Parents Television Council Backs Congressmen's Video Game Ratings Enforcement Act
Parents Television Council Backs Congressmen's Video Game Ratings Enforcement Act
June 10, 2008
Watchdog group the Parents Television Council has issued an "action alert" urging parents to rally behind HR5990, the proposed Video Games Rating Enforcement Act.
The bill, introduced in Congress last month by Reps. Lee Terry (R-NE) and Jim Matheson (D-UT), would require game retailers to check IDs of mature-rated game buyers and would also mandate that information detailing the ESRB rating system be posted in view of customers.
From the PTC alert:
The proposed legislation codifies the video game industry’s own voluntary policies and will ensure better enforcement by requiring all retailers to check IDs from any child trying to buy or rent Mature (M)-rated or Adult-Only (AO) rated games. It does not limit adults’ access to any games they want to buy for themselves or for their children – it merely helps ensure that children can only access age appropriate video games if they are accompanied by an adult.
However, the Entertainment Consumers Association, representing video game consumers, has issued its own alert in opposition to HR5990:
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.
Full Disclosure Dept: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics…
Comments
Why pay taxes? We should just set a big pile of money on fire every year.
That would probably be a cheaper heating alternative during the winter, too.
Ok why make a law to make retailers do what they are anyway? Does this make sense to anybody?
Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.
They could successfully enforce it 99.9% of the time but these groups would still bitch about the .1% and still demand the government to step in because then it would be one big step in what their real goal is.
Not even cigarettes and alcohol are enforced that well, and giving those to a minor nets you jail time and fines, has for years... In New Jersey in 2002, nearly 20% of minors could still buy cigarettes. This was an improvement from the 85% of minors who could buy cigarettes in 1994...
I hate the comparison, but just to give us a baseline of *other* things the government currently enforces age ratings on... So even the government does a crummy job.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Also, wasn't this the bill that gave out harsher fines for selling video games (not proven hazardous) to minors than are currently mandated for selling alcohol or cigarettes (proven hazardous, as they are technically poison) to same minors? A lot of people find that strange - although pointing this out may just motivate the government to raise the fines for selling minors alcohol and cigarettes.
The point was that no matter what is done or how well retailers enforce the rating, groups like the PTC would never be happy, they want government involvement because they know what that could lead to and it fits perfectly with their true agenda. It also would make them feel warm and fuzzy inside just like the somewhat failure that are age restrictions of alcohol and cigarettes gives groups like MADD and whatever anti-smoking groups that are out there.
But yeah, the goverment sucks at it just like it does at most everything else.
Because it sets a precedent that the government can enforce regulations imposed and defined by the private sector. Once that door is opened, the RIAA can demand swat teams and shock troops. The PTC can use military might to shutdown naughty cable programming, and Haliburton can forceably drill wherever they want because "they said so".
Also, you'll find organizations like the PTC and NIMF seeking to supplant the ESRB rating system. Thus ensuring that our children can only play the games that THEY claim are wholesome entertainment. Mario cart will be rated M, while "Dial M for Moses" and "Murderous Crusade: Retake the Holy Land" will be rated E for everyone.
The nuts of the PTC in support of this, I'm shocked!
Can't wait for the "I don't see anything wrong with this, my country already does something like this" replies that completely miss the point.
Please donlt flame, but that['s exactly my position on this. Please could you explain just what point it is that i'm missing? :)
There are two problems here. The first is that it singles out video games. There is no similar legislation for books, movies, or any other form of entertainment. The second (and bigger problem) is that this is blatantly unconstitutional. And not in terms of "free speech," it's because it would give a private orginization (i.e. the ESRB) the force of law, and that is a no-no.
The point is, the government in this country CANNOT regulate protected(Free) speech. That is the first and most important RESTRICTION on US governmental power and the children be DAMNED.
The only timethe government can have any say in the matter is when something is ruled obscene, I believe they use the miller test for that. If someone wants a game ruled obscene then they had better be ready to fight it all the way to federal court.
There are other things it violates, but this one alone should have every news outlet screaming bloody murder.
rant
Not to mention I don't give a flying fuck how other countries do it, if I did, I'd be living in the that country.
/rant
I suppose the difference in Australia is that the OFLC not only classifies most media (music, tv, movies, games but not books as far as I'm aware) but is also a part of the federal government.
I'd normally suggest the ESRB should be absorbed into the government so they could be a publically accountable entity with the force of law but then there's probably a lot of people in the american government who'd want to just ban stuff & corruptly manipulate the organisation, worse yet they'd just appoint jack thompson to head the department...
I've find more accountable non profits than I've found accountable politicians.
I agree - the BBFC being a case in point, IMHO.
I don't see the problem. Stores should do that anyway, right?
Do they do it for books?
As the above post says, do they do this for movies, book, music? No, it singles out video games and thats uncontituational. Good going PTC, you guys fail yet again.
Do stores get handed a $5,000 dollar fine if they sell an R-rated movie to a 16 year old? No, so why should they for M-rated games?
If you think you have some God-given right to tell me what I should or shouldn't do in my privately owned store, that's a problem. Mind your own household, parent your own kid, and stay out of my business.
Couldn't of said it any better
MechaCrash brought up a very good point above. This legislation would give the opinions of a private entity (ESRB) the equivalent of the force of law, without any direct public recourse. In the United States, that just won't fly. US and state legislative bodies are the only entities allowed to create law AFAIK. The only way around this is to make the ESRB a government entity, answerable to the public and under the supervision of federal bureaucracy. Even then, I'm not sure that this type of legislation would meet the Consitutional "Smell Test".
It does not limit adults’ access to any games they want to buy for themselves or for their children – it merely helps ensure that children can only access age appropriate video games if they are accompanied by an adult.
