@SpiralGray: It's for games only. Fails point #1.

HALLELUAH!! Finally some sense in politics!

I just pray that congress listens, and whoever becomes president.

"Forget basing this on obscenity or harm to children."

This will never ever EVER happen. I know there is a semi-famous quote, but I can't seem to find it.. something like 'If you control the children, you'll have the women, and the men can only choose to follow.'

That's obviously a little extreme, but the idea of using 'children' to bullshit your way to any where is an old, tried and true method.

There is no need for legislation whatsoever. If a parent doesn't want their child playing certain video games, it's their responsibility just in the same way it is their responsibility if they don't want their children getting ahold of other free speech materials like The Holy Bible, Harry Potter Novels, Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species, Left-wing based literature, right-wing based literature, ect.
The government should have no right to decide what anybody be it someone over or under some magical arbitrary age limit can or cannot play, watch, read, or listen to. Keep the nanny-state out of our lives and our children's lives.

I like what was stated, but politicians who are hell bent on doing something, such as Leland Yee, will continue to try to pass a law.

It also fails on point 2: Using the game industry's ratings
That was said to be unconstitutional because the ESRB is not part of the government and thus can not be given such authority.

This is one the many reasons legislation is not possible...
Using the ESRB ratings would be unconstitutional... making a gov't body that would make ratings in place of the ESRB would also smack of a free speech offense since the gov't is getting a say on exactly what does or does not pass... and the last remaining option would be to define violence as Obscene and make it an exception to the 1st amendment; however as we've seen in the past, not only could you not do this without including other forms of media, it's impossible to get a clear definition as to what "So violent, that it's obscene" is... Unlike things that are sexually explicit, there is no clear line for violence...

Throwing a punch is one thing, but what if you throw enough punches that you beat a person to death? how about a gunshot? someone getting shot could be seen as only pg13... how many times can a person get shot before you jump up to R rating? Hell even decapitation could work itself into PG-13 level... and then there's the whole issue of excluding cartoon violence which involves defining "what is a cartoon?" (one reason i recall a piece of legislation failing is because they realized bugs bunny carttons would fit their definition)... and the answer "anything animated" won't work; adult swim and lots of animes prove that to be dead wrong have shown that animation can do adult level stuff too... not to mention that games would fit under "something animated" as well (thus render the legislation moot for games =p)...

Interesting stuff. I definitely can't agree with all of it, but I do tip my hat to Methinitis, for he is someone who is clearly more rational about the issue than others. (cough, Jack Thompson, cough)

To speak to the point #2 issue, there is some commentary on the blog post about it.

To summarize: Rating authority can be outsourced as long as there is a government authority to triage the issue (likely the FTC). Television ratings are legally triaged through the FCC, but the ratings themselves are determined by the broadcasters/networks/producers. It's not an identical structure, but it's a logical legal extension of that concept hybridized with the current biz op/franchise/consumer protection regulatory structure of the FTC.

Regardless, all TV shows are rated (except news and sports). It's a semi-voluntary system.

Dennis, maybe you could spell Methenitis\' last name correctly.

GP: yup, my bad... Fixed.

Nothing pisses me off more than the AO rating on the system. For one thing it's like an appendix, completely useless and just gets in the way. Another thing, the difference between AO and M that you have to be 18 to buy an AO game and not 17 for M. Whoop-de-do, one whole year. The only reason it's so feared is because the AO rating has a very psychological impact on people, which I find silly.

After reading his points, I'd have to say...

1) Good idea. Any legislator that tries it will be burned alive in the Polls. It's one thing to regulate videogames, but trying to ban books? People know that Hitler did that and Hitler was bad, so you must be bad. And yet, this little rule might make legislators wake up and realize just what they are doing is wrong.

2) A legislator can't use a private rating system to enforce a law. It's unconstitutional as has been pointed out over and over again.

3) If only legislators new how to read.

4) "Protect the Children" is the fear-hammer that politicians want to use to swing public opion to their side. If enough people can be convinced of the threat, the law can be "bullied" through the courts even if it does violate the constitution (again see Hitler). Subtlety don't win campaigns boy, and politicians would never willing give up such a big fear-hammer.

5) I like the AO rating. If I want to buy a porn sim, I know what to look for and it won't be buried alongside of copies of Halo and COD. If anything, "adult" stores should sell these games both in store and online. Problem solved.

6) Only if you agree that, despite scientific evidence to the contrary, games are harmful. Otherwise it's still a violation of free speech and parental rights. A better solution would be to create a child credit card and give parents control over how much they can spend on it per day, as well as a software block when they try to purchase something the parent has decided they shouldn't. Then require that all purchases on any product made by an underage person use these cards. Of course, big sales brother won't be far behind.

7) see 6.

8) see 6.

9) Politicians will never see it that way.

