Congressman Seeks New Game Rating Legislation

[Andy Chalk]

Congressman Seeks New Game Rating Legislation

Another U.S. legislator is seeking a law against selling M-rated games to minors.

It's been awhile since the last time we did this dance, so here's a quick refresher. The ESRB rating system is entirely voluntary, and it is not illegal to sell M-rated games to minors in the United States. Various states have tried to implement legal restrictions on game sales and all have been shot down; California took such a law all the way to the Supreme Court, as you may recall, and lost [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111300-Supreme-Court-Rules-in-Favor-of-Videogames].

But that isn't enough to stop Rep. Jim Matheson, a Congressman from Utah, from taking another run at it. His proposed "Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act," introduced on January 14, seeks to "require ratings label on video games and to prohibit the sales and rentals of adult-rated video games to minors."

"It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board," the bill says. It would also codify into law restrictions against selling AO-rated games to anyone under 18, and M-rated games to anyone under 17.

As far as I know, not one single court has ever allowed that sort of law to stand; it's a fundamental violation of the First Amendment and as the Supreme Court wrote in its majority ruling, "Even when the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply." Justice Alito wrote in a concurring opinion that "If differently framed statutes are enacted by the States or by the Federal Government, we can consider the constitutionality of those laws when cases challenging them are presented to us," but that leads to the obvious question of how Matheson's bill is any different from all the earlier, unanimously unsuccessful efforts to do the same thing. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I just don't see it.

Source: Congress.gov [http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/287/text]


Permalink

 

[wrightguy0]

He also seems ignorant of the fact that ESRB Labels appear on ALL games sold in north america and are clearly visible on the cover in the lower left corner, with another larger rating label on the back of the cover detailing what can be expected in the game, individual stores are responsible for ensuring games aren't sold to minors, and for the most part it isn't the problem, the problem stems from parents (People who are usually over 20, i hope) Go in, purchase games like Call of Duty, and then give them to their children because they are complacent, i think 90% of M rated games played by minors have been bought by their parents, the system we have now works, it's just that parents give in to their kids.

 

[Punch You]

He sounds well intentioned, but I would hate what happened to movies happen also for videogames. I remember there being a controversy a year ago when a documentary about kids being bullied received an R for too many cuss words, so kids couldn't just walk into the theater and see it. I mean, seriously? A kid's everyday life can't be shown in a theater to kids?

This law would prevent 13 year olds from playing Call of Duty, but it would also prevent them from playing Spec Ops.

 

[Zen Toombs]

Serious question: Why is it okay for a movie theatre to not allow minors to watch R rated movies, but not okay for minors to be prevented from buying M rating games?

 

[ASnogarD]

I am so jealous of Americans, they have sooooo much money to waste unlike us Brits.

Wish we could throw money each time a politician wanted to show up on Fox news (or in our case BBC).

 

[Legion]

I was expecting this to be another ridiculous idea politicians were coming up with, but most other countries already have something like this anyway.

 

[kenu12345]

Uh does he know we already have not just one but two age ratings on each game and that an employee would get chewed out if he did just sell a game to a kid. Heck everytime I buy a game I have to show my license

 

[ohnoitsabear]

He also seems ignorant of the fact that ESRB Labels appear on ALL games sold in north america and are clearly visible on the cover in the lower left corner, with another larger rating label on the back of the cover detailing what can be expected in the game, individual stores are responsible for ensuring games aren't sold to minors, and for the most part it isn't the problem, the problem stems from parents (People who are usually over 20, i hope) Go in, purchase games like Call of Duty, and then give them to their children because they are complacent, i think 90% of M rated games played by minors have been bought by their parents, the system we have now works, it's just that parents give in to their kids.

This. This kind of law really seems to be trying to solve a problem that really doesn't exist. And involving the government in an industry that is already very well regulated could only cause problems, especially because it would involve giving a private organization legal power. No good could possibly come from this.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Umm... I though this was already a thing in America? If the person at register things you are under 25 then you need to show your ID if purchasing titles with K16 or higher rating. Or else they get fined if caught (And in shopping malls they got CCTV on every register so, no one takes the changes there.

