In Wake of GTA IV Launch, Video Game Legislation Proposed in Congress
In Wake of GTA IV Launch, Video Game Legislation Proposed in Congress
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.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:44am
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:40am
JDKJ: We can sit here all day and debate the relative merits. However, I think the events of recent days suggest that an FN Five-Seven ain't exactly the same as that Daisy BB gun you got for Christmas when you were a kid.
JDKJ: We can sit here all day and debate the relative merits. However, I think the events of recent days suggest that an FN Five-Seven ain't exactly the same as that Daisy BB gun you got for Christmas when you were a kid.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:38am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: tumbling can be quite dangerous. However, the rounds that commonly tumbled were variants of the SS90. Civilian ammo tends to tumble far less commonly.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: tumbling can be quite dangerous. However, the rounds that commonly tumbled were variants of the SS90. Civilian ammo tends to tumble far less commonly.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:33am
JDKJ: I understand that while they don't have much expansion effect, they tend to "yaw" on impact. Yaw can be almost just as damaging as mushrooming.
JDKJ: I understand that while they don't have much expansion effect, they tend to "yaw" on impact. Yaw can be almost just as damaging as mushrooming.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:30am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: Except when one considers the lack of expansion for the 5.7, it basically ends up leaving a far smaller hole.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: Except when one considers the lack of expansion for the 5.7, it basically ends up leaving a far smaller hole.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:29am
JDKJ: But if the latter's travelling at close to twice the speed of the former, there's a compensatory effect on the weight difference.
JDKJ: But if the latter's travelling at close to twice the speed of the former, there's a compensatory effect on the weight difference.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
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.
Don't forget Green Arrow Green Lantern in which Speedy was revealed to be a heroine addict. That one stirred some shit, allthough it was published after the Spider-man comics, so they had already changed the code to allow such material. But anyway, the Comics shops were a factor because they began shipping in non-approved comics which led to the major comic publishers forsaking the CCA and simply selling their comics through the stores since magazine stands were declining anyway. Only DC kept showing the CCA logo on their comics unless they weren't approved, in which case they'd sell them anyway.
Thanks...I think.
So it's overly vague. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
"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."
Regulation set up to be handled by a non-government entity. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Limits only video games and not all media. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Minors have a right to access protected speech. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Did these clods even READ the bills that have already been struck down?
Oy, you can tell it's election year...I only expect the BS to rise.
Protip: Might want to add North America/EU to that challenge. . .
Japan's a whole different wax bean, I gather . . .
Mmmm. It's getting hard out there for a video game. Justice Scalia (who tends to get the all other conservative Justices to fall in line with him) recently has stated his belief that carding laws are constitutional. And recently the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals came about as close as you can get to upholding a Minnesotta carding law while still stricking it down as unconstitutional. There's been a bit of an attitude change on the part of some courts when it comes to video games, particularly on the issue carding laws. They don't appear half as supportive as they previously were. It's not the easy lay-up it used to be, I don't think.
Snap!! He do kinda look like a cross between Stephen King and Dan Aykroyd.
Of course, it's not a surprise to me that the PTC supports this bill. After all, the :PTC never publically condemned FOX News for lying to and deceiving Parents regarding the content of Mass Effect. So, why would they condemn a politician for lying to Parents about the contents of video games (as previously and constantly mention time and again), no commercial video game has been sold in the US in the last 15+ years in a brick and mortar store (which this bill only governs) that allows a player to commit virtual rape?
They are also lying about the additional effect that such a bill would add in "protecting the children".
Any related or even non-related adult may still buy the game and give it to a child. Whether they are related or not.
A child can still play it at a friend's house without their Parent's knowledge if the Parent doesn't communicate their wishes to the friend's Parents.
So what real good could this bill do that can't be done without it?
None.
And of course, the legislators fail to point out that there are no such laws regarding renting/buying movies, books, TV shows on DVD or VHA, magazines, etc.
The average retail store carries only MPAA rated movies, TV rated TV shows, ESRB rated games, non-rated books, non-rated magazines, etc. Some specialty stores carry NC-17 (MPAA) or X (Adult Industry rated) videos or magazines among general merchandise. But even then, that material is sold based on store policy, not legal restrictions, more often than not.
And even with legal restrictions, the same loophole exists as mentioned above.
So this bill with the "protect the children" is nothing more than political stunts and attempts to legislation personal and religious beliefs over other individual citizen's personal and religious beliefs.
Sadly, when informing Parents of resources to obtain information about media content, I still include the PTC, though I wouldn't trust them for my own personal researches.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Has rape occurred in *any* game since Custer's Revenge?
None really, if you don't count those crazy underground Japanese games.
Anyway, I can't believe they occupy their time with this crap. The economy is in a landslide, and their most pressing issue is taking away peoples' freedoms. Terry is a buffoon, I hope it fails again...
Yeah, I meant mainstream games. Ones normal people actually play...
Oh, and another great thing I just noticed. In that Jon Stewart video Mike Murphy represents the 18th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, the same district I live in. He also recently came in and spoke to my AP Gov class.
I saw that video about a year ago but I never made the connection until now. If I had I definitely would have questioned him about that. Guess who's not getting my vote once I turn 18? Not that he'd get it anyways.
I've beaten GTA IV and the most gore I've seen is the blood trail creeping on the sidewalk after shooting someone in the head. I've seen Shaun of the Dead in the middle of the afternoon on a Saturday on Comedy Central. It's a great movie, but definitely has more gore. As far as I can tell, no one cares that teens were definitely watching. It is obvious that this bill seeks to verify the blame on video games for societies ills. If you can't see that, sorry to be blunt, but you are blind.
Enough said... this is getting very old and very repetitive... is it that much to ask for people to spend a few hours researching a subject before condemning it?
I've seen NC-17 at Target (This Film Not Yet Rated)
I sure as hell am. You know, as a concerned Nebraska citizen ...
Posted ratings? They do that too.
This bill? File it under Department of Redundancy Department. This law is not needed. It is just a waste of time and taxpayer money when they have a lot more important issues.
Also this law will not pass the constitution so it really is just a waste.
Besides, it already enforces what rules and guidelines retailers have had in place anyway. And it's been historically shown that the weakest point in the whole system is at the point of sale. This patches that hole by giving those rules the force of law.
And if it's good enough for the PTC, then that also means that we'll soon be able to have JT off our backs too, and he can go look for a new cultural whipping boy (provided he still has a job by then of course!)
The way I see it, this is win-win: the politicians get what they want; and they’re not proposing anything like fining the buyer or requiring that the games be played 100% to completion before being rated or anything else as ridiculous. The developers remain free to make the games they want without fear of a chilling effect, the kids can’t get the games (unless an adult purchases them for them – so there’s still a flaw, but not as big as before), we adults can still openly purchase the games and not feel as if we are being punished, and we get JT and his ilk off our backs finally. If that’s what this will accomplish, then I don’t have any problems with this scenario. :)
Undoubtedly spurred on by the publicity surrounding the recent Grand Theft Auto IV launch, Reps. Stupid Idiot (D-UT) and Dumb Moron (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. Moron 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, Moron 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. Idiot has attempted to legislate video games in the past. As GamePolitics reported in 2006, an Idiot proposal by the same name failed to gain traction.
