May 12, 2008
Last week GamePolitics reported on HR5990, a new piece of video game legislation proposed in Congress by Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Jim Matheson (D-UT).Also known as the Video Games Rating Enforcement Act, the bill would require retailers to check ID for buyers of M-rated games.
The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) has issued an action alert on this bill. ECA members and non-members alike can click here to voice their thoughts about HR5990 to their congressional representative. From the action alert:
HR 5990, the Video Games Rating Enforcement Act, is another Congressional attempt to unconstitutionally regulate the sale of video games. If it’s passed, the federal courts will find it unconstitutional – and at great expense to taxpayers.
By raising our voices now, we can let Congress know that we, as taxpayers and constituents, would rather they use their time and our money to discuss more pressing issues such as the war in Iraq, universal healthcare and the national economy.
GP: Readers may find it worth noting that Rep. Terry alleged that in some games players earn points by committing rape. However in an exclusive interview with GamePolitics, the Congressman admitted that he could not name a single game which featured rape.
Rep. Terry was also unaware of last week's Federal Trade Commission report which showed that game retailers were successful 80% of the time in turning away underage buyers. Rep. Terry instead was relying on 2003 data in which retailers had only a 31% turn-away rate.
Full Disclosure Dept: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics…
Comments
Alcohol and cigarettes aren't Free Speech and have actual proven harmful effects (which violent media doesn't, not even close). The U.S. constitution bars congress from passing laws that would abridge Free Speech and minors have First Amendment rights. I won't go anymore into this as it's been said a million times over.
In my view, they have two options. They can either widen it to cover all forms of media, which would then run afoul of books. Or they could just throw it out. Trying to persecute one medium like this is inexcusable.
Are they just trying to waste taxpayer's money for the sake of it? To make themselves look good to the moralistic prudes and and the "we must protect the children" protectionist morons out there.
Compare this to the fine for selling a child cigarettes, something that is KNOWN to kill them and those around them, eventually, not to mention being addictive. I think the fine is between $200 and $300, SOMEONE THIN OF THE CHILDREN!
Almost. Games are the new cultural kids on the block, and pols are taking full advantage of the "Protect The Children" shtick to score points off the ignorance of the general public.
Games are easy targets right now. Parents don't understand them, the most culturally visible games are exactly the kind that the too-young just LOVE to try getting illicitly, and the actual ubiquity of games is unnoticed by the general public, assuming that only nerds, the disturbed, and the lazy would bother to play these "wastes of time".
It's political catnip.
And Cheater87's assertion that no one would dare make M-Rated games is simply ridiculous. You can still buy cigarettes, liquor, and go to R-Rated movies. The game industry claims they want to prevent inappropriate games from getting into the hands of kids. Why on earth would this stop them from producing them?
True, fining retailers $5000 (which this bill would do) for selling a 16 year old a fuckin' video game is ridiculous and excessive. Not even stores that sell cigarettes and alcohol (which have actual proven harmful effects) are even fined that much.
Seconded. That's what I was going to say.
Shouldn't extra tax's and fines for alcohol be unconstitutional, as it has a whole amendment for itself?
I don't think the federal government can tax or fine for alcohol, only the individual states can do so due to the 21st amendment. So states can ban, tax, fine and make all the laws they want when it comes to alcohol but the federal government can't.
Thirded.
@ SpiralGray
You're comparing legal apples and oranges.
You took the words right out of my virtual mouth.
That was by far one of the dumbest things I have ever read in my life: Cigarettes and Alcohol are substances, not an expressive medium.
Also, the government cannot put the force of law based on a privately-run rating system. If such a bill passed, it would give the ESRB government-mandated power.
Hmmm, trying to find the evil part of this bill.
I'm sorry, but i don't find efforts to prevent minors from buying M rated games inherently offensive. Yes, it's a stupid bill because it'll get struck down in court just like all the others, but, again, not evil.
And am I the only one who's getting concerned with GP's relationship with teh ECA? When was the last time GP ran a negative story about them?
However, you'd think they'd be trying harder to pull out of Iraq and turn the economy back to positive growth, if only for their own self-serving interests... but no.
There's nothing wrong in and of itself with preventing minors from accessing mterial not intended for them (in this case, Mature-rated games) but as was pointed out in previous posts, a $5,000 fine seems excessvie when compared to fines in similar laws regarding alcohol and tobacco, which are much more dangerous. I didn't see anything wrong myself with this bill initially until I was enlightened about this.
And you won't find GP running any negative sotries about the ECA because GP is part of the ECA. Though I'm sure if Dennis has a disagreement about them with something (which would be unlikely), we'll know about it. But for all intents and purposes, this blog/news site is an official part of the ECA,
.It unfairly targets videogames whilst completely ignoring other entertainment which has been deemed unsuitable for minors.
.It enforces a private organization's standards.
.There is no evidence to support a need for this bill
.As has been pointed out the fine is harsh when compared to the fines of selling ciggarettes or alchohol to minors, and is a strong incentive to simply stop selling M rated titles for fear of fine.
.Despite the fact that the "slippery slope" arguement relies solely on maybes and is therefore garbage in an actual arguement, we all know that's how it's gonna work.
Unlike the ESA, the ECA actually protects the video game industry...
Hella. The ESA is a waste. The ECA actually adresses shit. Both could be better though.
