Congressman Seeks New Game Rating Legislation

[danon]

Video game ratings because letting parents decide what their kids play would be totally insane.

 

[Living Contradiction]

Uhh, we already did this, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of games, and a Supreme court decision is pretty much impossible to overturn.

Ah, but he can still attempt to put a bill on the floor because he's part of the House. It's entirely possible that this bill can get passed and made law before the court has a chance to strike it down (which, if it comes to that, it will, wasting both the court's time and taxpayer money). Meanwhile, he gets to look good for his constituents as a moral crusader, striking out against the evil videogame industry that poisons the American culture and encourages children to kill.

At least, that's how his re-election campaign will put it the next time he runs for office. Mr. Matheson is playing the long game, hoping to undercut any opposition later on. Mind you, this dolt has been in office since 2001, so he's well acquainted with the game and probably won't have any competition to speak of. Among the other stellar bills he's proposed: a resolution "Congratulating the staff, community, and patrons of the Utah Shakespeare Festival on the festival's 50th anniversary" and a bill to prevent scalping of show tickets (if you really want the details, head to congress.gov and search for his name).

Hooray, democracy.

 

[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?

Because there aren't any knee-jerk lemons running around spewing bullshit about how movies are ruining our children*. No that's... that's really the only reason. Stop looking at me like that, I didn't say it was a good reason, it's just why. People are idiots.

*Edit: In fact, I would wager that some of those knee-jerk lemons will spew about violent video games corrupting their children one moment, then taking their kids to the latest action flick the next.

Also there are legal reasons. I could explain them in full, but I'll just quote the charismatic stallion who recently Lawyer'd me:

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.

As for your comment: I agree that there is likely some amount of hypocrisy amongst some critics of videogame violence, and would find such hypocrisy very amusing.

 

[Racecarlock]

No. Not my congressman, no. I voted for you, asshole!

 

[Strazdas]

The ESBR labels have done enough harm already, why this stupidity?

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."

the whole notion of labeling something inappropriate for certain ages should be what is fought against, not enforcement of it.

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.

how is "you wont be allowed to buy it legally" not baning, or censoring? Oh, maybe you think people bellow an artificial 18 year old limit is somehow lesser human and thus does not have their rights granted to them?

 

[Zeriah]

This has always made perfect sense to me. If the parent thinks their kids are mature enough to play mature video games, they can buy it for them. This is the way it should be.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

Are there any AO games made in the U.S. that can be bought through a brick and motor store? Because I've never seen any. And as far as I know, retailers refuse to sell M rated games to kids. The parent has to be present, and even then the retailer tends to warn the parent exactly what they're buying. At Target, where I work, we have to scan your driver's license to sell a M rated game. If you're not old enough, the computer literally will not allow the sale to go through. All the things this law wants to do are already in affect as far as I can tell. You need to start passing laws on parents if you want any more regulation, and we all know that's not going to happen.

As for the rating system, there are two types as far as I'm concerned. There's the one on the box, sure, which explains what content is in the game and what age it should be played out, but then there's the common sense rating. If the box art has a zombie on it with blood dripping from it's mouth, or a marine fighting monsters everywhere with a smile on his face, or a weapon dripping with blood, do you REALLY think you should be buying that game for little Crystal for her eighth birthday?

Other than PC games, there are no AO games that would be able to be sold in the US, since Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo have some licensing stuff related to their consoles, such that only games that these companies "okay" are able to be sold on their respective consoles. All AO games are forbidden by the Big Three.

So, other than the VERY rare PC game, there ARE no AO games to sell, since few developers would want to spend several thousand dollars just to get an Adults Only rating (a death sentence for any console game), when they could just sell it online on PC without any rating at all. Every console developer that gets an AO rating at first will make changes and resubmit until it is an M.

Theoretically, though, if there WAS an AO game that Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo allowed on their console, the vast majority of retailers also have their own separate policies forbidding the sale of them.

It's funny you mention Target, though, since they're massive hypocrites when it comes to violent media. I used to work there, and have seen it first-hand. Five year old kid walks up alone with an R-rated movie? Perfectly legit. M-rated game? Nope, not allowed. It's disgusting.

Oh, but that's the point isn't it? Violence in movies, books, and T.V. is perfectly fine and acceptable. I'm sitting here right now listening to a T.V. show, on regular cable, where they're using words like "shit" and "pussy," which I thought was rather frowned upon on cable. However, video game violence is totally unacceptable and must be stomped out. Believe me, I understand exactly what you mean.
I think we tried to enforce an R-rated no-child policy once. It lasted for about a month before people started complaining.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Damn near every video game on store shelves these days are already rated and a law of this nature was declared unconstitutional, so why even attempt this.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Captcha is really scaring me on this site. I go to type a brilliantly written opinion, but captcha beats me to it with ...

'no brainer'

Eh, that'll do.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

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?

Seriously. I have that Californian law about requiring ID for M-rated games, or parental permission. Why is this bad? Every other day I see you people complain about the little kids on COD and Halo, and worst case scenario it requires the idiot parent to give permission for their kids to play things that are way out of their age range.
I understand that some parents believe their kids to be mature enough for these games when they are not actually 'of age', and I respect that, Californian law respects that, why is it a problem?