Rep. Moron was made to look like a buffoon by The Daily Show host Jon Stewart following a congressional video game hearing in 2006.
By the way, GamePolitics challenges Rep. Moron to support his claim that rape is a feature in any commercial video game.
They've already shot the equivalent down for movies (Fifth Amendment), why shouldn't the same happen for games?
First, I am unaware of any game that depicts rape. I have conveyed that to anyone who has said so, and will do so with Matheson.
Secondly, look for this bill to pass and be held constitutional.
Thirdly, I have been saying now for seven years that because of Take-Two the entire industry has a bullseye on its back. The failure of ESA and the ESRB to do anything about this scofflaw company is why this legislation is viable. Really, really dumb on the part of the industry not to ostracize the idiots at Take-Two. Jack Thompson
Even if it is found to be unconstitutional, it's still not as bad as other previous proposals. As I had indicated, there have been worse. Again, either way, everybody wins.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
@nightwng2000:
I’ve seen NC-17 at Target (This Film Not Yet Rated) "
I didn't know about this movie that you mentioned. In fact, I thought you were saying NC-17 meant the movie hadn't been rated yet. Oh dopey me. :)
Actually, according to IMDB, the rating was surrendered, though its original rating was NC-17. And, in fact, it's apparently going to appear on TV, probably a cable channel, and will be rated TVMA.
Since it's a documentary about the MPAA, I suspect the NC-17 rating was retaliation.
Also, Amazon.com is listing it as NC-17 right now as well.
Because it's a documentary, it doesn't surprise me that they might sell it, just like they might sell an UnRated/Uncut Saw or other movie.
Though the MPAA says that NC-17 doesn't necessarily mean porn, I suspect if there was a DVD version of a late night Cinemax adult movie (which would usually see a NC-17 or TVMA rating), Target probably wouldn't sell it. Nor do I know if they sell something like the Playboy Video Calendar, but I doubt it.
But I know some specialty stores, such as Suncoast Video, which caters to a wide variety of movies (including kids TV shows) does sell such videos. Covered up on a rack, but I have seen them (which I actually perfer over them being sold behind a counter or in a case since I'm nearsighted).
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
1. High Scores died with the 20th Century, people.
2. 'Virtual Murder and assault,' eh? So basically, er, any game T or over?
3. No game in America has rape, at least on screen.
"Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it."
Oi oi, again with the vague 'young children' crap. Will SOMEONE define what this man means 'young children?' Because to me, that rings in the single-digit to 13 age bracket, and who at that age would even have the money to pay up front, let alone find a clerk let back in school enough to still sell 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."
There's this newfangled gadget called 'parenting' out there.
Sorry, but this won't be held constitutional, just like all the other dozen or so laws that were tossed away with the rest of the trash.
"First, I am unaware of any game that depicts rape. I have conveyed that to anyone who has said so, and will do so with Matheson."
At least we can agree on that. Now how about taking back that drivel you spouted on that show you were on that nobody cares about... Beck, was it? That whole thing about the 'oral and anal S&M' stuff and the most graphic stuff you see being humping. You know?
Forgive me if I make a few spelling errors in the process of writing this, it's on the fly and, more importantly, nobody really cares.
"Thirdly, I have been saying now for seven years that because of Take-Two the entire industry has a bullseye on its back. The failure of ESA and the ESRB to do anything about this scofflaw company is why this legislation is viable. Really, really dumb on the part of the industry not to ostracize the idiots at Take-Two."
Then how about you fight against legislation such as this and go against T2 alone, not the gaming community as a whole? Hmmm?
Super Mario Bros. had you earn high scores for murder and assault: Murder of goombas and assault of koopa troopas.
Well you get some points for noting that games don't have rape, but this law isn't gonna pass. I suppose you could argue that there is a first time for everything, but seriously. Not gonna happen.
First of all, please learn how to use the word “scofflaw” correctly. I and others have been politely correcting you for years now and you still continue to misuse it.
That said, have you actually seen the text of this bill? I would certainly hope so after telling us to look for it to pass and be held constitutional.
Also, the bull’s-eye on the back of the industry was not put there by Take-Two. It was put there by misinformed, alarmist fearmongers such as yourself.
Andrew Eisen
Why is it this bill should be held Constitutional when so many, several written by yourself, haven't been?
It's not that I find this bill unreasonable, but, I guess what I'm asking, as I've only read the summarized version of this bill, what's different about this one that will ensure it gets passed and ratified? Other than your opinion that the ESRB and the ESA have failed, even though they have a better success rate than other forms of media and have (I believe) been commended by the FTC for this.
I would also like to commend you on the civil manner in which you presented your points. With all due respect, I'm actually quite surprised.
I mean seriously its so easy to torrent/borrow in todays world that it doesn't matter what you do ppl if they want it and the parents are neglectful or don't care they will get ahold of it. (you lose)
and again your forget about the MOVIE INDUSTRY!!1!.
"First, I am unaware of any game that depicts rape. I have conveyed that to anyone who has said so, and will do so with Matheson."
Really?
From an article on the old GamePolitics on LiveJournal, 2006-07-02, regarding the Louisiana AG supporting the Louisiana video game bill:
"Some of Guidry's remarks at Friday's hearing seemed scripted by Jack Thompson, as when Guidry said that video games "teach a kid how to kill, how to rape, how to defile a person, how to kill an officer. Video (game industry) people hide behind the fact that it's a cartoon.""
Tell us John Bruce, when did you publically convey that information to him? After all, he, in effect, lied to everyone, including Parents. So, when did you publically correct him?
"Secondly, look for this bill to pass and be held constitutional."
So you're admitting you weren't involved in creating this bill? After all, all the ones you've been involved with thus far have failed on constitutional grounds.
As to your third point, it's as stupid as saying "we should protect the children from the harmful effects of bigotry and hate in the name of religious beliefs such as those taught by John Bruce's church, Fred Phelps's church, Eric Rudolph's church, and others by saying that children under the age of 18 may not attend or be exposed to ANY religion." Condemning the WHOLE religious sector because of a few bigots. If you want to expose yourself and your family to that, that's your business. I, no organization, nor any government entity, has the Right to dictate to you what religious beliefs are appropriate or inappropriate for you or your family any more than you, any organization, or any government entity has the Right to dictate what is or is not appropriate3 for me or my family, whether it's a religious belief, a movie genre, written literature genre, TV show, game of any type, or other product.
You can yell and scream "community standards" and "public nuisance" all you want. But that is proof of the warnings that were stated so long ago before such laws were inacted. The warnings that such laws would be used and abused to such an extreme for the purpose of forcing one individual's personal, religious, and/or political beliefs upon others, thereby creating even a partial dictatorship.
You can continue to falsely claim you're only trying to "protect the children". But anyone with the intelligence of a grain of sand can read your own past statements and view your past actions and see that you merely use anyone and everyone to try to force your own personal, and even more your religious, beliefs upon others.
