ESA Oppose Idea of Universal Media Ratings

[Logan Westbrook]

ESA Oppose Idea of Universal Media Ratings

ESA VP Rich Taylor has attacked plans by the FCC to hold an inquiry into taking the USA onto a single rating system for all media, calling the idea unconstitutional.

The FCC has unvieled plans to investigate the possibility of unified ratings for media across all platforms, based on the findings of a report to Congress on the 31st of August that questioned whether children are harmed by inappropriate content such as sex, violence and obscenity.

The FCC's report will be the preliminary steps into determining whether new laws are required. A move towards a unified rating system would take the USA out of step with the other major games markets where games are regulated by industry based bodies.

Predictably, the ESA aren't especially keen on the idea as VP Rich Taylor made clear in a statement: "The ESA appreciates the FCC and its important role however, the ESRB rating system is considered by parents, family advocates, the Federal Trade Commission, and elected officials as the gold standard in providing caregivers with the information they need to make the right choices for their families."

"Universal ratings will, in the end, only serve to confuse consumers, violate the Constitution's first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem," he added.

Source: Gamasutra [http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25032]





Permalink

 

[CoverYourHead]

I don't trust the FCC with anything, they seem to believe we're all made of glass and seeing or hearing anything not suitable for a baby would make us scream and shatter, and thus almost everything is censored in ways not necessary. The ESRB might not be the best system ever, but I think the FCC would screw things up worse.

Of course, I could be miss-reading the article.

 

[Amnestic]

"Universal ratings will, in the end, only serve to confuse consumers, violate the Constitution's first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem," he added.

Which part, exactly? I don't trust the FFC any further than I could throw them, but I'm curious as to how it'd be unconstitutional.

would take the USA put of step with the other major games markets where games are regulated by industry based bodies.

Should that be 'Out of step'?

 

[Sparrow]

...based on the findings of a report to Congress on the 31st of August that questioned whether children are harmed by inappropriate content such as sex, violence and obscenity.

Eh? Surely the answer to that question is pretty obvious.

 

[Sephiwind]

As much as I don't trust and ruling government body I perticularly do not trust the FCC. This is a government organization that over the years has swindled more and more power for them selves to the point that they hardly even represent what they originally were in the first place.

Originally the only power the FCC had was to delegate which radio station recieved what frequancy numer on the dial. Now after all this years they have become a nanny state of the government whom are allowed to delegate what is and isn't proper to be viewed by the American people. Personally I'm sick of them and the Puritanistic approach to what is considered socially acceptible to view on TV. Now they want to have even more power by controlling the rating systems of video game companies as well?

As far as I am concerned the FCC needs to go bugger off and keep their hands off of video games.

 

[hansari]

the ESRB rating system is considered by parents, family advocates, the Federal Trade Commission, and elected officials as the gold standard in providing caregivers with the information they need to make the right choices for their families."

What a joke... parents shouldn't be making decisions based on a letter on the edge of a box...its ludicrous.

If parents really give a damn, then they need to apply just a paltry amount of effort...

(ex. play 5 minutes of gears of war, you get the gist of it...)

 

[randommaster]

"Universal ratings will, in the end, only serve to confuse consumers, violate the Constitution's first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem," he added.

Which part, exactly? I don't trust the FFC any further than I could throw them, but I'm curious as to how it'd be unconstitutional.

Saying something violates the first amendment is a great way to get people riled up against something even if no violating has acctually occured.

I do agree with the ESA's stance on this one, though, because I believe that games need a different rating system from other forms of entertainment. Television and movies are held to different standards when it comes to rating, so it's not like there's no precident.

 

[HT_Black]

So, it looks like 'unconstitutional' is the new '9/11'...in that they're both the utimate cop-out in their respective days and ages.

 

[randommaster]

the ESRB rating system is considered by parents, family advocates, the Federal Trade Commission, and elected officials as the gold standard in providing caregivers with the information they need to make the right choices for their families."

What a joke... parents shouldn't be making decisions based on a letter on the edge of a box...its ludicrous.

If parents really give a damn, then they need to apply just a paltry amount of effort...

(ex. play 5 minutes of gears of war, you get the gist of it...)

Sure the ESRB's ratings aren't that great, but they are consistent and are focused on games specificaly. What constitutes a mature game to a mature movie are different and should be kept that way.

As far as parents using the ESRB ratings, that's a whole different topic, but regarless of what parents deem safe for their children, the ratings will give them a general idea of what they can expect to (not) be in the game.

 

[Bigeyez]

AWDIPKA

Looks like Undefeated Heavy-Weight Champion ESA, with a record 43 courtroom KO's, is about to take on Bureacratic Champion FCC in a no holds bar Cage Match!

Quick Pre-Order your tickets for $139.99 or Pay-Per-View for $99.99, this SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUUUNDAAAAY!!!

Seriosuly though the ESA is going to add a new court victory to their already lengthy record if the FCC really tries to push a law based on this. So hooray for our tax money going to waste.../cry

 

[Mikkaddo]

Honestly I've never approved of the ratings system as is, much less a new more paranoid version that's UNIVERSAL. After all, if we rate even things that seem similar at first, like say . . . Silent Hill, and the new Saw movie (I've been a fan of both since originals) we have a system that falls apart at the seems.

For one thing, how does one even BEGIN to judge non-interactive media such as movies or TV, with something SO interactive if a person is not there with a controller in their hand it essentially becomes a paperweight?

Let's look at the example again, but not as non interactive versus WHOLEY interactive. Rather, let's view content.

