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.
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???