You are not now, nor have you ever been, as proven by your own past statements and actions, a "First Amendment Expert" because no TRUE First Amendment Expert would try to limit Freedom of Speech to only THEIR approved speech. You, John Bruce, have only proven to be a Tin-Pot-Dictator-Wannabe with delusions of heading a Theocratic Dictatorship. Deny it all you want. Again, your past comments and actions have proven it to be true.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
not gonna happen unless the same goes for 'R' rated movies, 'TV-MA' rated TV shows on DVD, and music with "Explicit Content" stickers on them.
??…Ace beats Jack?
You almost had us, though... good show.
/spit
And Jack, pray tell, since when is the roundabout enforcement of a private ratings system constitutional?
It's a stupid bill if they require ID for mature games, but have no penalties for not doing anything beyond asking. Pointless. If they require age to be linked to the sale, unconstitutional.
It's "compelled speech" if they require by law for a private signage to be posted. Unconstitutional.
You fail. Go back to Glenn Beck's show where facts don't matter...
nightwing, always love your comments; keep 'em coming.
No one wins except the politicians, it'll bring about more legislation in the future if it gets through.
I maybe a bit extrememe in my ideas, but lets face it folks.
The industry needs to do something!
no one will ostracize T2 because they make amazing games with amazing story lines "virtual rape" aside.
anyone who says this bill is bad.. is just being a whiny baby. what is the big deal? oh well, pull out your id. As long as games that depict adult behavior are not banned i have no problem.
but the easiest way to fix this problem is for the ESRB to change the game rating system to something more like the movie-rating system. It removes all confusion between M and AO, and would also get rid of the "De-facto" banning of games that would've been given the dreaded AO rating.
The bill is bad because it opens the door. If video games require government regulation, then there must be a problem with them. The common belief is that they can train kids to kill. Well, if it can train a kid to kill, maybe it can train an adult to kill too. Plus adults have better access to weapons. Well, we don't want these murder makers around. Video games should be no more violent than Super Mario Bros. 3.
Yay, the industry died as America became a facist nation. Way to go government!
Yes, this example is a bit extranious, but if history has taught us anything it is that if you give the government an inch, they'll take everything that ever mattered in any relating fashion. Besides, I've been carded every single time I have bought a M rated game, I have no problem with that. But when you pass a law to tell people how to run their business, you are pissing on the free market.
SO you have absolutely no problem that kids can pick up R or even unrated DVDs,one being The Hills Have eyes, which actually does have a graphic rape scene, whithout being asked for ID?
Yet you do have a problem with a video game where the retailer does check for ID(I choose to believe the numbers) and there is no rape at all?
So, real rape = perfectly ok in your book
A video game with no rape, not even real people = blight on man kind
Ya, nice try.
I'm sorry and I apologize to you all, but honestly I see nothing wrong at all with this bill. And as much as I hate to say this (and believe me I really do) I think JT may actually be right as far as this goes. I don't see any way really that this couldn't be considered unconstitutional. And I don't see where this could clear the way for more censorship or reinforce the notion of "games=porn." I said before, it does not stifle creativity, it does not shame us adults for buying these games for ourselves and the games remain accessbile and not behind the counter or in a back room. All it does is force the retailers to comply and make sure they prominently display the ESRB ratings system; something most of them do anyway.
No it does not ensure that kids will not play these games, but no system is 100% foolproof. I already indicated that this bill does not completely eradicate the problem, but it will provide one less thing that JT and others can attack and will for the most part shut them up.
And for those who say, "Well, they don't do this for R-rated movies in stores!" Well, maybe they should. Just because another medium isn't enforced doesn't mean it's ok to sell it that way. When you stop to think about it, doesn't the fact that a kid can buy an R-rated or unrated copy of Saw or The Hills Have Eyes sound like a problem to you? What's wrong with simply carding? All it means is that you have to provide a valid I.D. Nothing more. That is as it should be.
I've worked in retail and my girlfriend has worked in retail. And while we both believe in adhering to the policy of not selling games to minors and have upheld it, as have many of you who also work in retail do, let's face it: for every responsible clerk that is out there, there are just as many who are only there for a paycheck and don't care who they sell a game to or don't think it's worth it to argue with an ignorant parent. This bill will change that and help to keep the retailers honest. With their being conscious of a fine, they won't be as tolerant of such screw-ups and those irresponsible clerks will sooon find themselves out of a job.
I know some here are afraid thinking, "Give them an inch, they'll take a mile." and I can't say I blame anyone for thinking that. But more often than not, the government tends not to really enforce these things. It's like others have said; in time after video games have become and accepted part of the culture and other means of distribution become availalbe, this law will eventually be ignored and done away with like the CCA and warning sitckers on albums. Laws can be repealed, you know.
And before you say anything, Jack. No I still do not agree with you. You still go too far. Your proposals, if enacted, would restrict these games to from being purchased by anyone, not just children. What you advocate is nothing short of Fascism. This bill, on the other hand, simply enforces what rules are already in place and makes the retailers more responsible. And no backpedaling saying, "This is what I wanted all along!" A full page over at Wikiquotes say otherwise.
The real question is, will the industry fight it? I know I could present a slippery slope argument saying that this will lead to more, less savory laws being pushed through. But the truth is the constitution won't suddenly have its legs turn to jello if this one passes through. I really don't care about this one (though I certainly don't mind GP reporting on it, it's certainly game politics after all). In all honesty, I'd kind of like to see it passed, just to see what happens afterward.
"And if it’s good enough for the PTC, then that also means that we’ll soon be able to have JT off our backs too, and he can go look for a new cultural whipping boy"
While that sounds good on paper, it never works out that way. If the law survived somehow, parents who the politicians don't realize already buy most games for their kids will continue to buy them. The politicians will be shocked, and will cry for "one more law" to make it illegal for parents to buy them for kids. Kids will still get them from parents, more shock from politicians thinking kids are stealing them now since laws are magic, another "one more law," and they'll have games locked in back rooms like porn. Kids will still get them, more shock, "just one more law," rinse, repeat.
Believe me, there are many ways they can nibble around the edges and make life miserable for gamers. I've suggested at least one (possibly) viable end-game plan (bad pun, I know) to Jack before since I'd really like to get this over with at SCOTUS. But I'm guessing he figured that the death by a thousand paper cuts/creeping incrementalism/boiling frog theory works much better..
.It's a waste of taxpayer money
.It enforces a private organization's system
.It's a pitiful display of how goddamn lazy people are
.It unfairly singles out videogames whilst completely ignoring all other media which could be considered innapropriate for children
.There is no evidence to support a need for this type of legislation whatsoever
Oh, and
Neither the CCA, nor the warning stickers on albums were creations of the government, nor were they ever legally enforced. There's no comparison to what this law will do.
I don't support it - we need less government control - not more.
Seriously what problems has Government REALLY fixed?
Add to that - they can't even get their facts right about 'Virtual Rape' and people think for even a second they will be able to do a good job of dealing with the issue?
Where I work - I have to have my facts accurate first, before I propose a thing - too bad Government's not like that.
Yes, the developers will remain free to make the games they want, just like they're free to make AO games now.
