May 7, 2008 -
Variety reports that a new legislative attempt to regulate video game sales has been launched in Congress.Undoubtedly spurred on by the publicity surrounding the recent Grand Theft Auto IV launch, Reps. Jim Matheson (D-UT) and Lee Terry (R-NE, seen at left) have introduced legislsation that would require game retailers to check a buyer's I.D. before selling a game with adult content.
Of the "Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act," Rep. Terry said:
[The bill seeks to ensure that kids] can only access age appropriate content without parental permission... The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games high scores are often earned by players who commit 'virtual' murder, assault and rape.
Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children.
In addition to mandating ID checks, the proposal would require retailers to post information about the rating system. Violators would face a $5,000 fine. Despite the abysmal record of such legislation on the state level, Terry expressed confidence that the bill would pass constitutional muster:
This bill doesn't involve itself in content or defining the standards for 'mature' or 'adults only. It simply requires the retailer to post what the industry has defined as 'mature' and 'adults only' so that parents can know, and requires checking of identification.
The proposal enjoys the support of the Parents Television Council.
For his part, Rep. Matheson has attempted to legislate video games in the past. As GamePolitics reported in 2006, a Matheson proposal by the same name failed to gain traction.
Rep. Terry was made to look a bit silly by The Daily Show host Jon Stewart following a congressional video game hearing in 2006.
By the way, GamePolitics challenges Rep. Terry to support his claim that rape is a feature in any commercial video game.
UPDATE: Omaha's Fox News affiliate has a report on the bill. Rep. Terry told KPTM-42:
This bill is all about empowering parents so they can make more informed decisions about what games they're kids are playing, knowledge is power and the more we know the better off we'll be.
Comments
Re: In Wake of GTA IV Launch, Video Game Legislation Proposed
Sexual intercourse accomplished without consent through force, fear or intimidation.
Where is this in any game (btw, Custer's revenge doesn't count)
If you could,don't you think we would have done so by now?
Supporting this law is just encouraging governement censorship and control, we have a perfectly good voluntary system that works better than any of the other voluntary ratings systems, and yet they still try to single out video games.. dont be decieved people.. this bill has no positive value.
The thing is, this law isn't constitutional for the same reasons as some of the others. It makes ESRB ratings legally enforced at penalty of a fine. According to the constitution, you cannot give a private entity like the ESRB governmental power in that manor.
As for your comment of "Just because another medium isn’t enforced doesn’t mean it’s ok to sell it that way." That much is true. However, the constitution provides for protection of equality. As such you cannot legally restrict games, without restricting movies, tv shows, music, comic books, and novels at the same time. You have to regulate all entertainment media, or none. Furthermore it cannot be claimed that games are unique in being interactive; they aren't. "Choose your own Adventure" books, and American Idol, are two examples that spring to mind.
Furthermore, it still is a violation of the first amendment. The ESRB recommends a game for people 17 and up. The retailer chooses to lose some sales adhering to this, in the name of good public relations. The retailer can still choose to sell to someone under 17 at the cost of bad public relations. This law is the government stepping in and making a recommendation a requirement. Suddenly some people old enough to drive can't access some speech because the government says so. Their rights have been infringed due to government censorship.
BUT
Only applying this to video games and not other media (Movies, Music, etc.) seems to impy that video games are worse for "the chlidren", and there is no evidence to suggest that.
So this bill either needs to be extended to include all media, or scrapped. Do it properly or don't do it at all.
...damn it...
And because Clarence Thomas ain't bright enough to make up his own mind and, hence, invariably follows suit with Scalia, we can pretty confidently predict at least 2 votes in favor of the Act's constitutionality. Not a bad start when ain't but 5 votes needed to uphold.
Really? Then how about getting behind bills that call for a national health care system or improvements in education?
But seriously, I have no problem with a bill that addresses the points they describe. I think it's ridiculous that you can't count on retailers to be good community citizens and that a law is required, but I don't see it being any different than laws that restrict the sale of alcohol or tobacco products.
Oh hey wait. What I just described is gov't control on what you can see and hear. Sounds like censorship to me.
Well regardless of all I said above it is an election year. No one is going to touch this with a ten-foot pole unless Hiltery's advisors tell her this is her ticket to getting "back" into the presidential race.
Epic Fail.
