When Games are Sold Like Guns: An Interview with the ECA's Hal Halpin

[DTWolfwood]

A lot of people seem to be missing the point. Why is it that everyone takes everything LITERALLY nowadays? everyone forget what analogies and metaphors are anymore?

The analogy is that like guns the act of selling an M rated game to a minor will become classified as a federal crime. Selling an R rated DVD to a minor (and get caught doing so) merely gets you fired, you DON'T GO TO JAIL FOR IT.

His point is why are ONLY videogames not protected First Amendment, when Film, Music, and Books are! Is a videogame not to be considered an intellectual property and the creators can't be allowed to his freedom of expression?

If your not from the United States or live in the United States here is the short version of what we are up in arms about:

1) Selling M rated games to Kids = universally accepted as BAD (ALSO NOT THE POINT)

2) (THE POINT) If the case wins, Videogames will not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, and freedom of religion) Since it isn't covered, it CAN be restricted for content, censored, banned, and games will have creative limitations placed on to them by the GOVERNMENT

*note* as of right now any of the Censoring, Content Editing, are all voluntary from the Games publishers/develops told to them by the ESRB. Which they willingly listen to as the governing body. They can just as likely release a game without going thru to the ESRB should they choose. Doing so more or less dooms your company, but they can.

3) Implications is that this will give Law makers a precedence in the future to limit more of our freedoms. (That right there is a very scary thought)

We already fucked up when we let the Patriot Act slip through the cracks. To let this through means we can forget about our civil liberties in the long run.

 

[DTWolfwood]

No he doesn't. That's not what he's saying at all.

"so instead of shopping for games like you shop for DVDs, you'd have to shop for them like you'd shop for guns."

That is his statement. The difference between governmental control and independant control of video games is exactly nothing in practice, with the slight difference that stores might start being a bit more aware of checking for IDs if a fine is in place, and even then, that'll only happen for a while. Shopping for games will still be exactly like shopping for DVDs, which is about as far removed from shopping for guns as buying ice cream is from alcohol.

This may, however, affect how American games are marketed and possibly made, depending on how overboard American developers go on this. As evidenced on this very thread, the idea of governmental control is awash with bizarre beliefs that it will herald the end times, and will suddenly stop all games that are even remotely violent from being made, so we might see a few less World War 2 and Modern/Near Future shooters for a bit as developers overreact and start believing that the government has banned all on screen killing of human beings.

Honestly, the most likely outcome of this is that tighter and betterregulated controls on American game stockists mean less American kids in multiplayer games, and even then, that'll just be for a while.

The analogy is that like guns the act of selling an M rated game to a minor will become classified as a federal crime. Selling an R rated DVD to a minor (and get caught doing so) merely gets you fired, you DON'T GO TO JAIL FOR IT.

ok perhaps not that harsh. Its an implication.

Again not the point. I like my Freedom to be free thanks. Government can stay out of it or consider all forms of media either protected or unprotected by the first amendment. Unfair treatment to what use to be considered freedom of expression

 

[W00ty32]

Wow, at 11! I knew credit cards are far more common in the US, but I didn't know THAT. This surely proves to be a problem alright. :/

Credit card at 11? Glad I'm not living in the US.

I'm UK. I'm unsure of the debit card for US, but the US credit card is 18.

If that's true, the problem lies more on how you shop for guns than how you would shop for a game if the law pass. You only need an ID to buy a gun? That's crazy! Are they thinking that driving a car is more dangerous than having a gun?

That's what we do agree on. And games aren't THAT dangerous.

[US] Hell, my parents got me a debit card for my 13th birthday. And all I had to do is muck with what I put as my age in steam to buy as many M rated games as I want. Same for Amazon.

The "credit card" way doesn't really work, assuming you have very un-restrictive parents.

 

[johnhatem]

This law would be great!
Governments will deny, mothers will not buy, precedents will blame, everything the same, violence won't drop, government won't stop, rage will amplify, I want them to die, they take it all away, why can't I just play?

 

[Albino Boo]

Both sides are engaged in cynical posturing for their own benefit. One to buy votes the other to protect profits, neither care about any moral argument.

So? While true, this is more relevant to politics in general than the specifics of this debate. That is always the case and regardless of motive, we still must live with the Court's decision.

Yeah but so what the law is unenforceable at a reasonable cost, grow a beard or get a fake i.d. This whole thing is storm in teacup.

 

[Verbal Samurai]

To all of the people who do not understand the controversy, it is two-fold:

-----------

Issue #1

In the US, we have the 1st Amendment which VERY strongly protects free speech. There are very few things that are unprotected by free speech.

