Clinton introducing federal game regulation

[Starhawk]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, with a few exceptions. Is this enough to get the Lieberman's off of the industry's back?

 

If made law, the Family Entertainment Protection Act would be a "a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen."

 

It would authorize "the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to determine how easy it is for young people to purchase Mature and Adults Only video games and report the findings to Congress." These findings would be part of a larger annual analysis of ESRB game ratings. "This analysis will help ensure that the ESRB ratings system accurately reflects the content in each game and that the ratings system does not change significantly over time," read Clinton's statement.

 

My favorite statement:

 

Despite the strong language, Clinton underlined the fact the Family Entertainment Protection Act would not directly censor games. "Senator Clinton acknowledges that video games are fun and entertaining and does not support any limitations on the production or sale of games to adults," read the statement. "This is about protecting children," she said.

 

The only threat, the article states, is that it acutally requires the FTC to do an investigation into the whole Hot Coffee issue to see if it is widespread through the industry. One of the main concerns is this leading to a game ratings system enforced by the Federal Gov if they find sufficient evidence!

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140535.html

[Ryan FB]

So there would be federal enforcement of a ratings system entirely administered by a private institution, which is used voluntarily by game companies? :confused:

 

This is currently not the situation with movies/DVD's and MPAA ratings. I don't see why games should get the special treatment. Movie ratings are enforced just as pathetically as video game ratings in my anecdotal experience anyway.

[JFo]

I say if they want to create legislation "protecting" the children from violent video games, they'd better start writing laws that prohibit the sale of R-rated movies, violent comic books, and books with strong sexual themes (and I'm not talking porno here) to young people.

 

Why does the government have to do what a parent should already be doing?

[Ryan FB]

Why does the government have to do what a parent should already be doing?

Because as you can see, video games are different and require whole new laws. I think we can all agree that Doom and the wave of violent games it inspired are wholly new mediums of entertainment which are corrupting the youth of America. See what happened after Doom came out?

 

 

Wait, shit.

[secretvampire]

Hahahah...that graphic is hilarious Ryan.

 

Can a minor currently purchase an R rated film without incident?

[foogledricks]

That's it. I'm voting for Bush again.

[Robot Monkey]

I, for one, am relieved that Social Security, the cost of medical care, terrorism, Iraq, and alternative energy are all solved. Now senators can focus on the truly importartant issues of our time: videogames.

 

This legislation is in no way reasonable, by the way. If Senator Clinton wants to regulate every facet of my life, she is welcome to try. I don't think it's reasonable, however, to federalize and criminalize something monitored by the private sector. How are these private citizens, who would have powers over the 1st Amendment, answerable to the public?

 

It isn't an unsurprising move, however. If it succeeds, the turds who propose and vote for this kind of legislation can go back to their focus groups and show how caring they are -- and how they did it at no cost. If the measure fails they can purse their lips, shake their heads and mutter about fighting the good fight.

[The Daisy]

That's it. I'm voting for Bush again.

 

Actually, with the voting machines we use now, that'll be entirely possible.

 

While I think this legislation is pointless and it's just another way that the government is trying to bail out lazy parents who don't actually pay attention to what their children are watching and playing, the ESRB brought this on all of us. If they would have done the auditing to see if and how many stores were selling Mature/AO titles to children they could have worked with the retailers to make it seem like they actually give a rats ass who gets their hands on what software.

 

The legislation won't do anything but make it look like the Senate actually cares about the children, after all that's why they seemed to care about steroids in baseball...don't get me started on that....

 

Glen

[Bruce B]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me' date=' with a few exceptions. Is this enough to get the Lieberman's off of the industry's back?

 

 

 

 

 

My favorite statement:

 

 

 

The only threat, the article states, is that it acutally [i']requires[/i] the FTC to do an investigation into the whole Hot Coffee issue to see if it is widespread through the industry. One of the main concerns is this leading to a game ratings system enforced by the Federal Gov if they find sufficient evidence!

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140535.html

 

 

Does it really matter? Businesses will pay about as much attention to this law as they do letting 15 year olds into "R" rated movies. Its all about the Benjamins!

[Starhawk]

I, for one, am relieved that Social Security, the cost of medical care, terrorism, Iraq, and alternative energy are all solved. Now senators can focus on the truly importartant issues of our time: videogames.

 

I totally agree with you here...

 

This legislation is in no way reasonable, by the way. If Senator Clinton wants to regulate every facet of my life, she is welcome to try. I don't think it's reasonable, however, to federalize and criminalize something monitored by the private sector. How are these private citizens, who would have powers over the 1st Amendment, answerable to the public?

 

Reasonable in the sense that minors arent supposed to buy M rated games anyway. Their focus has been the "protection" of children. I, being over 17 years of age, will still get to play my ultra-violent games. I see your point, but if this is all it takes to get the Clintons, the Joe Liebermans, and the Jack Thompsons of the world off of our back (well maybe not Jack ) then I'm good for it.

 

I dont like the possibilites of what could come from this as stated in the last paragraph.

