Senate Introduces Truth In Video Games Ratings Act

[heavyfeul]

I realize that making parents responsible for their children seems unreasonable and unnacceptable to the massses, but perhaps we could stop for a second and wonder why that is? I've heard it argued that parents can't be there all the time, to which I respond, if you can't care for your child then don't have one. Caring for a child is a lot more than providing food and shelter. It's teaching and nurturing and helping them grow into good people. Parents don't have to be around all the time to monitor their children's behavior, monitor what games they play, what movies they see. Parents DO need to stop blaming third parties for corrupting children that they can't be bothered to spend time with.

- Tom

I couldn't agree more. Well said. To top it off I will give a real world example.

A few months ago my 8 year old nephew came to visit. He of course wanted to play my Xbox. Before he arrived I took all of the inappropriate games, such as GTA, Doom, Halo, etc., and put them away where he couldn't get to them (Did they same with movie collection). He knew I had these games and asked to play them. I simply said no and that was it. He entertained himself playing age appropriate games while he stayed with me and my wife. He also wanted to play on xBox live. I let him, but did not give him the code or a headset and he was only allowed to play online while I was in the room. If I couldn't or didn't want to supervise, I logged him out and that was it.

In a related note my six year old niece came to visit with her brother and she likes to use the computer and get on the internet. While she stayed with us, she was only allowed to use the computer while under supervision. When me or my wife where not there to watch what she did and the sites she accessed, the computer was off and password protected.

We did the same for the TV. They could not access any program that wasn't PG or below without a password. Simple and easy.

Both of them did not like the restrictions, but they didn't put up to much of a fuss. It wasn't that hard at all. We just had to force them to conform to our rules in regards to games and the internet. We made it so that they could not access content that we did not want them to access.

I didn't need any government regulation to control the content the kids had access to.

Now when kids are over a friends house the situation is entirely different, but far from uncontrolable.

 

[Lex Darko]

I used to do the same a few years back when my cousins were younger. They wanted to play Halo, I let them play Project Gotham 2. They wanted to play Unreal Championship, I let them play Tetris. They are older now so it's no longer an issue but the point is I restrict what people underage play when they visit.

Like my last post no amount of legislation is going to stop uninformed or lazy parents from not paying attention to thier childeren's activities. For example, Some people acutally let children play Halo. [http://www.mtv.com/games/video_games/news/story.jhtml?id=1514305]

How can anyone stop something like that. If people don't take the time to bother with the ESRB rating system when it comes to thier kids you can't blame the ESRB.

 

[Russ Pitts]

If people don't take the time bother with the ESRB rating system when it comes to thier kids you can't blame the ESRB.

The ESRB doesn't vote.

 

[heavyfeul]

Like my last post no amount of legislation is going to stop uninformed or lazy parents from not paying attention to thier childeren's activities. For example, Some people acutally let children play Halo. [http://www.mtv.com/games/video_games/news/story.jhtml?id=1514305]

How can anyone stop something like that. If people don't take the time bother with the ESRB rating system when it comes to thier kids you can't blame the ESRB.

I am constantly amazed at the numder of young kids I hear online playing Halo and other shooters over xBox live. Even if thier parents allow them to play these types of games, how can they let them paly online with all the vulgar and racist language over XBL? A lot of these kids seem way to young to understand that that type of behavior is not something to emulate.

 

[Ajar]

Laws that make it illegal for porn to be distributed to minors certainly haven't stopped (or even slowed in my opinion) the minors from accessing it. So are we looking for a solution like that one?

I don't think this analogy works. Porn is readily and freely available through an electronic medium. How many 13, 15, or even 17-year-olds do you see browsing the adult DVDs in your local porn and sex toy shop? The laws serve their intended function: they prevent minors from buying porn at physical retail outlets, which is something that parents would have great difficulty controlling. They don't prevent minors from accessing porn online; as you say, that's something parents should be monitoring. Laws like this aren't intended to absolve parents of their responsibilities toward their own children, and I agree with you that parents who look on them as such are abrogating one of the most important responsibilities a person can have.