Depictions of violence are NOT one of those unprotected forms of speech UNLESS

1) they are used as a credible threat of real violence against a person or group, OR

2) they are intended to incite imminent violence where it is likely to be successful. This part means you have to (A) be trying to incite violence, (B) the violence must be real violence against a person or group of people and not pixels on a screen, (C) the potential violence must be about to happen and not at some unknown point in the future, and (D) the attempt to incite that violence must be likely to actually do it.

Think about it as "trying to start a fight that might actually happen right now because of what you're saying to the people involved."

None of those apply to videogames. The developers and producers are not trying to get people to act violently IRL. Even if they were (which is ridiculous), any violence that wound up happening would not be about to happen at the time the person is playing the game nor is it likely that the videogame would be successful in tipping the scales, resulting in violence.

-------------

Issue #2

Currently, there are ratings for movies. Those ratings, like the current videogame rating system, is NOT done by the government. It is done by citizens and participation is voluntary. Of course, realistically, you have to participate because otherwise the stores will not carry your product. The endsmay be the same (the creation of a rating system) but the means are not. The government has NO BUSINESS telling people what they can or cannot say or can and cannot watch/listen to, enforceable with criminal sanctions.

The exception to this is porn. There is no exception for violence. The argument is that watching fake violence is as harmful to minors as porn, so we should create another exception. They have tried and failed to make this argument in every other form of media including print (comic books) and films.

There is another exception for BROADCAST television and radio. This is the result of a very old and outdated reasoning which created the FCC. Basically, back in the days of black-and-white TV and radios the size of refrigerators, there were only a small number of channels. Because there were so few channels to go around, they decided that it was necessary to put limits solely on that particular form of media to restrict "objectionable" material so everyone can make use of this scarce resource.

Now that we have thousands of TV channels and even radio stations thanks to satellites, the FCC serves no real purpose. Unfortunately, once you give power to the government, you will NEVER get it back. Even though the FCC has outlived its intended purpose, its not going anywhere. That doesn't mean we can or should extend its power to videogames. There are numerous systems and games for each of them. They are hardly a "scare" resource that must be acceptable to everyone.

Non-broadcast TV and radio often follow ratings guidelines because not everyone wants to advertise on porn stations, but the government is not forcing anything on them. Again, even though the end result is the same (the creation of a rating system) the government has NO BUSINESS telling people what they can and can't say/watch/hear. Allowing the government do start doing this would destroy the core purpose and function of the 1st Amendment.

-----------

tl;dr version:

1) There is no exception to the 1st Amendment to allow the government to restrict this form of speech. We cannot allow the government to make laws in violation of the Constitution.

2) The current ratings systems for other forms of media are not done by the government and participation is voluntary. There is also no reason to treat videogames any differently than other forms of media which do not have government controlled censorship. The only exception applies to BROADCAST TV and radio and is based on long-outdated reasoning. There is no reason to extend government power where it doesn't need to be.

 

[johnhatem]

You guys get it wrong.

Censoring evil is bad, as it leads to totalitarianism.
Then, totalitarianism censors evil, to give it a special place where it will grow out of sight.
Censoring evil inflates it.

Removing evil is good.

Distinction: evil done, and evil virtual, as games.

Removing the evil that is done means to remove crime and reasons for crime.
Removing evil as virtual, games and movies and art, is done by making it not be a -reason- for crime.

How do you make a violent game in not being a reason for crime?

Only -sadistic- violence must be governmentally kept from children.
Gutting people with a chainsaw is not sadistic unless it is graphically twisted, like real hard vibrations of the body and long seconds of tremolous chainsaw agony, the actual, precise, accurate, reflexively felt physiological reaction.
Otherwise children will look at death, see it and move on. They won't like it. They will make natural abstraction of it and will understand it is painful while gunning away for awesomeness, colors and glory.

Criminals will say they kill people because of some reason. They are murderers capable of unjustified murder, that's the real reason, not games.
Blaming reasons and games and legitimate catharsis instead of fucked-upness and pointing out with your finger at reasons of partially justified murders is lame. Laaame lame lame lame lame. Laaaame LAAAAME LAaME lame lame lame lame lame.

Let's stop and rationalize cathartic evil just because some people have really big problems and wind up on games and music and movies before murdering someone. These psychologists know nothing. This is childish stupidity gone serious.

 

[Ephriam Knight]

The main issue is that the government will be regulating speech, something that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says they cannot do. The is the #1 reason why we are fighting this law.

