Congressman Seeks New Game Rating Legislation

[Andy Chalk]

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?

It's a commonly-held misconception that minors are legally barred from seeing R-rated movies in the US. They aren't. The MPAA rating system, like the ESRB system (and all others) is entirely voluntary. A theater can refuse admittance to a minor, but it is not liable for any legal penalties if a minor is admitted. That's why it's the ESRB that levies rating-related fines rather than municipal, state or federal governments - because the government is constitutionally barred from doing so.

 

[Tamrin]

After looking into this guy I am deeply concerned.

He's putting video games ahead of gun control. He has a voting record on gun policy that I find morally questionable on some issues regardless of anyone being pro/anti gun. He's received multiple endorsements by the NRA receiving more donations than other Democrats. To top it all off The Daily Show just exposed the NRA's involvement in crippling the ATF agency and this guy, Jim Matheson, voted for such amendments preventing the ATF from doing their job properly.

 

[elvor0]

Well I did have a big response planned, but I accidently lost it so, he's the gist of it.

How is this bad? All he's doing is making it so if you're under 17 you can't buy a 17 without your parent there. This means that the whole "publishers are selling mature games to kids!!111!" wouldn't have an argument any more. From now on.... responsibility would rest with the parents, and parents alone. This way, if they start bitching, we can just turn around and say "Well you bought it for him, it's your fault."

I know the US have a thing where they don't like selling AO things in stores, but this isn't AO right? It's just mature? So all should be fine.

However! I will say that if they are going to do this, it should be for films as well, and not just single out games, that's the bad bit.

If anything, this is waaaay better than the rest of them, he's not trying to ban, censor or invent new ratings or anything, he just doesn't want under age kids buying stuff. That's how it is here in the UK, and we still have everything you have on sale, and we generally have less ruckus about publishers pushing smack and conditioning to rise up on rampages on our kids.

Obviously feel free to point out any mistakes I have, I know things are a bit wonky in regards to law in the US, due to all the different states. A blanket rule may not be quite as easy as it is here in the UK.

 

[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?

It's a commonly-held misconception that minors are legally barred from seeing R-rated movies in the US. They aren't. The MPAA rating system, like the ESRB system (and all others) is entirely voluntary. A theater can refuse admittance to a minor, but it is not liable for any legal penalties if a minor is admitted. That's why it's the ESRB that levies rating-related fines rather than municipal, state or federal governments - because the government is constitutionally barred from doing so.

Lawyer'd! Thanks for clearing up that misconception.

 

[Rainboq]

But HEAVEN FORBID we put this kind of oversight on the selling of objects that ACTUALLY kill people ~_~

Uhh, we do. More than this in fact. Sarcasm only works if the implication is not disingenuous.

Except the regulatory agency, the ATF, has been effectively neutered by the NRA.

 

[Burst6]

Well I did have a big response planned, but I accidently lost it so, he's the gist of it.

How is this bad? All he's doing is making it so if you're under 17 you can't buy a 17 without your parent there. This means that the whole "publishers are selling mature games to kids!!111!" wouldn't have an argument any more. From now on.... responsibility would rest with the parents, and parents alone. This way, if they start bitching, we can just turn around and say "Well you bought it for him, it's your fault."

I know the US have a thing where they don't like selling AO things in stores, but this isn't AO right? It's just mature? So all should be fine.

However! I will say that if they are going to do this, it should be for films as well, and not just single out games, that's the bad bit.

If anything, this is waaaay better than the rest of them, he's not trying to ban, censor or invent new ratings or anything, he just doesn't want under age kids buying stuff. That's how it is here in the UK, and we still have everything you have on sale, and we generally have less ruckus about publishers pushing smack and conditioning to rise up on rampages on our kids.

We had this problem a few years ago. A Californian senator tried to pass pretty much the exact same law. There was a massive debate and in the end the law was struck down by the supreme court. The result of that is that if this bill actually passes (which it probably won't) we can remove it on the grounds of it being unconstitutional.

The bill itself wasn't bad, but the precedent it set was. Video games are an expression of free speech, and restricting them by an arbitrary rating system law would mean video games could have been restricted in other ways.

 

[elvor0]

Well I did have a big response planned, but I accidently lost it so, he's the gist of it.

How is this bad? All he's doing is making it so if you're under 17 you can't buy a 17 without your parent there. This means that the whole "publishers are selling mature games to kids!!111!" wouldn't have an argument any more. From now on.... responsibility would rest with the parents, and parents alone. This way, if they start bitching, we can just turn around and say "Well you bought it for him, it's your fault."

I know the US have a thing where they don't like selling AO things in stores, but this isn't AO right? It's just mature? So all should be fine.

However! I will say that if they are going to do this, it should be for films as well, and not just single out games, that's the bad bit.

If anything, this is waaaay better than the rest of them, he's not trying to ban, censor or invent new ratings or anything, he just doesn't want under age kids buying stuff. That's how it is here in the UK, and we still have everything you have on sale, and we generally have less ruckus about publishers pushing smack and conditioning to rise up on rampages on our kids.

We had this problem a few years ago. A Californian senator tried to pass pretty much the exact same law. There was a massive debate and in the end the law was struck down by the supreme court. The result of that is that if this bill actually passes (which it probably won't) we can remove it on the grounds of it being unconstitutional.

The bill itself wasn't bad, but the precedent it set was. Video games are an expression of free speech, and restricting them by an arbitrary rating system law would mean video games could have been restricted in other ways.