 

[TomBeraha]

I don't think this analogy works. Porn is readily and freely available through an electronic medium. How many 13, 15, or even 17-year-olds do you see browsing the adult DVDs in your local porn and sex toy shop? The laws serve their intended function: they prevent minors from buying porn at physical retail outlets, which is something that parents would have great difficulty controlling. They don't prevent minors from accessing porn online; as you say, that's something parents should be monitoring. Laws like this aren't intended to absolve parents of their responsibilities toward their own children, and I agree with you that parents who look on them as such are abrogating one of the most important responsibilities a person can have.

Laws that make it illegal for ciggarettes to be distributed to minors have only mildly hampered the many 12 year olds who start smoking. I would argue that in most cases, the laws don't have any effect at all. The children who adhere to the law, wouldn't have broken it to begin with, and the ones who find ways to circumvent authority would have found their illicit material/substance anyway. More to the point, the laws in this case certainly don't stop minors from buying ciggarettes at physical retail outlets which is something parents in theory should have great difficulty controlling.

I'll grant you it's a seperate issue with porn, but isn't that directly what this law is being proposed to address? If we're talking about available at retail fix, then how do we address downloadable demos, or shareware, or games that can be purchased online? I know I played conker's bad fur day for xbox on a live demo disc that came with a sports title.

The real problem is in the very wording of your point, parents controlling. It's not a battle, certainly not in most or even many cases. If parenting has been done properly the child is going to be okay, and will have to live with the consequences of their decisions. The conversion from sweet innocent child to murderer doesn't happen with a couple of bad choices. Children are not so delicate, and parents need to learn to treat them as people who need challenges, and to fail and to learn how to deal with their actions.

My analogy may have been unfair, but I feel it was appropriate. The public feelings towards porn are roughly the same as they are towards violent media. It's okay for consumption by adults, but certainly not by children. I don't believe that any amount of regulation is going to stop a parent / older brother / stranger who doesnt care from buying a minor an item. Alchohol is regurally consumed by ciggarette smoking 14 year olds at parties that are crazier than any I attended while in college. Laws are not the answer. They're a cop out, and they won't treat the source of this problem.

 

[Ajar]

What I was trying (ineptly) to get at is this: I don't see why you're making it an either/or proposition. I absolutely agree that the buck stops with parents; what I don't get is why you think legislation shouldn't be part of the solution. What you seem to be saying is that legislation makes parents lazy and that they rely on it rather than parenting themselves, but the very issue we're talking about -- video games -- belies that assertion, because there is currently no legislation and plenty of young children are getting access to T and M-rated games. I don't see how legislation would make this worse. Plenty of parents are obviously already abrogating their responsibilities.

Smoking is actually a very good example, at least in my own country (Canada). Between cigarette retail laws, smoking bans, and a massive government-run public awareness campaign, smoking declined quite dramatically, and continues to fall even now (albeit at a slower rate). So in this country, smoking is an example of how extensive government intervention can be an effective part of acheiving a goal such a smoking reduction.

 

[heavyfeul]

What I was trying (ineptly) to get at is this: I don't see why you're making it an either/or proposition. I absolutely agree that the buck stops with parents; what I don't get is why you think legislation shouldn't be part of the solution. What you seem to be saying is that legislation makes parents lazy and that they rely on it rather than parenting themselves, but the very issue we're talking about -- video games -- belies that assertion, because there is currently no legislation and plenty of young children are getting access to T and M-rated games. I don't see how legislation would make this worse. Plenty of parents are obviously already abrogating their responsibilities.

Smoking is actually a very good example, at least in my own country (Canada). Between cigarette retail laws, smoking bans, and a massive government-run public awareness campaign, smoking declined quite dramatically, and continues to fall even now (albeit at a slower rate). So in this country, smoking is an example of how extensive government intervention can be an effective part of acheiving a goal such a smoking reduction.