As for kids playing violent games, that is the parents responsibility to allow or not allow. If you think retailers need to not sell violent games to minors, you already have your wish.

The FTC's 2008 Retail Secret Shopper survey found that 80% of children we being blocked from buying M rated games with Gamestop leading the pack at 94%. This shows that game retailers are taking it seriously and doing so voluntarily. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm

All game consoles have Parental controls so that parents can limit the types of games that their children play by rating. So if the parent doesn't want their kid playing M rated games, they can set the controls to only allow T rated and under games.

Then there are the ESRB ratings which give the parents the ability to see what content the game contains and decide if their children should be allowed to play it.

Finally all game consoles have what we like to call the power button. If a parent finds their kid play a game they are not supposed to be playing they can turn off the console.

All these tools are available for parents to use when choosing games for their kids. If you get on a session of Gears of War or Modern Warfare 2 and hear 10 year olds playing, that is because the parents chose to let their kid play those games. They made that decision through any number of ways.

They either bought the game for the kid, didn't set the parental controls, didn't review the game the kid bought or do not monitor their child's game playing.

How will this law compensate for that? If the kids are getting their parents to buy the game and the parents don't care what the game is, what will this law accomplish aside from being a road block for game developers an retailers?

Next, I give you yet another reason this law is bad. There are no solid measurements of what constitutes a violent game. None. That decision is given to a handful of politicians to decide. So any game could be considered violent enough depending on who is reviewing the game. One city could find a game violent while another city would not. A city might think a game is violent while the Attorney General would not. All this confusion would make it difficult for a game retailer to decide which games they can sell to minors and which they can't. Eventually they could decide that it is better to not carry certain games because they risk of fines and lawsuits would be too great. By doing that, they will be preventing some developers from marketing their games. If Game developers cannot find retail space, they will decide to make "safe" games.

If you want to see this in action, look at games rated AO. Almost all retailers have chosen not to sell AO rated games. All 3 major consoles have decided not to license AO rated games. How many AO rated games have been made since those decisions? 24. That is all. Of all the 18,944 games rated by the ESRB only 24 are rated AO. All this because retailers and console manufacturers have decided they want nothing to do with them.

If you think that this will not happen if this law is passed, you are sadly mistaken.

For another example, you should research the Comics Code Authority and what it did to the comics industry.

That is why we are against this law.

 

[johnhatem]

They either bought the game for the kid, didn't set the parental controls, didn't review the game the kid bought or do not monitor their child's game playing.

How will this law compensate for that?

The hidden purpose of abusive law is to provide a bridge towards future aberration. They will implement measures to be able to compensate for that.

That's why I am against these things. At first they are a momentarily welcomed compromise, then they are hell.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

You're trying to keep our feelings off the street!
You're nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
You gotta stem the evil tide
And keep it all on the inside!
Mary you're nearly a treat
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry!

--Roger Waters

 

[Dan50]

I have already started importing uncensored games from Europe. Mortal Kombat for the PS3 and more will follow.

 

[JJMUG]

Frankly, I can't imagine the State of California - if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court and is rejected - would permit him to waste the state's time and money further.

I though they were bankrupt.


Why not move bid game game even geek related events out if California(E3 can come to Buffalo we got the space). Enough is enough if someone is hitting you in the arm over and over again you1 don't just stay there and let it continue you move away.

 

[fletch_talon]

But it doesn't need any more incentive. If a worker sells a violent game to a kid, he gets fired. No ifs, ands, or buts. This law is a pointless waste of time and money.

And what if a store simply decides that they don't give a shit about the regulations? Recall back to what you said in the first place:

Which is why almost every gaming establishment already doesn't sell to minors.

Note the bolded text. That's why it needs more incentive. To pick up the slack where self regulation fails.

The only way kids can really play a violent game is to either A)go over to a friends house to play it, or B) have their parent buy it for them.

See above. That's not the only way, because even you've admitted that not all retailers play by the rules. There's also the issue of friends or adults who aren't parents or guardians buying games for kids. If this law was passed I would assume it would allow them to be charged. Much as an adult can be charged here for willfully providing a minor with alcohol.

No. That's Fascism.

The Government's job is to set restrictions, not enforce. That's the Police's job. Once you get a Government enforcing, that is past the slippery slope into freefall.

Fair enough. Its the government's job to set restrictions and then allocate funding to the police who then enforce them. Thanks for the tip.