It's perfectly reasonable to require an ID check for AO rated titles, but until the ESRB decides to rate games a little more stringently, checking IDs for Mature rated titles seem just fine to me.
This isn't a free speech issue when you've got pornography (in fact GTA4 had stuff that I hadn't seen anywhere else other than those stupid Japanese perverted games).
Jack Thompson is still a nut-case, but GTA4 goes beyond the mature rating which pulls the ESRB into question for my evaluations. So, as a result, carding for Mature titles isn't too much of a loss. Parents will still buy these titles for their kids if they want.
I'm wondering the same thing. When I was younger, I would get carded for R rated movies. I don't look at this as a way to keep me from buying M rated games and I don't see how it keeps game developers from making M rated games. I keep my ID on me at all times, anyway, so it's not like it's inconvenient. As a parent of a 14 year old boy, I work hard at maintaining control over what my child can and cannot do, whether it's video games, going out with friends, or whatever. Retailers checking for ID for M rated games makes my job just a little easier.
@michael
You mean the voluntary MPAA ratings? It isn't governed by law.
And last i saw, the theater didn't prevent a 10 year old go in without any adult supervision to see an R rated movie.
"I’m sorry, but i don’t find efforts to prevent minors from buying M rated games inherently offensive."
Then you're a frigging idiot who deserves the hike in taxes that this nonsense of a bill will cost you. The fact is, minors are already NOT buying these games. Adults are buying them for their kids. This bill will not keep games out of the hands of minors. What it will do is add $$ to our tax bill and help keep cynical and manipulative politicians in office for a few more years. If you don't think either of those things are offensive you're a f%^&ing moron.
Also, this looks useful, thanks! I'll probably either use the ECA's tool or simply write my congresswoman (Anna Eshoo) directly.
"Retailers checking for ID for M rated games makes my job just a little easier."
No it doesn't. It merely allows you to be lazy. What other parts of your responsibility to your son are you going to be willing hand over to people neither of you know? How can your son trust you when you're so willing to cede your authority over him to strangers?
I'll tell you this much - if you were my dad I'd be worried. I guess this attitude to parenting is what we're to expect from the lazy-assed 'Me' generation that has never had to take responsibility for anything beyond themselves.
Being a parent is hard work. If you want to accuse me of being lazy because I actually CARE what my child does, then I think you're misunderstanding me. I trust my son to make his own choices, but I also realize that as his mother, I am held responsible for his actions. If I physically followed him around and watched him like a hawk with everything he did, then you can bet that he wouldn't trust me. Since you seem to feel that I'm not parenting my son enough, is that what you're suggesting I do? My son and I have a great relationship. We game together and we talk to each other.
As far as the idea of handing him over to a stranger, that seems like an overreaction. Police officers are strangers and we expect them to enforce law and safety in our communities. Still, I can see your point of view.
The bottom line, though, is that as his parent, it is my responsibility to parent him. If I feel that a game is inappropriate for him, I won't let him play it.
Also, to elaborate, it's not that I'm for this bill. I think that it's targeting video games in a disproportionate way versus other media such as television and movies. I also feel that it's going to cost a lot of tax dollars that I'm not happy at all about spending.
It's not possible to believe a parent can follow their kid around 100% of the time. Hell my brother was truant for high school a good 80% of the time, despite my father's attempts at convincing him that it's better to finish school.
Part of the problem here, is that society has taken away some parenting tools that have been effective in the past in order to "Protect The Children", now we can see the results.
Actually, umm, I'd rather they didn't. But then I suppose I'm not one of the "we" mentioned in the release since I won't join the ECA precisely because of these unrelated agendas which pop up in statements and such from time to time.
*sigh*
And last i saw, the theater didn’t prevent a 10 year old go in without any adult supervision to see an R rated movie."
If that's the case in the US, then I'm glad I live in a country where ratings ARE enforced by law. What's the point of ratings? A guideline?! LOL!
EXACTLY! We might have hated it as children, but effective discipline was the thing that brought kids into line. Nowadays a parent is not allowed to discipline their own child. Look what it's done to society!?
That yawning gaps has been created by government and lawmakers, so either they wind the clock back and give the parents the right to discipline their own children, or they have to enforce laws that place boundries on those children!
BOLLOCKS! If ratings are placed on a game, it means they are NOT banning a game. They are merely saying who is able to purchase the game.
If an Adults Only rating is placed on a game (which means it's meant to be played by Adults, as has ALWAYS been stated intention of Rockstar regarding GTA IV), then any bans enforced are put in place by Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Walmart, and so on .... simply because they refuse to sell it. The government is not at fault here. It's the DYSFUNCTIONAL view that corportations and individuals have of what constitutes an Adults Only or Mature rated game.
Chillax broham, everything's cool. The bill ain't gonna pass and even if it does, you'll still decide what your kid is exposed to. This isn't me saying that I support the bill; I dont, but there would be no problem for parents who choose to let their children indulge in M rated games other than wasted tax money and a hypocritical law in place that tolerates movies, books, and music but not games (NOT THAT THOSE AREN'T IMPORTANT).
Yeah, that's sorta unfair to Republican gamers.
It's on the 'nice to have' list. One of the only ways a law abiding citizen can run up millions of dollars of bills through no fault of his own is through an American hospital.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172