficult. Look at the following scenario:
Mom finds Little Jimmy playing Grand Theft Chariot: The Roman Years, and asks where he got it. Jimmy got it from his friend Ralph, but doesn't want to say that, because then he might not be allowed to play with Ralph any more, so he points the finger at the game store. Mom goes ballistic and accuses the game store to the police, and they get fines or jail time when they didn't do anything wrong.
Does that seem right or just to anyone?
It doesnt work like that. A store has to be proved to have sold the item to a minor, something that can usually be checked with either store security camera, till registers and the like. Noone in countries that already have these laws get sent to jail at the word of a lying child.
Its interesting however that you mention the laws regarding 'pornography' and yet think violent games are suitable viewing for children. It sums up many US attitudes that we in Europe find confusing; mild nudity a big no-no, but extreme violence acceptable.
Personally when I have kids, I dont really want them watching someone getting hacked to peices with a chainsaw or whatever, even if this is in 3d graphical form, and that has nothing to do with any 'biased studies' or whatever. Violent games are also generally tied in with adult language and adult themes, the entire package of which is why they are given mature ratings by ESRB, and why they have no place in the hands of children.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp
In the PR Lanza says he wants to protect kids from MOVIES and games, but the bill has nothing to do with movies except for the use of the word 'film' in one of the headings. It may be mentioned in whatever law they are amending, but as it stands it has nothing to do with movies.
In the PR Bruno says, "Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision," And he does not see the real problem here.
Lanza's use of VT Rampage is a blatant misuse of information and an example of the industry. We have nothing to do with it.
In the bill, does it not bother any one that out of 15 members only one is going to be from the video game industry? I find that very unsettling that we would have so little impact on this new oversight committee.
Thank you for the explaination... The 1st amendment seems to make the situation in America very complex.
There is clearly a political desire to control the distribution of inappropraite media to minors (and games are clearly the focus at the moment)
All I can say is that in the UK, the most noticable effect of making the age rating enforcable is that it has improved education of the ratings.
As retailers can get fined for selling rated games to minors (evidence is needed Nekojin), they tend to take the time inform parents of the content of games if they think they are buying them for their children.
There has been no censorship of games, and we don't have the same controversy over game content.
I love games as a medium, and I hate to see it coming under so much unjust attack. It seems from this side of the pond that allowing game rating would restore some level of reasonable debate, without anyone having to really give up anything.
I'm going to start keeping score of how many times he mentions "Virginia Tech" in his speeches from now on.
You're right; that was overblown hyperbole on my part. But should retailers even have to be in a position to be taken to court over something like that in the first place?
"Its interesting however that you mention the laws regarding ‘pornography’ and yet think violent games are suitable viewing for children. It sums up many US attitudes that we in Europe find confusing; mild nudity a big no-no, but extreme violence acceptable."
Please don't put words in my mouth; I never stated my opinion on the matter, simply the law. Personally, I'd rather that kids had a better understanding about sex - pros, cons, preventative measures, and so on - at a much younger age, and I think the American culture as a whole has a really bipolar attitude on sex in general. Likewise, I think there's a little too much glorification of violence. But that doesn't change the fact that, as a culture, we do like violent media.
I personally view violent video games as a modern replacement for older children's games like Cops & Robbers and Cowboys & Indians - a possible outlet for the violence that children are inherently capable of, with less chance for broken bones. If I had children, I certainly wouldn't be putting Grand Theft Auto in their hands until I was sure that they were capable of dealing with it with a mature outlook... but then, we get back to that whole, "parental responsibility," angle.
It's already been stated, but it is a general agreement between the movie theaters. There is no law or regulation that this must happen.
"I think you’re missing the point here, if measures were brought in to make the rating system a legal requirement, then either the ESRB would become responsible for sensibly rating games, or it would be superceded by a federal agency. If they did a sensible job, then there would be no need for that, and if they didnt, then they deserve to be replaced."
With all due respect, I think you are unfamiliar with the ESRB. It is funded by the game industry. As I understand it, when a game is submitted to be reviewed, they send a video of the games content and pay a fee. The video is then shown to a group of non-gamers unaffiliated with the ESRB who give feed-back on the game's content which is used in determining the rating. This process is intended to be unbiased as many gamers may not find some material objectable or notice other things (there have been a few games that mentioned "alcohol use" or similar things that I never saw).
If the publisher doesn't show some objectable content to avoid a higher rating the ESRB can, and will fine them. One assumes that if a publisher did this intentionally and frequently the ESRB would stop reviewing their games.
Now, I'd like to jump on that part about the government superseding the ESRB with a federal agency. This has never been done before in the United States. Not that I know of, anyway. The FCC is the only agency allowed even a little control over content. And that is only when and IF enough people complain about it. I'm sure most people on this site would agree that the FCC should be disbanded, if only because the PTC abuses it.
It has been stated a few times, but our First Amendment does not allow any government censorship. The only reason, I can see, that the FCC gets around this, is that they levee fines after the fact and only at the urging of the citizens. Any attempt to regulate or censor content will be met with fierce opposition.
"Again like Jez, im pretty appalled by a 42% failure rate, thats really very poor, and could well explain the pressure that the industry has been coming under. Surely this sums up the point exactly, if there is no punishment for enforcement, then in many cases retailers simply wont bother to enforce. "
I doubt any will disagree with you that 42% is bad. But compared to the MPAA enforcement, it's a gold star. And considering that there is no actual law, this shows that the industry and retailers are attempting to make strides. To be honest though, there is a little doubt in my mind on this data. I've not read the report in detail, so I have no idea if they count a ten year old buying a T rated game a failure or not, or if they even make that clear.