As for your other responses, I feel I must apologise. I've been discussing this under the assumption that your ID cards would not work any differently to the ones we have where I live. We don't have card readers for ID. We do for credit and debit cards obviously and datamining almost definitely occurs, but personal ID is in no way recorded from an ID card.
What confuses me is this. Disregarding the fear of being pick pocketed (an irrational fear from my POV, but then again that could be another difference between where we each live) how do you justify the fear of companies datamining your ID card, when they can assumedly do the same with your credit and debit card which I gather you use for your purchases. Or at least some of them.

I think the real issue here is not this law, but rather the lack of respect for your personal information. If your purchase information was prohibited from being recorded/released alongside your name. If companies can see that 20 males under age 30 bought women's lingerie last month, they still have the information they need for marketing reasons, whilst they (and anyone else trying to use the info) can't link said information to an individual.
Nonetheless, I suppose the current state of things is justification enough to dislike what's being suggested. It works here in Australia however and when we do get an R rating, which I'm pretty confident we will (eventually) I'll be happy in the knowledge that providing a minor with an R rated game will be a chargeable offense, and as an adult I won't have to fear my ID card being used to gather information about me, though I'll likely use my debit card, good thing I don't care who knows that I'm buying Killslaughter or Sexfornicator...

Ok so the second one I'd probably rather be kept from my family friends and employer... I may pay cash for that.

 

[Delusibeta]

2) (THE POINT) If the case wins, Videogames will not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, and freedom of religion) Since it isn't covered, it CAN be restricted for content, censored, banned, and games will have creative limitations placed on to them by the GOVERNMENT

That sounds like the UK's games regulations to me.

No, seriously. It's illegal to sell 16+/18+ games to children under said ages, and the government has the powers to censor, restrict and ban games (which, AFAIK, they've used twice: Carmageddon and Manhunt 2. Both eventually got released).

And yet I don't hear people asking for the restrictions to be lifted.

Ultimately, I can't help but feel the lot of you is making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[Irridium]

But it doesn't need any more incentive. If a worker sells a violent game to a kid, he gets fired. No ifs, ands, or buts. This law is a pointless waste of time and money.

And what if a store simply decides that they don't give a shit about the regulations? Recall back to what you said in the first place:

Which is why almost every gaming establishment already doesn't sell to minors.

Note the bolded text. That's why it needs more incentive. To pick up the slack where self regulation fails.

The only way kids can really play a violent game is to either A)go over to a friends house to play it, or B) have their parent buy it for them.

See above. That's not the only way, because even you've admitted that not all retailers play by the rules. There's also the issue of friends or adults who aren't parents or guardians buying games for kids. If this law was passed I would assume it would allow them to be charged. Much as an adult can be charged here for willfully providing a minor with alcohol.

Yes, there are areas where kids sometimes get a hold of games on their own. But these areas and times are few. Very few. So few it may as well be negligible. Most of those few times may simply have be mistakes.

Plus, stores won't just stop checking for ID or stuff like that. Because if it doesn't, it will have a lot of angry consumers on their hands. Plus, movies, books, and music are protected by the first amendment. They don't have to follow any rules when selling them, yet they do. Because its common sense. Because A) they will have a lot of angry consumers on their hands, which would lead to bad press and less profit, and B) no one wants to give kids violent stuff.

And besides, do you really think someone should be fined, or possibly jailed for selling a violent game to a kid? Especially when it would have been a simple mistake?

 

[fletch_talon]

Yes, there are areas where kids sometimes get a hold of games on their own. But these areas and times are few. Very few. So few it may as well be negligible. Most of those few times may simply have be mistakes.

Plus, stores won't just stop checking for ID or stuff like that. Because if it doesn't, it will have a lot of angry consumers on their hands. Plus, movies, books, and music are protected by the first amendment. They don't have to follow any rules when selling them, yet they do. Because its common sense. Because A) they will have a lot of angry consumers on their hands, which would lead to bad press and less profit, and B) no one wants to give kids violent stuff.

And besides, do you really think someone should be fined, or possibly jailed for selling a violent game to a kid? Especially when it would have been a simple mistake?

Well as far as I know, it would only incur a fine. I 've never heard of someone getting jail time for providing minors with alcohol, let alone R rated media. And I'd see no problem if they were fined.

I think, like I was implying in my message to Root_of_all_Evil, that there's a big issue of cultural difference here. We already have laws like this in place here in Australia and things work fine, some would disagree, but I'm quite happy with things.

 

[DTWolfwood]

2) (THE POINT) If the case wins, Videogames will not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, and freedom of religion) Since it isn't covered, it CAN be restricted for content, censored, banned, and games will have creative limitations placed on to them by the GOVERNMENT

That sounds like the UK's games regulations to me.