While you may support "extreme government intervention" as an effective way to improve public health and morality, I feel having the freedom to exercise your own personal rites is far more important then trying to attain some lofty ideal of the perfect society. Your comments on smoking is the perfect example. Why should the government be allowed to restrict smoking in restaurants and bars? These are privately owned businesses and they have the rite to allow or forbid smoking as they see fit. If someone has a problem with the smokey air or is concerned about the health effects of secondhand smoke, they can take their business elsewhere. Banning smoking in public spaces is fine, those are the commons, but a bar does not belong to the public.

The same applies to laws relating to game content. Are we so incapable of being responsible and informed in our choices that we need to yeild that freedom to governments? The more we do so, the less independent, informed, and capable we will become.

The government is there to provide a very strict set of functions for its people. Telling them what to smoke, eat, drink, watch, read, and play is not one of them. Give me the freedom to make my own decisions and my own mistakes.

Maybe the next things we should ban are cars and good tasting food. You know many people die from those two things each day?

 

[Goofonian]

I've been sitting back enjoying this debate so far because it really isn't all that relevant to me, but with the mention of canadian law, I don't feel too bad about jumping in.

In australia it is actually law that you cannot sell a game rated MA15+ to anyone below the age of 15. the other ratings (M15+, PG, G8+ and G) are just recommendations. Admittedly, the law is not very well enforced here but it is law nonetheless. The biggest problem here is that unlike the movie system here we do not have an R18+ rating for games, so any game that would be given such is denied a rating at all and becomes banned, as it is also illegal for a movie or game to be sold here without a rating. If this R rating was introduced for games I would have no issues with the system at all.

That said, if someone does get caught selling a game illegally (I've not heard of a single case where this has happened) it would only be a fine to the retailer (and perhaps to the person that sold it). Here in aus, if some stupid parent thought they would try and sue EB for selling their child a game they were too young to buy and therefore corrupting them into doing something bad, said parent would just about get laughed out of the courtroom. So I guess the whole argument about laws absolving parents of responsibility is a little less important here.

 

[Ajar]

I said "extensive," not "extreme." I obviously don't think government intervention is inherently extreme, otherwise I wouldn't advocate it in some situations.

Why should the government be allowed to restrict smoking in restaurants and bars?

For one very simple reason: here in Canada, the taxpayer directly foots the public health bill.

The same applies to laws relating to game content. Are we so incapable of being responsible and informed in our choices that we need to yeild that freedom to governments? The more we do so, the less independent, informed, and capable we will become.

Actually, I think the example of smoking laws demonstrates quite clearly that government-sponsored public awareness campaigns make people more informed on the whole, given the consistent decline in smoking. The public awareness campaign predates smoking bans and even increased cigarette taxes.

I still don't understand why giving legal weight to the ESRB ratings would make people any less responsible for their own actions. Parents would still be able to purchase T or M-rated games for their underage children if they wanted to, and would still have a responsibility to monitor what their children were playing. The only thing that would change is that it would be harder (though as Goofonian notes, by no means impossible) for a 15-year-old to buy the next Grand Theft Auto if their parents didn't want them to have it.

For better or otherwise, we in North America have decided that people below certain ages should not be exposed to content of certain types without the consent of an adult (usually parents). This is a restriction of rights that our respective societies have deemed acceptable. I think that if you aren't advocating the elimination of those restrictions, then there's no reason not to apply similar standards to the various forms of media.

The government is there to provide a very strict set of functions for its people.

Sure, but I bet we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about what those functions should be. Since you live in America and I live in Canada, that's probably okay, but I hope you recognize that your model of government is not the only legitimate one.

Maybe the next things we should ban are cars and good tasting food. You know many people die from those two things each day?