[Robot Monkey]

Again, this is not reasonable. Look at the following scenario:

 

Suppose a game comes out, during any administration. It's a pretty generic FPS, except that the game makes a lot of jokes and comments that insult the policies of the Senate majority or the president. The politicians who are insulted complain loudly and hint that the videogame industry is so out of control, further regulation needs to be revisited.

 

The game in question, which looked like it was about to get a "T" rating comes out with, you guessed it, a Mature rating.

 

Now, you as Joe Public -- how do you hold the private citizens who made the rating decision accountable? Why does the ESRB get to become a quasi-regulatory entity just because Sen. Clinton and others find it important to respond to focus groups without actually being accountable for anything?

 

Further, are you satiusfied because as an adult, you can buy the game anyway? If so, how would you feel about rating books for adult content? Like Huckleberry Finn or Stupid White Men? Should we save kids from those as well?

[Starhawk]

The fact that could happen is what I dont like about this act. I don't want a federal implemented game rating system. I do, however, find no problem in enforcing M Rated games to adults only. Therefore, that removes the "threat to children" I so get tired of hearing.

 

Also, Mr. Robot Monkey, books don't make kids kill kids. Murder simulating video games do. Everyone knows that. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, ya tree huggin hippie.

[foogledricks]

I, being over 17 years of age, will still get to play my ultra-violent games.

Don't be so sure. NC-17 rated movies don't get distributed, so film makers make sure their content doesn't warrant that rating by cutting their art up.

 

Same thing here. If Walmart decides that M-rated games are a liability, and stops carrying them, then game publishers will self-sensor so as to not get an M-rating. Such a case would affect us all, not just children.

 

Not that I'm saying that will happen, but it has to be discussed, as atleast a possible unintended consequence, that has first amendment repercussions.

[Starhawk]

Don't be so sure. NC-17 rated movies don't get distributed' date=' so film makers make sure their content doesn't warrant that rating by cutting their art up.

 

Same thing here. If Walmart decides that M-rated games are a liability, and stops carrying them, then game publishers will self-sensor so as to not get an M-rating. Such a case would affect us all, not just children.

 

Not that I'm saying that will happen, but it has to be discussed, as atleast a possible unintended consequence, that has first amendment repercussions.[/quote']

 

You're right, but you're transposing "M rated games" over "AO rated games". Currently M rated games = R rated movies. They are readily accessible. If Walmart were to deem M games just as much of a liability as AO, then I could see your point.

[dogbert]

This is something I'm a little torn on, and it's a topic I've actually changed my mind on after a debate on the internet - yes, it can happen.

 

In the UK, age ratings on games are legally enforced, like the ratings on films, with retailers subject to fines etc if found to be selling 15 or 18 rated games to underage children.

 

When I moved to the US & saw the problems with the US system (and the grief GTA was getting), I felt the US should have the same legal enforcement of the ESRB ratings. I've changed my mind on this though, mainly because of a thread on HTF where someone debated quite eloquently on how legally enforcing the ratings goes against the 1st Amendment. The ratings system needs more enforcement by retailers, but at the end of the day, it's a guidance thing. Same with movies, for better or for worse.

 

Don't be so sure. NC-17 rated movies don't get distributed, so film makers make sure their content doesn't warrant that rating by cutting their art up.

 

Same thing here. If Walmart decides that M-rated games are a liability, and stops carrying them, then game publishers will self-sensor so as to not get an M-rating. Such a case would affect us all, not just children.

 

I think that's a very real concern.

[Starhawk]

Doug Lowenstein's response from the ESA:

 

"We share Senator Clinton?s commitment to effective enforcement of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings by retailers, and we appreciate the fact that she has sought to draft a more thoughtful proposal in this area than most others. However, we strongly oppose the bill. We believe the combination of trustworthy ESRB ratings, parental education, voluntary retail enforcement of ESRB ratings, and, most recently, the major announcement that all next generation video game consoles will include parental control systems, makes Senator Clinton's bill unnecessary. There is now a continuum of tools from the store to the home enabling parents to take charge of the video games their kids play. It is now up to them to do their jobs as they see fit, not up to government to do it for them."

 

"It?s important to remember that just as there are books, movies, and magazines for consumers of all ages, so there is also a variety of video games for a diverse game-playing community, which is why parental involvement in the purchase or rental of games is so important. Thankfully, this is already happening. According to the Federal Trade Commission?s own statistics, parents are involved in the purchase and rental of games over 80 percent of the time. Knowing this, the answer is not more government regulation but concrete, meaningful actions that would really help parents make the right choices for their families."

 

"It is worth noting that on the same day David Walsh from the National Institute on Media and the Family called for overhauling the ESRB?s videogame rating system, two Senators called for a bill that would enshrine that same rating system into federal law, showing that they think the ESRB rating system is credible, trustworthy, and helpful."

 

Love that last quote.

 

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1756&Itemid=2

[JoeyN]

People just dont learn. Has putting a age limit on anything by the states/government stopped people from getting them? No it hasnt. Why? Because for every store that does care and abides the law, there are 5 more who dont care and will continue to sell to underage kids because it means they are getting the money.