This is a couple of congressman trying to pull a JT liking video games to cigarettes and alcohol.
GO FIX THE DOLLAR VALUE AND OUR ECONOMY!!!! Idiots... SHEESH!
Hella. If ya' wanna help the kids, fix the schools!
Is it possible to declare war on Incompetent Idiots in politics?
It's not your fault. I myself live in California, where they APPEAL shit like this. Now THAT is shameful.
Aside from that, I'm all for this, because it actually bolsters the Industry's defense against frivolous lawsuits like those levied by JT and the like. With a congressional like this in place, the retailers can go, "Well, I checked his ID, so we followed the rules, or "Our information was clearly posted as per Federal law, you should have exercised more caution before buying for your kid."
But in NONE of the Japanese games will the act get you a 'high score' or any kind of score (unless you ENJOY watching rape...)
Yeah, that was a stupid question on my part, and no...the teacher lied when she said there were no such thing as stupid questions.
Basically, Instead of letting retailers off scott free for selling an M rated game to a kid, it fines them, makes them think twice about it.
And high scores? *sigh*.. why do these people see fit to open their mouths when they clearly know nothing about what they're talking about.
Quite honestly, I don't have a huge problem with their proposition either - so long as it applies to other forms of media as well. But they lose all credibility when they say things that are not true (obviously).
I'm not so sure about no one on the Hill supporting this because this is an election year. I suspect that's all the more reason for the Bill to garner support. Something tells me that all these anti-game politicians have done their homework and have some rationale basis to conclude that many more voters than not are in support of anti-gaming legislation. If it wasn't so, then they wouldn't all be jumping on the bandwagon.
Those games aren't sold at retail stores, so those may not count either.
Getting you and your manager fired isn't exactly "getting off scott free"
Here in Australia we're screaming for a R18+ rating; we want games that would otherwise be unable to be sold to be rated Adults Only. Why? Because retailers here are not stupid! They know the goods will sell and they just need to train their staff to check ID's before selling it to people.
Lobby the stores, people! They are the ones killing the perfectly good system that you have.
Comic books would like a word with you.
It doesn't really help that the big 3 -- Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft -- are unwilling to allow AO games on their systems (Microsoft may be a different story, so correct me if I'm wrong). It wouldn't matter if the retailers could stock them anyways because no one would be able to play them regardless.
AO games are allowed on the PC but they can only be purchased over the internet. Frankly I don't think the AO rating matters anyway because I've yet to really hear about an AO game that was any good.
The scary part is that I was thinking the same thing. I thought it was Dan Aykroyd though.
Thanks. I hate thinking it's just me.
The comics code wasn't legislation, it worked out like the ESRB did: Either you do this, or we(Congress) crack down. What's funny is that the CCA died off years ago thanks to comic shops.
There will be no real attempts to fix schools/the economy/the environment/etc, because those would take real work and does not guarentee a spot on the nightly news. Attacking video games takes no work, no research, all they have to do is parrot the same lies other critics parrot, and no one in the media is going to question them. They look good, they do nothing, they win, America loses.
So if they are with a parent, they could still make a sell, I am fine with that. What annoys me is that they are singling out video games. I get IDed every so often for a rated M game, but I could get 'The Hills have Eyes' no problem.
Gee, if only there were the option on all three current-generation consoles to allow parents to limit the games their kids could play...
@GRIZZAM 512
Actually, the CCA dying off was kick-started by the government itself, when the Nixon White House asked Marvel to produce an anti-drug comic. When the CCA refused its stamp of approval due to the presence of drugs, Stan Lee went to publisher Martin Goodman, who said to go ahead and ship it.
When the same efforts can be applied to ALL violent media, then it's a different idea, but that doesn't automatically mean a GOOD idea. Making a law against video game media specifically is a bad idea. Knucklehead politicians (such as Leland Yee in my state), are always looking for a scapegoat and video games are the current whipping boy of the older generation who still do not recognize that video games are not necessarily for children, and enjoy first amendment rights like other older media.
Finger pointing by politicians is ALWAYS easier than dealing with the real problem-bad parenting. It's complete bullshit blaming video game media for parents who are too busy to raise their child. Look at all the news articles that cite parents leaving their kid in the car, or buying them something to keep them busy so that the parents can be alone doing something else or whatever.