It will be a chilling effect as no one will buy them. A $5000 governmental levied fine per screw up is a powerful incentive for retailers to simply not stock M rated games. So to even get retailers to stock a game, the developer would be forced to cut content until it's T rated.
It's not a matter of "Oh, they'll just have to train their employees to enforce the policy, and fire anyone that doesn't follow it." Statistically speaking, sooner or later someone will screw up. Possibly deliberately if they're disgruntled and planning on change jobs. Sure you can fire them after a violation, but you're still $5000 poorer over something that's a statistical inevitability.
@Tyler
that will never happen because there are well educated people who get on shows like Glenn Beck and say that THERE IS NO evidence that games "Train" people to kill.
my question is, what do we do? it is obvious people wont shut up until something like this(bill) happens. it gets to the point where the game industry should concede the fight because if something that the politicians see fit dosent happen, then the "war" will never end.
-I purchased the game Doom 3. I was carded. I have grey hairs (not many, but they're definitely there, and noticeable) and was 34 years old at the time. The cashier seemed embarrassed to be asking, but she asked.
-Some time later... my son (who was 14 at the time) walked into the same store with a friend on his way home from school, purchased Doom (the movie) and walked out without being asked a single question.
How, exactly, does that make sense? All or nothing. Either you show the same concern for all media, or you prove yourself to be biased and picking only on the one that causes irrational fear. Irrational fear is not an emotion conducive to making smart decisions.
Besides which, this is just a ploy by members of Congress to look like they are accomplishing something.
Ignore the War in Iraq.
Ignore the War in Afganistan
Ignore the Bad Econmy.
Ignore the Faulty Bridges in the USA.
Ignore the Health Care System.
Ignore the Social Security.
Ignore the Rising Cost of Fuel.
Ignore the Abusive crap of the Pres & VP for 8 years.
Those are the the big issues. The stuff all those idiots in Congress are to inept to succeed at. So it shouldnt surprise any of us, they need SOMETHING, to show for BS'ing our time and tax-dollars.
The war and the food riots are all over seas, so they aren't our problem, we can just pull out and leave 'em. The econemy and the infrastructure would be better if all you gamers weren't so damn busy fucking around with your toys! Think about the children you inconsiderate fucks!
(Did I sound like a butthole fundamentalist? I had to shove my head pretty far up my ass...) :)
"This bill doesn’t involve itself in content or defining the standards for ‘mature’ or ‘adults only"
"...that would require game retailers to check a buyer’s I.D. before selling a game with adult content."
is it just me, or are these 2 statements in direct contradiction with one another?
how do you determine which games contain the adult content to warrent them being forced to card with out involving yourself in the content, or even the defining of said content in the first place?
How did this start????
I really don't get it???
They're just saying shit to make themselves look good.
Ooooorrrrrrr......They speculate and believe that they are right cause they God on their side (in their beliefs).
You are one of those 'tough Internet guys' are you not?
But you post your address and i'll pop over and let you call me a liar to my face and we shall see how smart you are then.
On Topic, Good Bill but needs to have all other media too
I can see this bill passing, and it could be held as constitutional, especially with the current SCOTUS.
The rape thing goes without saying.
And T2 is fairly responsible for the target on their back. Hot Coffee was completely their mistake, and they're smart enough to have avoided it if they wanted. But it did sell games. Then there's Manhunt, which just screams attention whoring on a level not far from Jack's. It's not a very good game, from what I've read, but it's so shocking that people will take notice and pay attention to them.
The same can be said about Bully. From what I remember, and I could be wrong, they were intentionally vague enough about it that it drew bad publicity from all sorts, not just Jack, in what I believe was a free ad campaign. By the time it was actually out, though, almost no one bothered with the actual content, they just assume it's a bullying simulator, as JT likes to claim.
I just want to state that I don't have anything against T2. I haven't played any of their games, I just don't have the time or the console, but I respect their creativity and talent. They make some quality games and some crap ones, as most studios do. They've done more for gaming's evolution by adding to free-form game play and solid stories than most. But they've also made their name by seeking and courting controversy among other things. And they have to live with the results of that. Unfortunately, they need to do more to combat it and give their side of the story than they have.
"Okay kid, you got ID?"
"I have my library card. Says I'm 5 years old"
"Okay. Here you go. Enjoy playing Violent Prostitute Rape 17. I hear Jack Thompson loves this one"
Requiring ID seems completely pointless when there's absolutely no law preventing sales to children.
The "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" has long since been proven through the use and abuse of "community standards" and "public nuisance" laws. Not to mention Zero Tolerance policies overriding individual Freedoms and Rights. And government organizations such as school boards have abused their Soverign Immunity status to defend a variety of idiotic and even harmful decisions that negatively effect the education process.
John Bruce, himself, has attempted to violate the Constitutional Rights of other individuals by envoking the "community standards" and/or "public nuisance" laws.
So it's not unreasonable to expect a potential future use and even abuse of such legislation.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
To Rep. Terry: Your shipment of fail has arrived from the Fail-Boat. You FAIL.
The point is that predicting the rulings which will be made by that august body on any particular issue should be tempered with the understanding that the Court can, has, and will call it any way they see fit -- conventional wisdom notwithstanding.
RAPE???
I mean, c'mon - even JT knows that's bogus! And these people are allowed to make laws??
Also, why is virtual in inverted commas? Are they implying that you get even higher scores if you carry out the acts within videogames in real life?
This is freaking NUTS.
That said, I think it's also completely nuts to allow an under-age kid to waltz into a shop and be legally allowed to buy a movie, game or book that's intended exclusively for adults. However, the way Congress wants to pursue this matter is nothing short of alarmist McCarthy-ism.
I seriously wonder your level of understanding of reality. You hold a concept, of protecting children from violence in all its ugly forms.
But Violence, tells a story, the same as a romance of two teens.
The Holy Bible is chalked full of violence. An its taught every Sunday in Churchs across the USA. You oddly enough, dont have any problem with that?
But Video Games, you find a completely different form of media. I seem to see video games the same as books. In truth, they only tell the tale the author wishs you to know of. However, books allow your imagination, while a video game allows your hand-eye coordination to increase. Both are good concepts for kids, but for differing reasons.
As one educated adult to another, what teachs kids to value life more? Letting them see violence, and explain it indepth? Or Hiding until they are 18 years of age, and unable to cope with the concept for years if not decades afterward?
God help us, your not a child developmental psychologist.
"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."
The only thing is, it DOESN'T empower Parents any more than they already are.
Retailers already have policies in place.
Rating systems are already in place.
A wide variety of resources for information on a wide variety of media based on a wide variety of belief systems already exists.
This bill does nothing but put the government's foot in the door to dictate to individuals and Parents what is or is not appropriate for them or their children based on a narrow personal and/or religious belief system that not all citizen follow or should be made to follow.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
So a 16 year old would have no problems buying Saw II or Basic Instinct, but Halo2? Sorry, no can do.
What I think is that this legislation is a request to the lobbyists that the congressmen want paid again. The industry is doing well, and those Hummers won't fill themselves with gasoline. So Congress is basically saying "We want a cut of the money or we will hurt your sales!" I guess they are learning something from the RIAA after all; racketeering.
