Congressman Seeks New Game Rating Legislation

[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!

 

[RicoADF]

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.

Books, film, music and videogames all need government backed ratings. The way the US has it, they've basically trusted the cat to guard the canary. People who sell these products are after money, they don't generally care about ethics.

Regardless of my view, since its already very well established that this won't work the guy is intentionally wasting money, might I suggest people who live in that state sue him for doing so.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Blargh. And I was hoping that they were going to pass legislation to better regulate the ESRB which already enacts creepy censorship

Like this:

Hero: [shoots thug in the kneecap]
Big gun: BLAM!
Thug: OW! FUCK! Ha ha ha! You'll never take me down copper! [returns fire]
Hero: [keeps shooting until thug is dead]
ESRB Rating: Mature (17+)

Hero: [Shoots thug in the kneecap]
Big gun: BLAM!
Thug: OW! OH FUCK THIS HURTS! FUCK! PLEASE, GOD, NO! PLEASE DON'T KILL ME!
ESRB Rating: Adults Only

Because normal (realistic) reactions to violence might "disturb the player."

238U

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

Actually books aren't officially rated. They're challenged, and often, but there's nothing but a vigilant librarian to stop your toddler from reading The Catcher In the Rye or Lady Chatterley's Lover if she has a mind to do so.

Like the ESRB, the MPAA ratings system is poorly regulated and will censor all sorts of weird shit, like women considering abortion as a viable option, or atheists portrayed as something other than embittered ex-theists and caricatures, or women actually enjoying sex.

The Explicit Lyrics marking that inhabits gangsta rap is just the Rock & Roll is Evil trope all over again, and is being less and less enforced since the marking sells more albums. Now every songwriter is obliged to fuck you like an animal.

238U

 

[HappyCastor]

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

 

[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?

 

[WanderingFool]

Its not all that bad of idea, really. But that wont stop the fact that it was already put to court by California, and we all know how that turned out.

Its not the job of the government to keep M rated games out of the hands of minors, or the stores (which, all the ones Ive gone to, wont even let you put the game on the counter without showing an ID if you even look to be under 17.), its the job of the parent. And God knows there's enough help out there to educate them on the matter, they just dont bother to learn...

 

[Ryan All]

Going to say the exact same thing as other people, but yeah, people still stop you from buying M-rated games at gamestop. I was buying Mortal Kombat for PS3, and the lady behind the desk refused to sell the game until my escort (As I hadn't had a license on account of being 17, yes yes) showed up, and even then, despite the fact that she looks young but definetely older than 17, they wouldn't let her buy it since she forgot her identification. In the end, she literally had to put me in the car, go ask some guy to buy it for her, although she saw through it, but couldn't do anything about it. Good times.

But yeah, it's -that- ridiculous. This law isnt needed.

Oh wait, and, for once I was actually in the required age limit for an M-rated video game! Why couldnt the lady just give it to me?

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

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.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Doesn't he know that they already HAVE ratings on the front and back of the box?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Apart from the fact that they're going to buy them anyway, fuck this guy. People should not be making laws before research is done, and by research I don't mean how long someone hits a fucking pillow for after 20 minutes of CoD. I just...

...I'm just glad I don't live in the US. The worst we have to deal with is assholes trying to prevent R-rated games from entering the country.