@JustChris
there's a crucial point to that one year difference... it's the difference between minor and adult. While the AO rating can apply to more than just porn the fact is that AO is the very rating a porn game would get, as such they should follow the standards of any other media when it comes to porn...

What we have to remember is the original purpose of the ESRB, fore this is a reason for many of the ESRB's standards. The original purpose of the ESRB was NOT to be a form of regulation, it was meant to be nothing more then a form recommendation. The M rating is like saying the game is not meant for minors, but at the same time giving parents some leeway as to decide for themsleves how mature their child is... the AO rating is more like the ESRB telling parents that they are SERIOUS about the game not being given to minors.

grant it, i do think we should we should have an M15-16 rating as some games are too tame to warrent a 17+ rating... and i do kind of wonder, if they change M to be 15+, and the AO rating was 18+ but included games that had content that could go as low 16+, would the industry be more willing to allow the AO rating and not automatically ban it from retailers and consoles? They may want to keep certain content out, but when you got games that have only 16-17 level content, it might prompt them to instead pick and choose the games they want instead of banning the entire rating... afterall, while not allow certain games is bad, banning an entire rating is worse since it renders the rating rather meaningless.

Beyond the fact that the FCC once gave Jack Thompson more than the time of day (for which I'll never forgive them), I whole-heartedly disagree with some of their speech-censorship efforts regarding broadcast radio and television and therefore don't at all trust them or any other similar independent government agency such as the FTC with my free-speech rights. It was those knucleheads who, in FCC v. Pacifica (1978) carved-out the previously non-existent "indecency" exception to the free-speech protections of the First Amendment. And I, for one, happen to enjoy using all of Carlin's "dirty words."

@ Monte:

The M rating is like saying the game is not meant for minors, but at the same time giving parents some leeway as to decide for themsleves how mature their child is… the AO rating is more like the ESRB telling parents that they are SERIOUS about the game not being given to minors.

Not really. The way I see it is that the AO rating is (or SHOULD be) used mainly for sexually explicit (pornographic) content. Since it is illegal to sell porn to a minor, the AO rating allows for adult games without the possibility of a minor getting their hands on it.

Granted, the AO rating doesn't get used much because most game developers don't really make pornographic games in America. There was also the issue of Manhunt 2, which is kinda sketchy in my mind, but remember that movies can be rated NC-17 (the MPAA equivalent of an AO rating) based on violence alone.

For me its if you are goign to regulate media do it for 17+ that means "unrated" DVDs above PG13 is a no no, and all the R,M,NC17 and AO stuff have a fine attached to the sale of the minor that goes to the store,then lets add the publishers of unrated DVD thats above the PG13 level will be fined 10K a incident, the store can have it own policies dictating how employees are flogged, either have a simple wide sweeping regulation or let the industry regulate them selfs.

This of coarse wont happen because the media industry wont dare change the way dvds are done.

Monte is, of course, incorrect. The broadcast of obscene material is prohibited even on satellite and cable.

@Jack Thompson, Attorney:

If you think you're going to revie your gig as as a debater on the college campus circuit, you'll have to first overcome the zero credibility factor, Jack-O (play theme music from "Mission Impossible").

@Jack Thompson, Attorney:

Can you point to some authority in support of the proposition that "broadcast of obscene material is prohibited even on satellite and cable?"

They still do broadcast but those are all pay per view channels not available with normal service.

I have an terribly hard time believing that at all. I've heard things far beyond my threshold for obscene material on Opie and Anthony's Sat Radio show. And it's been like that for quite some time. Considering how wary they are of getting into real trouble again.. I imagine that "obscene programming" must be incredibly different from what goes on.

@Black Manta:

Because those examples aren't obscene, either.

Ah so it's the legal interpretation of obscene.. Duh -_-

Black Manta,

JackDon'tKnowJack hit the nail square on the head. As offensive as you may find those shows, they are not examples of obscenity.


Andrew Eisen

Black Manta,

That's not to say that no one has raised a fuss over the content of those shows but the FCC has traditionally not enforced indecency and profanity prohibitions against subscription programming services.


Andrew Eisen

@ Andrew Eisen

Oh, don't get me wrong. I love Howard! Never had any problem with the show whatsoever. Playboy isn't bad either (though I find the Bubba the Love Sponge show to be a bit lacking). Baba-booey to you all! :)

@ Zippy

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask... what do you mean by 'numbers?' The systems just have a lock on them that doesn't allow AO games to be played, that's all. It's not a bug or anything, if it was, they'd probably have solved it long before now.

@Jack Thompson, Attorney

How long before something comes up to prevent you from attending?

@ JKDJ

I feel you. I'm still in the process of replacing my favorite albums on tape cassette to CD. I'm working on my replacing Iron Maiden albums now in fact.