We have seatbelt laws here, which I support. We also regulate the contents of food. I'll use a counterexample as extreme as your own: would you prefer going shopping for food with no available listing of ingredients and no legal controls on contents, cleanliness, or shelf life? Or, in the automotive sphere, why not do away with driving laws entirely? After all, why shouldn't you be able to drive your car whenever, however, and in whatever state of inebriation you want?

I think it's evident that neither extreme is appropriate. Just as it would be silly to ban cars, it would also be silly not to have any driving laws. That leaves the great wide middle of the libertarian-authoritarian political axis. You're evidently a lot more libertarian than I am. Actually, Americans on the whole seem to profess much more libertarianism than Canadians do. It's an interesting difference; I think part of it stems from the American Revolution.

Goofonian, some Canadian jurisdictions have done something similar, though as far as I'm aware they simply use the ESRB ratings in their legislation.

 

[heavyfeul]

I said "extensive," not "extreme." I obviously don't think government intervention is inherently extreme, otherwise I wouldn't advocate it in some situations.

Extensive and extreme are relatively synonomous. Symantics aside, I don't see how anyone could advocate, "extensive" government intervention in dometic issues not directly related to protecting freedoms, and rights of its people.

For one very simple reason: here in Canada, the taxpayer directly foots the public health bill.

The US taxpayer also helps foot our public health bill and without digressing into a rant about the misinformation out there on secondhand smoke, it poses a very minor and certainly acceptable health risk to non-smokers. Certainly far less than McDonalds or Anheiser-Bush.

Actually, I think the example of smoking laws demonstrates quite clearly that government-sponsored public awareness campaigns make people more informed on the whole, given the consistent decline in smoking. The public awareness campaign predates smoking bans and even increased cigarette taxes.

Public education and awarness is great. I am all for it. That way people will have the information to make there own decisions.

I still don't understand why giving legal weight to the ESRB ratings would make people any less responsible for their own actions. Parents would still be able to purchase T or M-rated games for their underage children if they wanted to, and would still have a responsibility to monitor what their children were playing. The only thing that would change is that it would be harder (though as Goofonian notes, by no means impossible) for a 15-year-old to buy the next Grand Theft Auto if their parents didn't want them to have it.

I have a better solution that doesn't require government intervention. Don't give them the money and don't drive them to the store.

The government is there to provide a very strict set of functions for its people.

Sure, but I bet we have some pretty fundamental disagreements about what those functions should be. Since you live in America and I live in Canada, that's probably okay, but I hope you recognize that your model of government is not the only legitimate one.

Ideals of a free society is fairly universal desire. I don't think people would choose to live a more restrictive and proscribed life. Most people want the freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

We have seatbelt laws here, which I support. We also regulate the contents of food. I'll use a counterexample as extreme as your own: would you prefer going shopping for food with no available listing of ingredients and no legal controls on contents, cleanliness, or shelf life? Or, in the automotive sphere, why not do away with driving laws entirely? After all, why shouldn't you be able to drive your car whenever, however, and in whatever state of inebriation you want?

Having standards of food quality and automobile safety is a seperate issue. These are standards and laws put in place to help reasonabley ensure public safety. A completely seperate issue. We are talking about videogame content. Content in videogames does not pose any significant risk to public safety whatsoever. This is an issue of free speech. It is the supporters of this who couch their argument in a public safety/welfare framework and I was extending their reasoning into its logical extreme to prove a point.

I think it's evident that neither extreme is appropriate. Just as it would be silly to ban cars, it would also be silly not to have any driving laws. That leaves the great wide middle of the libertarian-authoritarian political axis. You're evidently a lot more libertarian than I am. Actually, Americans on the whole seem to profess much more libertarianism than Canadians do. It's an interesting difference; I think part of it stems from the American Revolution.

Well I would consider myself republican, but I have never actually voted for one. Go figure. But, I think your comment is interesting in that core republican values seem libertarian in this day and age. It shows how much we have come to accept government intervention in our lives. We have allowed the militray-industrial complex to seize power, the FCC to censor our airwaves, states to tell us who we can and can't marry, what we can put in our bodies, and has allowed religion to become public policy.