No, seriously. It's illegal to sell 16+/18+ games to children under said ages, and the government has the powers to censor, restrict and ban games (which, AFAIK, they've used twice: Carmageddon and Manhunt 2. Both eventually got released).

And yet I don't hear people asking for the restrictions to be lifted.

Ultimately, I can't help but feel the lot of you is making a mountain out of a molehill.

i wish i was articulate enough to explain to you y this case has so much significance to us AMERICANS and to GAMERS in general.

see we have laws that the GOVERNMENT MUST FOLLOW, and we have laws the CITIZENS MUST FOLLOW, when the GOVERNMENT tries to break one of the laws it is suppose to follow, we the CITIZENS have to the right to call them out on it. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE THEY ARE TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT A LAW THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO FOLLOW, to make an EXCEPTION. when you allow ONE exception, what's stopping them from making more EXCEPTIONS?

y is it so hard for yall to grasp? I mean seriously do you not have a set of laws written down that protect your civil rights?

have yall gotten so use to getting bent over by your government that you can't see the implications? THIS LAW IS IRRELEVANT short term. but it becomes a stepping stone for future infringements of our rights, *added*should it pass. We CANNOT make an exception no matter how right the law may sound

 

[UnravThreads]

2) (THE POINT) If the case wins, Videogames will not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, and freedom of religion) Since it isn't covered, it CAN be restricted for content, censored, banned, and games will have creative limitations placed on to them by the GOVERNMENT

That sounds like the UK's games regulations to me.

No, seriously. It's illegal to sell 16+/18+ games to children under said ages, and the government has the powers to censor, restrict and ban games (which, AFAIK, they've used twice: Carmageddon and Manhunt 2. Both eventually got released).

And yet I don't hear people asking for the restrictions to be lifted.

Ultimately, I can't help but feel the lot of you is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Pretty much. As someone in the UK, who's lived with the BBFC/PEGI system for many years, I don't see the problem with a legally enforceable ratings system, like the one that was discussed for the US not long ago (does that tie into this? I forget).

The whole point of a legally enforced system, in my opinion, is not to restrict sales or to force censorship, it's to put the power in the hands of the right people - the adult consumer or the parent of the consumer. As I'm currently 20, I can go into a store and buy any game I want or any film I want, bring it home and my mum is none the wiser, but go back 3-4 years and if I wanted an 18 rated game or film she would have to buy it for me, therefore she would control what goes in and out of the house.

As for censorship, it's not often that big of a deal in the UK. North America had a censored version of The Witcher, but the UK didn't, as an example. We do censor some games over here, but no where near as many as Germany or Australia.

 

[Zer_]

This is ridiculous. Let's take another form of media, things like undergarment ads and the like. The media portrays men and women as people with sexy, toned bodies and are often times shown in an unrealistic light, much like video games. The whole modeling industry has had a profound effect on society, much of which I find to be negative. You don't see me trying to legislate modeling because it causes people to have self esteem issues.

2) (THE POINT) If the case wins, Videogames will not be protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech, press, and freedom of religion) Since it isn't covered, it CAN be restricted for content, censored, banned, and games will have creative limitations placed on to them by the GOVERNMENT

That sounds like the UK's games regulations to me.

No, seriously. It's illegal to sell 16+/18+ games to children under said ages, and the government has the powers to censor, restrict and ban games (which, AFAIK, they've used twice: Carmageddon and Manhunt 2. Both eventually got released).

And yet I don't hear people asking for the restrictions to be lifted.

Ultimately, I can't help but feel the lot of you is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Pretty much. As someone in the UK, who's lived with the BBFC/PEGI system for many years, I don't see the problem with a legally enforceable ratings system, like the one that was discussed for the US not long ago (does that tie into this? I forget).

The whole point of a legally enforced system, in my opinion, is not to restrict sales or to force censorship, it's to put the power in the hands of the right people - the adult consumer or the parent of the consumer. As I'm currently 20, I can go into a store and buy any game I want or any film I want, bring it home and my mum is none the wiser, but go back 3-4 years and if I wanted an 18 rated game or film she would have to buy it for me, therefore she would control what goes in and out of the house.

As for censorship, it's not often that big of a deal in the UK. North America had a censored version of The Witcher, but the UK didn't, as an example. We do censor some games over here, but no where near as many as Germany or Australia.

Power to the right people? I hate to say it, I really don't feel comfortable giving that kind of power to the Federal Government. Oh and you don't know what the effects will be. To me I always assume worst case scenario, because if I don't, then I could end up regretting it later on.

The UK might handle their games in a decent way, but that doesn't mean The US will...