I can't find a link, but reminds me of the OLD penny arcade comic where a kid is in walmart and asks for a copy of Quake 3 and a shotgun. The guy behind the counter says "No can do, little feller, them things is dangerous!" then the next panel he goes, "Now the shotgun I can help you out with. You hunting animals or people?"
I honestly don't know how parents could be more informed. The information is on countless internet sites, many tailored especially for parents. It can be gotten by asking the guy at the counter in the store. IT'S WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF THE DAMN BOX!!!!!
He also assumes that the kids get the games anyway and the parents need to know about the games. That's completely backwards and it shows the problems when you have irresponsible and weak willed parents. They shouldn't make decisions about the games their kids are playing, they should make decisions about what games their kids ARE ALLOWED to play and what games YOU WILL ALLOW them to buy.
"knowledge is power and the more we know the better off we’ll be"
No. We will only be better off if parents actually show some common sense and USE the knowledge that is there to help them. It doesn't matter if a parent knows all about GTA if they still buy it because little Jimmy stamped his feet and nagged and cryed until they give in and buy it for him.
For a FOX News affiliate, it's fairly decent. Though, I personally would have like to have commented on the story.
I wanted to congratulate the store that checks IDs and does it consistantly (if they do) because store policy is far more reasonable than legislation. Especially if they do it for all forms of media.
I think the store owner who has the games behind the counter but doesn't check IDs is... mean. Well, I don't need to be hateful about it. Truth is, being legally blind, I hate when games are behind the counter or in cases where I can't see the game. Plus, it makes it hard for Parents to look over the box info without disturbing the retailers. And I think not checking IDs is a little too... soft? One can't automatically assume that while he thinks the contents of games aren't so bad, that a potential Parent consumer won't think differently.
And I like the comment by the Parent and the journalist's (wow! I'm calling a FOX News reporter a "journalist"?! The world will soon end! :) ) reporting of it was decent. They didn't make it sound like "I'm morally superior and the rest of you are child molestors!"
I mean, we each preceive media content in our own way and expose our own children to that media appropriate to our own beliefs. It's neither good nor bad if one Parent holds a more or less strict attitude than another. It's only wrong if one Parent or individual (or organization or government entity) tries to force those ideals on others.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
EDIT: @Jack Thompson (The attorney), Anti-Thesis of Shadow Darkman
Before I forget, I'd like you to be aware that a lot of us people here at GP are praying for Patricia's cancer, though there are some suspicions of B.S. on that. However, I'm doing it anyway. I lost a loved one to cancer.
Actually, for seven years you’ve been tossing around insults, jumping to conclusions, making tasteless jokes (Yes, I pulled the charity card), twisting the truth, and even harassing people at times. If you did have any sort of message wedged in all of that nonsense, it was difficult to find amidst all the blatant attempts at grubbing for media attention.
While I hate feeding into the "games=porn/tobacco/alcohol" argument, there are equally restrictive laws regarding those products. I haven't seen the government enact any laws that make it harder for adults to get these things. So in that respect, I doubt it will happen with games.
@ Gray17
Read that proposal again carefully. NOWHERE does it say that it grants the ESRB governmental power.
If that's the case, then the bill will fail. Though somehow I don't see it turning out that way as JKDJ has indicated, RE: SCOTUS interpreting the constitution.
Again, read it once more. This is not censorship. It is simply enforcing the carding of someone at point of sale. The game is still being made and available.
I think you're overreacting here. There will always be someone who will buy these games regardless. Never underestimate humanity's appetite for bloodlust and depravity. Also if you think about how big companies like Target, Wal-Mart and Best Buy are and the money they take in, $5,000 is chump change. It'd be a slap on the wrist to them and I don't think that would be enough to deter them from stocking or selling M-rated titles.
@Nightwing 2000
While I respect your views, as with Gray17, I think you're overreacting a bit and comparing apples to oranges. I don't see this bill as being as remotely draconian as Zero Tolerance policies (which are slowly being done away with anyway as more and more people are beginning to realize how stupid they were in the first place). I don't see how this bill, if enacted into law, could be misinterpreted or as a backdoor to censorship.
And I'm pretty much in agreement w/ Ryno: In large part, Rockstar has been largley responsible for all the negative attention the industry has gotten and their and Take 2's coy response to Hot Coffee and other things didn't help matters. And while I myself don't have any problem with T2 (they did publish BioShock after all and will be working on the new X-COM game), a large part of the blame for the current situation can be laid at their feet.
This site is about politics as much as it is about gaming, and one of the things that I think is being forgotten here is that part of politics is compromise. And that is what is going on here. The politicians have seen the previous bills struck down. They know now they're not going to get everything they want. A lot of that I'd say is through our continued effort of writing to state officials and informing them of how these past laws are unconstitutional. So it's like this: the politicians want to restirct game sales, and we want a "hands-off" approach and be able to play our games and see developers continue to make the games they want. Neither side is going to be completely 100% satisfied with what the other proposes. And so this bill is a compromise. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with this, but then again compromises such as this never are. I see this a being a stopgap, interm solution that will quiet the reactionaries and enable us to have a more measured discussion to help arrive at a better solution.
The fact alone that this bill has as many supporters as it does detractors here suggests to me that there may be some validity to it. I'm not saying this bill should pass and believe me, I'll be glad if it doesn't, but it's better than a lot of the other ones that have been proposed and frankly, I see nothing wrong with giving some teeth to the policies that many stores already have.
ps what rape?
...there is no game that awards...or even has rape...well excluding the Japanese Hentai games but those arent even available in the US...
Yes its ok for them to try to enfore the carding...but what I dont like is how they are lieing to try to pass it...so I say frak them and frak thier bill.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:18 am
This bill is dead unless they change the constitution. Its just election year BS. "
:: Kicks Zerodash in the shin. ::
SSSSSHHHHHHH!!!!
Don't give them any ideas!
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Cuts down on the pointless uninformed crap that i have to read from politicians (vote for me, I'm protecting you ), 'journalists' (please read my shocking story), and aggreaved mums whos 'angels' lost all sence and morals on touching a demonbox, rather than from the bad parenting.
I'm so tired of the protect the children crap. whose idea is it that children will be prepared to live in the real world if all they ever see is a happy happy joy joy world of pink bunnies jumping around in happiness. How will they be able to cope with limits, unsatisfaction and poverty? How will they be able to evolve into responsible adult that keep their country responsible if for them war is just an abstract thing of numbers. If we want to really protect the children we have to help them discover how rough the world can be by showing them how wonderful it can be at the same time.
The problem is we have an idealized view of a child's innocence as something that should never be broken. The thing is in my opinion, the role of a parent is to help his kids come through his discovery of the world with strong values. Not force him back into his innocence.
The story is, WTF HAPPENED TO THIS MAN'S HEAD? Who told him it was Ok to go outside looking like this? They need to no longer be employed.
Aside from that, the 1st Amendment argument has yet to be successfully challenged as anyone has yet to demonstrate any causal, detrimental result from playing video games. It has not happened. I seriously doubt it ever will.