I may come off as extreme but I believe in maintaining public saftey, infastructure, social assistance, national (non-private) defense, law enforcement/justice, education, environmetal quality, etc. However, when it comes to censhorship and free speech, I am definitely extreme.

 

[Ajar]

Extensive and extreme are relatively synonomous. Symantics aside, I don't see how anyone, especially a Canadian, could advocate, "extensive" government intervention in dometic issues not directly related to protecting freedoms, and rights of its people.

Our government intervenes extensively in many areas of life. Some I agree with, others I don't. Smoking is an example of an area where I support the government's interventions. Others -- for example, the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, which greatly expanded the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies -- I oppose. I tend to look at these things on a case-by-case basis and decide what I think is appropriate.

The US taxpayer also helps foot our public health bill and without digressing into a rant about the misinformation out there on secondhand smoke, it poses a very minor and certainly acceptable health risk to non-smokers.

No offence intended, but I'm much more inclined to trust the findings of Health Canada than internet forum hearsay.

I have a better solution that doesn't require government intervention. Don't give them the money and don't drive them to the store.

And if I, as an enterprising 13-year-old, earn the money from my paper route and elect to ride my bike or take the bus to the store? Again, laws about who can and can't purchase certain types of content (e.g. R-rated movies or M-rated video games) in no way absolve parents of their responsibilities in this regard. They simply cover an area that parents can't effectively control.

Ideals of a free society is fairly universal desire. I don't think people would choose to live a more restrictive and proscribed life. Most people want the freedom to live their lives as they see fit.

Many people choose to live more "restrictive" lives. People routinely vote for politicians who enact legislation that restricts rights, appropriately so or otherwise. Presumably at least some people support some of that legislation. "Live their lives as they see fit" is too broad, I think. For example, we don't allow nudists to live their lives as they see fit. I don't think it's fair to say, then, that government intervention is inherently negative. I don't think the government should be telling you when to sleep, for example, but supporting some government intervention doesn't mean I support all government intervention.

This is an issue of free speech.

I don't think it has anything to do with free speech. Are you saying that restricting minors' access to certain types of content infringes on the game developers' and publishers' rights to freedom of speech? I definitely don't buy that argument. Freedom of speech isn't the same as access to an audience. The two are related, but not synonymous.

But, I think your comment is interesting in that core republican values seem libertarian in this day an age.

I'm not sure I understand this; I intentionally avoided drawing party lines because I'm not American and can't necessarily say what "core Republican values" actually are, only what they look like from up here (which isn't the same thing at all, even though I read some American publications regularly and frequently talk politics with Americans). So I used "libertarian," which is universal. I think of political ideology something like this: make a graph and put libertarian/authoritarian as the Y axis of a graph and left-wing/right-wing as the X axis. I'd say that I fall somewhere in the left-wing authoritarian quadrant, though not too far down the authoritarian axis since I do favour representative democracy over, say, communism or dictatorship.

I may come off as extreme but I believe in maintaining public saftey, infastructure, social assistance, national (non-private) defense, law enforcement/justice, etc.

I wouldn't say that you come off as extreme, just that we have different views on the extent to which government intervention in the lives of citizens is appropriate, in certain contexts.

 

[Maruza]

And again, a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Dan said it best, IMO. The reason this thing is happening is because of the election. Government is trying to change something, but they don't have a good reason. We can speculate all day on why more censorship is good or bad, but that's irrelevant.

I understand the GTA:VC thing, that was ESRB's fault and they should be dealt with accordingly. I dont think they deserve all this heat though. Dont get me wrong, parents have it tough but it's time to stop looking at video games as kiddie toys.

 

[Ajar]

I definitely think this particular bill is a bunch of hooey.