Mm I remember, and I agree that it can set a dangerous precedent, however, it's not happened in the UK yet, and while your government has a more aggressive stance on video games, I can't see them going any further than this. Maybe give it a few years till the old guard is out and some more "level headed" (hah!) people are in there. So the law is in place, but the people in charge ain't the same people who also just want to burn them.

I dunno, I feel like if the law was in place, there would be a bulwark in place where responsibility is in the hands of the parents, and would reduce finger pointing at the games industry. Okay yeah they're making violent games, but in order for kids to get at them, the parents /have/ to buy it for them.

 

[Tanis]

Why is it these politicians want government out of THEIR lives, but not out of OURS?

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Gotta reiterate the theory several have presented here: I don't think he knows that videogames already have ratings

 

[Sylveria]

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.

Reality is R rated, thus kids should not be allowed to exist until they're 18.

 

[Burst6]

Mm I remember, and I agree that it can set a dangerous precedent, however, it's not happened in the UK yet, and while your government has a more aggressive stance on video games, I can't see them going any further than this. Maybe give it a few years till the old guard is out and some more "level headed" (hah!) people are in there. So the law is in place, but the people in charge ain't the same people who also just want to burn them.

I dunno, I feel like if the law was in place, there would be a bulwark in place where responsibility is in the hands of the parents, and would reduce finger pointing at the games industry. Okay yeah they're making violent games, but in order for kids to get at them, the parents /have/ to buy it for them.

The UK system works differently i believe. You guys have a much looser idea of freedom of speech than the US does and i don't think the court system works the same way. Besides the US is a massive video game market, bigger than the UK.

I think the congressmen would try to pass more laws for video games. You've been reading the escapist news articles right? I think this is the third attempted law and 89% of parents still think that video games caused the massacre. Every time something like this happens people will latch onto a scapegoat, and politicians will try to appease the people. Video games will be the scapegoat for a few decades, which is plenty of time to do serious damage.

The video game industry self regulates far better than most other entertainment industries. Most stores follow the ESRB guidelines. That bulwark is already pretty much in place, a lot of people just ignore it.

 

[Sylveria]

Well I did have a big response planned, but I accidently lost it so, he's the gist of it.

How is this bad? All he's doing is making it so if you're under 17 you can't buy a 17 without your parent there. This means that the whole "publishers are selling mature games to kids!!111!" wouldn't have an argument any more. From now on.... responsibility would rest with the parents, and parents alone. This way, if they start bitching, we can just turn around and say "Well you bought it for him, it's your fault."

I know the US have a thing where they don't like selling AO things in stores, but this isn't AO right? It's just mature? So all should be fine.

However! I will say that if they are going to do this, it should be for films as well, and not just single out games, that's the bad bit.

If anything, this is waaaay better than the rest of them, he's not trying to ban, censor or invent new ratings or anything, he just doesn't want under age kids buying stuff. That's how it is here in the UK, and we still have everything you have on sale, and we generally have less ruckus about publishers pushing smack and conditioning to rise up on rampages on our kids.

We had this problem a few years ago. A Californian senator tried to pass pretty much the exact same law. There was a massive debate and in the end the law was struck down by the supreme court. The result of that is that if this bill actually passes (which it probably won't) we can remove it on the grounds of it being unconstitutional.

The bill itself wasn't bad, but the precedent it set was. Video games are an expression of free speech, and restricting them by an arbitrary rating system law would mean video games could have been restricted in other ways.

Mm I remember, and I agree that it can set a dangerous precedent, however, it's not happened in the UK yet, and while your government has a more aggressive stance on video games, I can't see them going any further than this. Maybe give it a few years till the old guard is out and some more "level headed" (hah!) people are in there. So the law is in place, but the people in charge ain't the same people who also just want to burn them.

I dunno, I feel like if the law was in place, there would be a bulwark in place where responsibility is in the hands of the parents, and would reduce finger pointing at the games industry. Okay yeah they're making violent games, but in order for kids to get at them, the parents /have/ to buy it for them.

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but at the stores I go to with my younger brother (who is 23 but looks well under 18) the stores wont sell to him without him showing ID, my presence or a parent.

Let's face it. No matter how many laws and ratings exist, until every video game store starts making the parents sign a paper that says "I, BobbyJo Dumbshit, hereby state that I am aware that I am buying Little Billy Dumbshit, Age 12, Call of Duty MegaMurder Rape Force 17 which contains graphic violence, foul Language, racial slurs, sexual slurs, depictions of violence against women, smoking, drinking, and bestiality which carries an Adults Only rating and I absolve GameStop of all responsibility for my negligent parenting methods." This kinda of stupid law-making is never going to end. Until that waiver is in place, Bobby Jo is gonna buy her little Dumbshit kids violent games, totally ignorant of what is in them, then go screaming to her congressman that her kid was sold this horrible game and she knew nothing about it.

 

[grigjd3]

As I recall, one of the reasons the supreme court rebuked the California law was that it was seen as unnecessary. That is, the gaming industry, all the way from developers and publishers down to the local gamestop, were self-enforcing these rules.

 

[Sonder Saunters]

After looking into this guy I am deeply concerned.

He's putting video games ahead of gun control. He has a voting record on gun policy that I find morally questionable on some issues regardless of anyone being pro/anti gun. He's received multiple endorsements by the NRA receiving more donations than other Democrats. To top it all off The Daily Show just exposed the NRA's involvement in crippling the ATF agency and this guy, Jim Matheson, voted for such amendments preventing the ATF from doing their job properly.

Great find!