Honestly, as far as industries go, the movie industry should get right behind the video game industry in slapping crap like this down. Because if one goes, the other will follow.
And Jack is making legal predictions? Seriously?
Honestly, there isn't even anything new in this one. It's still giving the ESRB ratings legal power, which is a violation of the constitution.
This one is doomed to fail again.
"…there is no game that awards…or even has rape…well excluding the Japanese Hentai games but those arent even available in the US…"
This is untrue, G-collections and a couple other companies license, translate, uncensor, and release Japanese hentai games in America. These are not available in normal stores of course as it is rightfully considered porn, however they are still released for the American audience and are available for American adults.
C'mon, Rep. Terry. Can't you squeeze more cliches into your statement? "I'm just going to take this bill one vote at a time. I'm just happy to be here and hope to help the nation. I just want to give it my best shot, and good lord willing, things will work out."
"Bill would require ID checks for purchases of games rated M (mature) or AO (adult 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,”
That'd be using the ESRB to decide what the government will allow. That's giving a private entity's decisions the force of law. Though I suppose technically as described, it doesn't actually try to enforce the ratings. If a 6 year old with a library card as his ID has the cash, the store can sell Manhunt 2 to them without governmental repercussion. Hard to say if that's true without reading the full text of the final bill.
True, technically the courts can rule against the correct interpretation, and the equal protection clause doesn't have nearly the strength of the free speech one. Still, this is a flaw that's been pointed out with multiple other laws that failed on various grounds. Why some people suddenly are forgetting this hurdle exists and praising the bill as fully constitutional I'm not sure.
It's censorship by chilling effect, and by preventing minors from accessing protected speech. Again, unless the "must check ID" part doesn't give a crap about selling to anyone, as long as their age is know. Then it's just a chilling effect.
Sure there will always be people that'll buy M rated games regardless. The question is will retailers buy the games for their stock. Right now they refuse to stock AO games and so no AO games get made despite some consumer demand for them. It's not unreasonable to assume that retailers will refuse to stock M rated games due to governmental threats of fines, despite their being some consumer demand.
Yes $5000 dollars is chump change to corporations as a whole. Still any company hates losing any money that it can avoid. Given that places like Wal-mart are willing to not stock things there is otherwise a demand for, I don't find it hard to believe that places would decline to stock M rated games if this bill passes. Plus it's not exactly chump change at the store level. Really good training isn't cheap, and even the best employees can have a bad day. If you end up with just a couple fines per year, that's $10,000 dollars less store managers get to explain to corporate. People will be fired, training costs will increase, etc. Much easier just to not stock the problem items.
Since Black Manta breached it, here it is.
Tobacco -- causes bodily harm through it's use.
Alcohol -- causes bodily harm through it's use.
Porn -- deemed by the courts to be bad to minors.
Games -- no causative effect and no dependable scientific evidence of harm caused.
Can we see the difference here?
"Read that proposal again carefully. NOWHERE does it say that it grants the ESRB governmental power."
It doesn't have to say "We give the ESRB governmental power." The bill gives weight and legally enforces the ESRB ratings. That is in violation of the 5th Amendment.
As I said above:
This bill is overly vague in that that it doesn't define "adult content."
This bill relies on the rating system of a non-government entity.
This bill targets one specific form of media over others.
And it doesn't matter if someone "believes it's okay" or not. Three Constitutional amendments are being violated here. (1st, 5th and 14th.) I know this hasn't stopped Congress from passing laws before, but it will get shot down in the courts.
It's a waste of taxpayer money. It's a waste of time of our elected officials. It's a waste of overall resources. The government should not be doing the job parents are perfectly capable of doing on their own.
Really? By doing their job for them? What happened to the word "NO"? What happened to not putting TVs in the bedroom? What happened to setting down rules on what can and can't be brought into the house?
then GENERAL purpose (fining retailers who sell to kids) i have ABSOLUTELY 100% no problem with.
but whats with all the absolute crap misinformation etc about rape??
absolutely ridiculous. Cheapens an otherwise decent purpose. As long as that was the only thing the regulation did i would support it 100%. ANything about banning games though they can shove.
Florida Residents: Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) would love to know what you think
http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
http://martinez.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformatio...
I've written to both in the past based on stories I've read here on GP, and have received non-automated responses from both. Usually takes a couple of days, but you will eventually talk to an assistant or rep for the congressman in question.
Non-Florida Residents: Find your representative, and write your own e-mails. Especially Utah gamers =) Let your voice be heard and put some pressure on these people.
The only difference I can see is that when a government agency decides which content is going to be restricted, at least the people can claim some semblance of representation, since the people get to vote for who runs the government and thus who makes those subjective decisions about the appropriateness of a game's narrative content. You're still violating the First Amendment, but at least the voting public gets some indirect say in how you do so.
On the other hand, if you decide to legally enforce ESRB age appropriateness suggestions, you are not only violating the First Amendment by restricting free expression, but now you are restricting free expression based on the subjective judgments of a private-sector agency that is underwritten by the game industry's largest trade association, and which has absolutely no accountability to the electorate. No matter how well you trust the ESRB, you must acknowledge the blatant appearance of a conflict of interest in this set-up.
If you think this through again, you should realize that in principle, this proposal is actually even worse than a law that would allow the government to censor games based directly on its own subjective judgment. Now, seriously, please think it through again.
Can they amend an Amendment to the Constitution? I know they can pass an Amendment to the Constitution that can repeal another Amendment to the Constitution, but what about passing an Amendment to an Amendment to the Constitution? Wait, my brain hurts.
*T.O.S. places an ice pack on Shadow's head*
T.O.S.: There ya go, buddy.
Shadow: O.O Uhh... thanks.
T.O.S.: Not at all!
First, this is reason enough to not allow such a bill to be passed. It does NOT do what it intends to do. It is basically plans for more legislation because he knows it won't work as intended and will ask for MORE legislation.
It does not have them shut up, this gives them more reason to scream and talk about how they did something worthwhile when all they'll be doing is punishing kids at work and allows for more lawsuits.
And for those who say, “Well, they don’t do this for R-rated movies in stores!” Well, m....
There's no point in adding government enforcement to it, that's the major problem. This medium is criticized more and yet is enforced heavily voluntarily compared to other mediums.
I’ve worked in retail and my girlfriend has worked in retail. And while we both beli...
Bills don't help with keeping retailers honest, this allows for a new market to grow and with untaxed forms of money to be made. This'll also allow for hobos to do buying for children. This does NOTHING for a parent.
...Laws can be repealed, you know.
Still a waste of money and time, and may not work in the end as being repealed, you don't give them a chance, this is another "No child left behind" act.
I honestly feel someone is impersonating Black Manta, he would not be speaking in this manner. The critical thinking has taken a 90 degree turn into a wall of madness or something.
W.T.F.!?!?!?
Since I'm seeing a whole bunch of people slamming Christianity and the Bible, as usual, I'd like to point out that the Constitution and the Bible are very similar documents - they're both centuries-old documents which are considered by their supporters to be applicable to everything forever, even though they're horribly outdated. If you think basing one's morals on a book written over a thousand years ago is silly, then what about basing videogame laws on a document older than the electric motor?