When I read this I was waiting the legislation to along the line "You can only play violent video games between hours 6pm and 8pm for 59 minutes and then filing a tax of 100$ to the gov - that goes to mental care funding." Or something as smart as that.

Man... I love living in a country that doesn't hate personal freedom.

 

[Entitled]

That sounds pretty... reasonable.

Probably legally redundant and not paricularly helpful, but not problematic in itself either.

 

[Scars Unseen]

He sounds well intentioned, but I would hate what happened to movies happen also for videogames. I remember there being a controversy a year ago when a documentary about kids being bullied received an R for too many cuss words, so kids couldn't just walk into the theater and see it. I mean, seriously? A kid's everyday life can't be shown in a theater to kids?

This law would prevent 13 year olds from playing Call of Duty, but it would also prevent them from playing Spec Ops.

Umm... just thought I'd point out that the movie rating system is voluntarily enforced too. There is no law preventing a kid from walking unescorted into an R-rated movie. The movie/theater industry itself enforces that, just like the game/retail industry does for games. There is no difference at all.

 

[suitepee7]

Uh does he know we already have not just one but two age ratings on each game and that an employee would get chewed out if he did just sell a game to a kid. Heck everytime I buy a game I have to show my license

that would be store/company policy, not the law (as far as i know). stores can enforce it, but they aren't legally required to, and can't face legal action if they were to sell a M game to a minor.

OT: not seeing the problem here really, in the UK this exists by law anyway, and it exists for films in the UK and U.S. (i think).

 

[Scars Unseen]

That sounds pretty... reasonable.

Probably legally redundant and not paricularly helpful, but not problematic in itself.

It's problematic as hell, but you have to understand how American law relates to our constitution to be able to wrap your head around the issue. Basically by issuing a law to restrict distribution and/or access, the proposed law would effectively declare that -unlike books, music and film- video games are not a valid form of speech since restricting speech is forbidden by our constitution. Once that happens, any governmental body at any level can restrict the medium any way they want, up to and including banning the medium's sale altogether(sort of like how we have "dry" counties that cannot sell alcohol).

So no, it is not reasonable at all.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Uh does he know we already have not just one but two age ratings on each game and that an employee would get chewed out if he did just sell a game to a kid. Heck everytime I buy a game I have to show my license

that would be store/company policy, not the law (as far as i know). stores can enforce it, but they aren't legally required to, and can't face legal action if they were to sell a M game to a minor.

OT: not seeing the problem here really, in the UK this exists by law anyway, and it exists for films in the UK and U.S. (i think).

Nope. As I said earlier(and as gets pointed out every time this topic comes up), there is no governmental restriction on any form of entertainment(except for porn because we're a bunch of prudes). And as I pointed out, what can work and be considered reasonable cannot work in the US because of differences in the way our laws work.

 

[Entitled]

That sounds pretty... reasonable.

Probably legally redundant and not paricularly helpful, but not problematic in itself.

It's problematic as hell, but you have to understand how American law relates to our constitution to be able to wrap your head around the issue. Basically by issuing a law to restrict distribution and/or access, the proposed law would effectively declare that -unlike books, music and film- video games are not a valid form of speech since restricting speech is forbidden by our constitution. Once that happens, any governmental body at any level can restrict the medium any way they want, up to and including banning the medium's sale altogether(sort of like how we have "dry" counties that cannot sell alcohol).

So no, it is not reasonable at all.

I'm pretty sure that there was that time where the Supreme Court already declared that Video Games are an art form and deserve freedom of speech protection, so if that bill would really infringe on that, they could just call it unconstitutional. (of which I am not sure. How would a shopping age restriction infringe onn freedom of speech?)

It is ultimately the Constitutional Court that decides whether anything (including federal law) is constitutional, so even if I'm misremembering anything, and the Court didn't say anything about games until now, the reason why they weren't entirely banned in certain counties until now, is simply because no one wrote such a bill, not because they had explicit protection.