 

[TomBeraha]

And if I, as an enterprising 13-year-old, earn the money from my paper route and elect to ride my bike or take the bus to the store? Again, laws about who can and can't purchase certain types of content (e.g. R-rated movies or M-rated video games) in no way absolve parents of their responsibilities in this regard. They simply cover an area that parents can't effectively control.

In this example the parents can still effectively control the gaming space itself, if their children are willing to go to any length to play said game then just give up because they will manage it in some fashion. I think if you are properly parenting this isn't an issue because they wont feel a need to hide it from you.

And yes, this particular bill is indeed a bunch of Hooey.

 

[Ajar]

In this example the parents can still effectively control the gaming space itself, if their children are willing to go to any length to play said game then just give up because they will manage it in some fashion. I think if you are properly parenting this isn't an issue because they wont feel a need to hide it from you.

I dunno, I think my parents were good parents, but there were still things I hid from them. I mean, on the one hand, it's easy to just blame parents -- they're an enormous group with no singular voice, and generalized claims about parents and parenting are hard to support with evidence. On the other hand, I think the thrust of your point is valid -- that is to say, if the parent(s) and child(ren) have a good, healthy relationship, it probably won't be much of an issue.

Perhaps what's needed is a public awareness campaign (government-funded or otherwise), saying "sit down and talk with your kids about what they're playing. Play it with them. Be involved."

 

[Goofonian]

Why should the government be allowed to restrict smoking in restaurants and bars?

without digressing into a rant about the misinformation out there on secondhand smoke, it poses a very minor and certainly acceptable health risk to non-smokers.

First of all, any health risk is too much health risk. Seriously, for a country where you can sue mcdonalds because you spilt your own damn coffee on yourself and got burnt, I think you should all understand how serious risk is.

Despite the fact that there are numerous independent studies showing that passive smoking is nearly as bad as normal smoking due to a lack of filtration, this is really a matter of CHOICE more than anything, something that Americans like to go on about a lot. In my opinion, allowing smoking inside ANY enclosed space takes away the choice for people in there. They are all forced to breath in the fumes created by the people who don't mind killing themselves slowly. Introducing laws to stop people from smoking inside bars and clubs means that people who don't want to smoke but still want to be able to go out and enjoy themselves are able to. It doesn't stop people from smoking, they just have to go out to the beer garden whenever they feel the need to light up. I was on holiday in another state earlier this year where they had brought in this law and it was the best thing that I had ever seen. Despite the fact that I wasn't choking up at the bar, I woke up in the morning feeling much less hungover (smoke dehydrates you worse than alcohol does) and my clothes didn't smell like sh*t. I hope they bring in these laws everywhere.

Back to the issue at hand. This law is not likely to do anything but make it much more difficult for the ESRB to achieve anything. It is not changing the rating system and it is not changing who can buy games or even educating anyone about what the rating system means. It just makes it more difficult for games to get rated in the first place and so it seems like a worthless bunch of hooey indeed.

As far as laws restricting sales to minors, again I don't see a problem with it as long as it is implemented properly. But that is a debate for another time.

 

[Joe]

I dunno, I think my parents were good parents, but there were still things I hid from them. I mean, on the one hand, it's easy to just blame parents -- they're an enormous group with no singular voice, and generalized claims about parents and parenting are hard to support with evidence. On the other hand, I think the thrust of your point is valid -- that is to say, if the parent(s) and child(ren) have a good, healthy relationship, it probably won't be much of an issue.

You get a gold star, man. It's easy to place blame on parents when people forget that kids have minds of their own and do things their parents don't allow them to do, despite the fact they're good kids with good parents.

Perhaps what's needed is a public awareness campaign (government-funded or otherwise), saying "sit down and talk with your kids about what they're playing. Play it with them. Be involved."

"It's 10:00. Do you know what your children are playing?"

Also: re second-hand smoking. Take it to another thread, d00ds. I'd LOVE to have that debate, but let's keep THIS good debate focused, as it has been so far.