 

capt

[JoeyN]

Can you say Unconstitutional?

 

From Homemediaretailing.com

 

An Illinois law banning the rental or sales of so-called violent video games to persons under the age of 18 was overturned in federal court today. The new law was set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2006.

 

A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law was filed last July by the Video Software Dealers Association, the Entertainment Software Association and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. The suit charged that the law violated the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech and that the language of the law was too vague in a number of areas, including what legal determinations makes a game’s content unsuitable for minors.

 

Federal District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly in Chicago today agreed with the plaintiffs that the law was unconstitutional and issued an order permanently enjoining the law’s enforcement. The judge was quoted in the Chicago Sun-Times as saying state officials “have come nowhere near” proving their law can pass constitutional muster.

 

“Today’s ruling that the Illinois video game law is unconstitutional is as gratifying as it was predictable,” said Bo Andersen, VSDA president. Andersen noted that federal courts have now handed down five decisions over the past four years that have overturned laws seeking to restrict the rental or sales of violent video games.

 

The VSDA and ESA have suits pending against similar laws that have been passed in Michigan and California. Earlier this week Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Joseph Lieberman announced they will introduce a similar measure in Congress when it reconvenes in two weeks.

[Dimness]

I felt the US should have the same legal enforcement of the ESRB ratings. I've changed my mind on this though, mainly because of a thread on HTF where someone debated quite eloquently on how legally enforcing the ratings goes against the 1st Amendment.

 

I have no understanding of the law whatsoever except for a few things. Is this one of those slippery slope arguments? What exactly is being violated as far as free speech is concerned? I'm not asking because I'm being difficult. Seriously, I really don't know.

[Blind Squirrel]

It's actually more of a violation of the 10th amendment, but then again about 90% of our government is a violation of the 10th amendment.

[Ryan FB]

I have no understanding of the law whatsoever except for a few things. Is this one of those slippery slope arguments? What exactly is being violated as far as free speech is concerned? I'm not asking because I'm being difficult. Seriously, I really don't know.

Obscenity and freedom of speech have a long and storied history, so I'll try to explain it as I understand it. I'm not sure of the specifics on the Illinois law, but states are allowed to prohibit the sale of "obscene" material to minors. An earlier definition of obscenity comes from Roth v. US:

"[W]hether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." 354 U.S., at 489. Under this definition, as elaborated in subsequent cases, three elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; ( the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and © the material is utterly without redeeming social value.

I believe Britain's equivalent ruling was

"whether or not the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall."

Which was specifically rejected in the Roth case. Thus, the US's definition is based on "community standards" rather than the susceptibility of the purchaser, and states may prohibit the sale of "obscene" material which falls under this to minors, upheld in Ginsberg v. New York. The test established in Roth was later modified to

* the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

* the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and

* the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

in Miller v. California. Since most games other than a few don't include sex and sex alone (appealing exclusively to a prurient interest with no redeeming value), they would be rather difficult to rule under this definition of obscenity, and therefore lawful to distribute to minors.

 

The law proposed by Senator Clinton is bad on a number of levels as a result. It applies a national standard instead of a local standard. It attempts to prevent the distribution of non-obscene material (which is protected by the First Amendment) to minors. Worst of all, my interpretation is that the fact that unrated material would be treated the same as "mature" material and illegal to distribute would act as a form of prior restraint - you must submit your works to a ratings body in order to be able to sell them to whoever you wish without breaking the law.

[exile]

I wonder if this is Mrs Clintons way to try to get some votes come election time from the Middle and the right. Rumors are circulating that she is going to run for president and if that is the case she will need some of the middle votes.

 

Anybody think I'm reaching too much here?

 

FWIW, I'm torn on this issue. On one hand I wish they would enforce it, on the other hand I wish the retailers would grow some balls and do it themselves. Then again they want the money and won't pass it up.

[Orpheus]

I wish the parents would show some resposibility here as well and actually look into what they are purchasing for their kids or giving them money for. Those ESRB ratings are there for a reason. The retailers should be helping them to make a proper decision, making it clear what kind of content is in a M or AO game. As far as selling games directly to kids, well, if it's M rated, they should be carding them. They do it at the movie theater, why can't it be done in this case.

[AnthonyVolpe]

Despite the strong language, Clinton underlined the fact the Family Entertainment Protection Act would not directly censor games. "Senator Clinton acknowledges that video games are fun and entertaining and does not support any limitations on the production or sale of games to adults," read the statement. "This is about protecting children and the last thing she wants to do is compromise her already-questionable popularity when she runs for president in 2008 with Joe Lieberman," she said.

 

:lmfao

[Blind Squirrel]

I wonder if this is Mrs Clintons way to try to get some votes come election time from the Middle and the right. Rumors are circulating that she is going to run for president and if that is the case she will need some of the middle votes.

 

This is the woman who wrote "It takes a villiage". This type of thing really isn't out of place with her politics.