Saw is Rated R, no one under 18 can get in, without parental permission,

Silent Hill is rated M . . . that means technically not even your PARENTS are allowed to get it for you. (not that anyone bothers)

So, if we suddenly start putting those two as the same new unified rating . . . then either kids are allowed to play Silent Hill and be warped by it (I know it helped shape my dementia) or no one is allowed to see Saw unless their ID can be confirmed.

Then let's take the idea of music and add that in too, universal IS all spanning after all . . . put that with say . . . Rob Zombie, (in keeping with the horror idea) in his songs there's violence, sex, demons, and really kick ass cars . . . but, since there's sex and violence . . . it's suddenly just as bad as Saw.

Oh wait, so is Aerosmith

uh oh, Bon Jovi, can't have kids hearing that. Anyone read the lyrics in those SO popular Rolling Stones songs? like Brown Sugar? oh no . . . banhammer on them.

If you unify ratings together for ALL media, you destroy media itself . . . we have to judge each FORM of media in it's own right. If you really think your child is THAT effected by media with sex and violence, NO cartoons, NO religious programing, NO movies, NO games, NO music with references to anything similar, NO books with any references . . .

what does that leave us with? textbooks that are not medical in nature or deal with anatomy, talk radio as long as it doesn't mention sex or violence, and educational programing that has no refence to human or animal interaction. As for games . . . well, they're all out . . . except for perhaps, one or two here and there.

 

[KeyMaster45]

I hear the first amendment invoked alot in arguments now-a-days like its some kind of opening chess move or a raid buff doled out to lawyers before court cases.

Exactly how does this impede on my right to free speech? If you ask me everything having one rating system would be alot simpler to parents. Why not use the current movie rating system, want to buy your kid the newest grand theft auto well lets see....rated R? Sorry Timmy, maybe when you're older.

 

[MrCrun]

the ESRB rating system is considered by parents, family advocates, the Federal Trade Commission, and elected officials as the gold standard in providing caregivers with the information they need to make the right choices for their families."

What a joke... parents shouldn't be making decisions based on a letter on the edge of a box...its ludicrous.

If parents really give a damn, then they need to apply just a paltry amount of effort...

(ex. play 5 minutes of gears of war, you get the gist of it...)

This is impossible, parents would have to buy everygame their kids wanted. Kid wants GTA4, God of War or Halo 3? You'd have to buy all three, play them for five minutes, decide that GTA has too much swearing for your 13 year old but is mostly just driving around. Halo 3 is okay and God is a bit too violent. So you try to take God of war back but you've opened and played it so you can't. Meanwhile your kid has got further in GTA and you see him getting it on with a hooker and then running her over. Can't take that back either and you just failed as a parent. Three games only one of which is even slightly okay. And that even without the God of War "sex" bits.

 

[Bigeyez]

To everyone asking how this violates the first amendment, remember that you can interpret the freedoms of the first amendment in lots of ways. The ESA is basically saying that a universal rating system is a control over a form of media. They are basing it as being unconstitutional much in the same way M-rated game bans are unconstitutional. Thats in laymens terms anyways. I'm pretty sure if you go to the ESA website they'll probably have their technical answer up there somewhere.

While you can argue whether or not you think thats valid, you can't really deny that the ESA has been crazy succesful in these types of law suits. Like I said in my joke post earlier the ESA has won and defeated 43 bills that try and exert some form of control over videogames. With precedent so heavily at their side I'm not quite sure why politicians keep even trying.

 

[cobra_ky]

while i'm all in favor of standardizing rating systems (having one letter that means "17 and up" instead of 'M' for games, 'R' for movies, and whatever the hell the equivalent), this is absolutely shocking for american civil liberties. i'm going to be frantically searching for this report tomorrow and alerting my congressmen if necessary.

"Universal ratings will, in the end, only serve to confuse consumers, violate the Constitution's first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem," he added.

Which part, exactly? I don't trust the FFC any further than I could throw them, but I'm curious as to how it'd be unconstitutional.

the universal ratings system will apply only to TV, mobile phones, video and computer games; all forms of media which can block content. clearly the intent of the universal ratings system is to facilitate the use of content blocking technology, which is fairly terrifying coming from the U.S. government.

would take the USA put of step with the other major games markets where games are regulated by industry based bodies.

Should that be 'Out of step'?

that sentence makes a lot more sense now. but aren't games in australia regulated by a government agency?

 

[cobra_ky]

while i'm all in favor of standardizing rating systems (having one letter that means "17 and up" instead of 'M' for games, 'R' for movies, and whatever the hell the equivalent), this is absolutely shocking for american civil liberties. i'm going to be frantically searching for this report tomorrow and alerting my congressmen if necessary.

"Universal ratings will, in the end, only serve to confuse consumers, violate the Constitution's first amendment, and are a solution in search of a problem," he added.

Which part, exactly? I don't trust the FFC any further than I could throw them, but I'm curious as to how it'd be unconstitutional.

the universal ratings system will apply only to TV, mobile phones, video and computer games; all forms of media which can block content. clearly the intent of the universal ratings system is to facilitate the use of content blocking technology, which is fairly terrifying coming from the U.S. government.

Funny, I look at it and see that the intent of a universal ratings system is to facilitate the ease of the public knowing what they want to purchase and what they want to leave alone. Thus *furthering* the first amendment because people will have no excuse for seeing things they didn't want to.

that's what i thought at first too. but the proposed "universal" rating system ONLY applies to forms of media which can be blocked technologically. it does not include movies, books, other forms of media. it's obvious that the only reason this system would be implemented would to aid the FCC in blocking content it deems inappropriate.