They have amended the Constitution to deal with modern-day problems. All they have done to the Bible is change the way its contents are worded. Think on that and tell us all the Constitution is outdated.
JC, it's NOT enforced heavily voluntarily. Twenty to forty percent of retailers will sell an M-rated videogame to just about any young kid who walks in.
Shadow Darkman, the last constitutional amendment that wasn't some minor modification or clarification of the processes and particulars of Congress, the President, or voting, was the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition way back in 1933.
The bill is only a good idea if everyone agrees that children should not be exposed to M rated games. M is a suggestion of content, not a parenting mandate. I prefer EDUCATING my child about what he is seeing on the screen and I intend to do that when I feel he is mature enough for the subject matter. That maturity will not magically occur when he is 17. If I do my parenting job right, it will happen long before that.
But this bill will interfere with my ability to raise my child. It will say that others, who have never met my child, know better how to raise them. That is BS of the highest order.
The only successful weapon agianst fear and ignorance is education, and I intend that my child will have it, whether this bill passes or not. How can you let your children be ignorant when every day they are bombarded with mature subjects from every form of media, from the bible to the news? You can't keep it out. All you can do is parent. So for the sake of Christ Almighty, PARENT!
Television and radio are broadcast over public airwaves. I believe he government should have authority to regulate the use of resources collectively owned by the people. I have no problem with the enactment and enforcement of traffic regulations on public streets either, for example, nor with the "Don't Feed the Bears" signs at National Parks.
When a game is bought and sold, it is a private transaction. Unlike on public streets or public airwaves, the government has no place interfering with the private exchange of goods or information between individuals.
This law we are discussing would restrict a game publisher's right to freedom of expression, promised in the First Amendment. It would do so based on the subjective judgments of an electorally unaccountable organization that is funded by the game industry. You really don't see anything wrong with that?
Asking "what's the point of the ESRB if we don't even bother to enforce it" is sort of like asking what's the point of Roger Ebert's "thumbs down" if we're still going to allow theaters to show bad movies."
In any legal sense, at least, ESRB's age-appropriateness ratings are suggestions, not statements. They are guidelines, not rules. To discuss the application of ESRB ratings in a rational way, we need to understand that. The sponsors of the bill in question obviously do not, but you should. Please visit the ESRB's website if you don't want to take my word.
My question is, can you amend a Constitutional Amendment?
I fear that you are begging the question. It's not so clear that restricting access by minors to video games is indeed violative of the First Amendment, regardless of whether or not a non-governmental entity sets the guidlines for that restriction. As Scalia rightly noted, there is ample precedential support for the notion that restricting access by minors to protected speech is constitutional. The most obvious examples are the cases which uphold restricting a minor's access to pornography. It's the issue of whether or not restricting a minor's access to video games is indeed constitutional which must first be answered before we can get to the issue of whether or not a non-governmental entity gets to set the guidlines for that restriction.
So let's assume, por arguendo, that it is constitutional (because if it isn't constitutional, the guidelines issue becomes merely academic). Can the ESRB rating system be used as the guidelines even though it's non-governmental? Perhaps it can. Doesn't the Miller test for obscenity resort to "prevailing community standards" in determining obscenity? Prevailing community standards, as used in a Miller test, involve standards set by non-governmental entities. Isn't the ESRB rating system also a community standard of sorts? If non-governmental community standards can be properly used to determine obscenity, then why can't non-governmental community standards be used to determine the point at which a minor can access pornography?
Is this an irrefutable argument? Perhaps not. But I'd argue that it's more than enough to support a Supreme Court ruling that the use of ESRB ratings by the Ratings Enforcement Act is constitutional. And that's all the Court needs.
high score comment is gold. they never know what they are talking about.
Not "to determine the point at which a minor can access pornography" but "to determine the point at which a minor can access video games" My bad.
You win the internet.
@ZippyDSMlee
It is you who fails for thinking you are a mod.
What?!
Up until a few years ago, I would have had to drive three cities away to find a porn shop due to zoning/decency laws. And the stigma of shopping at such has a chilling effect on people who might otherwise be interested. Think about those stories about church youth group Halo parties a while back. How many of those people would have wanted to be seen going into a porn shop to buy a game? Let alone playing it..
Tobacco is taxed to death in order to discourage people from smoking. In places like NYC, you're paying something like a 500% tax rate. If this rate were applied to games, the $360 price tag per game would make it a lot harder for people to buy them.
With regards to alcohol, umm, are you forgetting Prohibition? :p Even now that Prohibition is ancient history, you're still paying a hefty markup because of taxes. In California, there was recently a debate over adding a, IIRC, %200 tax to beer in order to discourage underage drinking. Apply that to games, and the $180 price tag per copy would make it harder for most people to buy.
Then there are the costly licenses and permits needed to operate a bar. If these were the same for games, and are set high enough or the regulations involved are too complex, many stores might decide it's not worth the effort. And with less stores selling games, it would be harder to buy them. Especially if the Feds or States decided not to allow purchase over the internet.
Speaking of stores, in Virginia, one must go to special shops owned and operated by the Commonwealth to buy liquor. This isn't too difficult at the locations which close at 9pm during the week, but some close at 7pm. Some are only open for like 5 hours on Sundays, an others are closed on Sundays. Until not long ago, they were only open during typical government/bank style business hours. Either way, if this was applied to games, the idea of a State-owned Video Game Control store is not appealing.
Or, if we carry the games-as-alcohol metaphor through to conclusion, what if violent homebrew games and mods were treated like making moonshine? I would imagine that the thought being awoken at 4am by flash bangs and angry Darth Vader lookalikes with submachine guns shouting "where is the C++ compiler?!?!" would have something of a chilling effect. But maybe that's just me..
The Constitution isn't a holy document, but it is the "Supreme Law of the Land." Article 5 of the document defines the process used to amend it. Without an amendment, the acts of infringing on freedom of speech and the delegation of legislative powers (such as deciding which items carry a fine if sold to certain persons..) to private entities violate the aforementioned law of the land.
Is it really too much to ask that politicians follow the damn law?
For the record, Phantasmagoria for the PC ( released circa 1995 ) had a rape scene.
Ok, you've got me there. I was hoping though no one would bring up the so-called "Sin Taxes" because I honestly didn't think they would apply in this case; although I do remember similar proposed sin tax legislation towards games in other states, so I guess it wouldn't be outside the realm of possiblilty.
Again, though, if this truly is the case, as more and more convincing arguments against this bill mount up, then it probably is dead in the water.
Yes we know about it, but that was A) a cut scene, B) done to the player's character not by the players character. So it doesn't really properly fit into the discussion of what players can do in a game.
ESRB raters are a group of hand-picked people in the big city getting paid by a private organization to judge narrative content. I disagree that the ESRB ratings could be directly interpreted as community standards in any given community -- that wouldn't fly in my community, at least. Moreover, even just for the sake of argument, I do not believe that any of these "M"- rated games could ever be considered "obscene," by the Miller test. It's not just community standards. It's also "SLAPS" considerations, for example. I can't think of a single ESRB-rated game that does not have at least some easily demonstrated serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit.
In any case, even if it somehow does become Constitutionally permissible to restrict the exchange of video games based on their narrative content, even just to minors, I think there are other insurmountable legal problems involved in using the privately determined, privately owned ESRB ratings to do so.
This did get me curious, so I did some poking around. There are several Japanese games that feature rape. The two references I found were "reviews" on Something Awful for games entitled Battle Raper and Possession. Both links are NSFW.
However, neither of these games were released in America. I went to the ESRB's website. From there, I did a search for "rape." The brought me to a page that described that the content descriptor of "Sexual Violence" was used for games that included rape. Returning to the ESRB main page, I did a search far all games that were given that descriptor.
One game was returned, which was titled Animamundi. This game was released for the PC and Mac on May 1st, 2006. A quick Google search did not lead me to any definite information, but it also led me to believe that there was no rape in the game. For that matter, it appeared to be a "Choose your own adventure" graphic novel.
Of course, all this relies on games that the ESRB has rated. Given that, no American release has had interactive rape.
On my read of the Justice's remarks (quoted below), it appears to me that he sees the issue as being one which squarely implicates the First Amendment.
"I [Anthony Prestia of Laws of Play] asked him [Justice Antonin Scalia]whether as an originalist he believed that state laws banning the sale of mature-rated video games to minors ran afoul of the First Amendment.
In his most succinct reply of the day, Justice Scalia replied that he did believe such legislation was constitutional. He began by explaining his belief that sound constitutional precedent holds that minors may be subjected to prohibitions that adults are not — he instantly drew the parallel to regulation of pornography sales. However, Justice Scalia emphasized that unprotected speech, such as obscenity — which he was unwilling to define for reasons that are immediately evident to any constitutional scholar — can be prohibited from sale regardless of the purchaser’s age. Justice Scalia did not suggest that violent and/or sexual content in games rises to the level of unprotected speech. In fact, he did not even suggest that video games themselves are not protected by the First Amendment (as some have suggested) and, instead, seemed to agree with numerous lower courts that games are entitled to First Amendment protection."
We can give or not give as much weight to Scalia's remarks as we choose. However, the fact remains that he gets to wear the black robes and may well be one of the final arbiters of the constitutionality of the Ratings Enforcement Act (and if his remarks are any indication, I think it's clear how he'll vote).
It could get even worse if they started bringing in regulations from other areas as well. For instance, Chicago has a law banning gun shops within a five mile radius of any school or park, which Obama wants to make into a national law. If you take out a map and start drawing five mile circles around them all, you end up with an exclusion zone covering nearly every inhabited area of the country. Many smaller States in the north east would be completely off limits. As would even some larger States like California if National Parks were included. Based on cursory research, I would have to drive like 150 miles to exit the "forbidden zone."
While it's unlikely that such a Federal law would survive a court challenge (either for gun or game shops), it's the ultimate example of a "think of the children" law which many people can be convinced to think is "reasonable" unless they sit down with a map and thing about it.
Anyway, I'm not worried about this legislation. It won't pass.
@illspirit
I'm so glad I don't live in Chicago. Although I do often miss Giordanno's pizza, its not worth Obama's assinine laws.
I don't know about all that. Given the way the question was asked, it sounded to me like Scalia took "mature-rated video games" to mean ones which would be obscene or pornographic as per the Miller test. Without any discussion of the content or what exactly the rating meant (or where it comes from), it's quite possible he assumed "mature-rated" was a polite synonym for "XXX-rated."
That said, I'll eat my keyboard if Scalia or Thomas vote in favor of this act. Between the First Amendment precedent they'd have to leap over (Miller, Brandenburg, etc..), their aversion to interstate commerce power grabs, and federalism issues, I'd say they'd ride a unicorn around the courtroom before ruling for this.
@Austin Lewis
Yea, Chicago doesn't sound like much fun at all. But just think, in 2009, Obama might bring Chicago us all, sans the lovely pie..
Scalia's a lot of things, but obtuse isn't one of them. That distinction's reserved for Clarence Thomas. I'm therefore not prepared to even begin to assume that he doesn't know precisely what an M-rated video game is and isn't. And if Mr. Prestia's impression that Scalia "seemed to agree with numerous lower courts that games are entitled to First Amendment protection" is correct, then I won't hold my breath waiting on him to mistakenly apply Miller, Brandenburg, et al., because it follows that he knows that video games aren't ever going to be held obscene or likely to incite violence. Instead, I'll expect him to nimbly reach up and pick the low-hanging cases that uphold restricting a minor's access to pornography.
Dude, you should jump to the topic right below this one. They're talking about how Obama is the best candidate EVAR because he's black and he promises change.
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."
Ok ... so it's not just the retailers that are the problem, but the ditribution houses. Even your response signifies that some gamers don't get it either!
AO ratings should be for games that are intended to be played by adults. Rockstar have said previously that their games were intended to be played by Adults. Then they should have an AO rating to signify they are intended to be played by adults. Instead the ratings board ends up trying to squeeze it into an M rating. Why?
Because industry needs to shift their paradigm as to WHAT and AO game is. Movie houses don't stop distributing R-Rated movies. Cinema's don't stop showing R-Rated movies. Store don't stop selling R-Rated DVD's An AO game is intended for the same audience as R-Rated movies. Store should not stop stocking them because they are intended for Adults. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft should not be restricting production of games intended for Adult.
If anything, change the name of the rating from AO to R .... bring it into line with movies so that cutomers, stores and distributers have a system that they are familier with. Lord knows that average age of gamers is around 30. That being the case, why is there not a FUNCTIONAL adult rating for games?
The whole situation just beggers belief.
Justice Scalia can be somewhat obtuse at times as well. I almost fell out of my seat listening to the DC v. Heller arguments back in March when a discussion of the (other) Miller test regarding "common use" came up. Fist Scalia said he doesn't know anyone who owns armor-piercing ammunition, then moments later talks about how rounds like the .30-06 and .270 are common. Both of these will rip through a level II police vest like it wasn't there, and .30-06 has been known to defeat trauma plates in level III armor on occasion.
And he's supposed to be one of the gun guys on the court, so he should know this! Even Senator Kennedy knows this. In fact, Kennedy was the one who tried to ban them, which in turn was half the reason for the discussion..
But seeing as the Justices spend their time secured away in a grand, marble tower, it's not surprising that they might forget how the outside world works. Being that they've not heard any game ratings cases, I would almost expect him to know less about video games than your average soccer mom.
Either way, I'd rather take my chances with him than, say, Breyer citing some international law as a reason why game restrictions are permissible. ;)
@Austin
I've pretty much given up on debating Obama supporters. Arguing with cultists, walls, and household pets is much more productive. With the way the Dem primary is going, it looks as if there will be plenty of time for debating with them anyway..
And sorry, but there is NO WAY that the average age of gamers is 30. The number of oldschool gamers today does not compare to the millions upon millions of kids who only picked up gaming in the last eight years.