Sounds fine to me, I dont agree with the idea that teenagers are endangered by games but i respect the right of the parent to ultimatly decide weather or not they should play the game.
it's wrong because it only addresses one type of medium (not movies or music, just video games.) other bills that have tried to do this have 'passed' but were ultimately struck down as being unconstitutional. then the government had to pay for the lawyers for the esa on top of having to pay for their own. lets not waste the money. it could really be of more use in other things.
besides, retailers are already doing this, and are much better at carding video games than they are at carding for movies or music. there was an ftc (i think it was the ftc) report recently that showed this. it's actually easier for a teen to get his hands on an unrated copy of saw IV than it is for the teen to get his hands on GTA IV.
No, but on the other hand, it pretends games are more harmful than TV, movies, etc. There's no equivalent laws for DVDs, or forcing V-chips to be default "on" unless the parents turn it off.
It's substitute parenting. Parents have even less incentive to pay attention, because they are safe in the knowledge that the government is watching their kids for them.
If parents can't be bothered to look at their kids' game collections once in a while, they aren't very good parents.
Parents need to learn one simple thing. "Not in MY house." People are so spineless nowadays.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
I think you're spot on and it also highlights the common perception that video games are more child oriented than anything else. While this may have been the case with the old Atari systems, many of use raised on older systems have grown up and the video game industry has matured as well. It's not just a youthful passtime but something that is being enjoyed by many people in many different age groups.
If there is a regulation to be handed down it should be handled by the retailers and the parents, not enforced by government institutions which should be dealing with more important issues. Maybe things have changed since I was a kid but I recall being driven to the store and having my dad with me when I made my game selection. It's not the much effort to find out what your kids are playing, especially if you want to become involved in their lives.
The problem is it is not the government's job to be a surrogate parent, at least when it comes to this issue. If we start restrciting Free Speech media to minors under the basis of helping parents then we have to do it for all Free speech meida out there that a parent out there would find inappropriate or unsuitable for their children.
We'd have to restrict the dessimination of the Holy Bible to minor's as atheist, jewish and muslim parents don't want their children getting ahold ot it. We'd have to restrict the dessimination of Harry Potter novels and Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species to minors as religious fundamentalists don't want their children to have it. We'd have to rectrict the dessimination of Conservative based literature to minors as liberal parents don't want their children to get ahold ot it and vise versa for liberal litertaure and conservative parents.
Nothing under the constitution bars a parent from restricting their own children's access to Free Speech media they don't want them to have, so parents are still in charge of what their children can or cannot watch, play, read or listen to.
I have said this before and I will say it again.
We should just make it illegal to sell anything to a child. We don't want to offend any parent now do we.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
As a parent, I'd be offended if my child couldn't buy things.
Sure I'm not really a parent & would prefer to die rather than have children but there's doubtlessly a parallel universe where I am one & HE'S offended by the suggestion.
That is the plan.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
So...this does exactly what? Makes that which is voluntary into something compulsory?
Is the opposition to this basically one of those slippery slope kind of arguements? "Can't give an inch, they'll take a mile" kind of thing?
I'm genuinely curious.
On top of the "Can't give an inch" argument, there is also the cry for fairness. If the bill covered books, DVDs, movie theaters, and Internet sales, I'd be less concerned.
Personally, I'd go a step further and I would support such a bill.
“A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw
Why? It's still obviously unconstitutional.
There's then two possibilities for the way the bill is writtine
1) Government does the ratings.
Obviously unconstitutional, you just broke the First Amendment. Government can't get into speech regulation without immediate harm being shown.
2) Third party does the ratings (e.g. MPAA, ESRB, ALA)
Again, unconstitutional, this time by the Fifth Amendment. Third parties can not be given force of law.
I beleive that this bill will ultimately fail, however, I did want to bring up a question.
Wasn't there something that says that you don't actually have constitutional rights until you're of voting age? I'm probably wrong on this, but I thought I heard that somewhere
No, the supreme court has upheld that minors have Constitutional rights. It's somewhat limited compared to an adult, but they still exist.
And regulating media for one group is effectively impossible.
I believe the entities whose rights are being violated here are the game publishers. This regulation limits the publishers' rights to sell something. I'm not sure that there is any law stating that everyone has the right to BUY something (I may be wrong there). The real constitutional issue, as I see it, is whether or not Congress can pass a law that regulates the distribution of 1st-Amendment-protected material without also regulating similar material (movies, television, etc.). If I'm correct, then the age of the purchaser becomes irrelevant.
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Erznozik vs. City of Jacksonville that:
"Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
So beyond Speech that falls under the legal definition of "obscene to minors" which is the same as the Miller obscenity test for adults except all three prongs of that test are done in regards to minors, the government can't restrict Free Speech access to minors. Unless of course they can proves that minors are actually harmed by playing such games BUT the evidence for that is extremely weak and inconsistant, incredibly flawed and biased as well as nothing more then psuedoscientific nonsense.
Partly the slippery slope, partly the unfairness of not also making say R and NC-17 ratings legally enforced, partly the unconstitutionality of giving the ESRB ratings the force of law.
For any that wish to read the text for themselves, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ and do a search for HR5990.
It's not simply a matter of forcing an ID check. It's outright making it illegal to sell an AO game to someone under 18, or an M rated game to someone under 17.
I just received a reply from Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), in regard to my e-mail requesting he take notice of this bill and consider the detriment it could have.
Currently, the bill proposed by Representative Matheson is pending in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
I'm glad I got some kind of response from him, but I still favor the one I received from Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL). It was obvious from his reply that he really took time to look at the bill and consider it from both a politician's standpoint, and that of a parent/grandparent.
I encourage my fellow Floridians to send out their messages as well, as our senators have taken notice and are open to opinions on it.
Despite the well meaning intent of the bill, a trickle can eventually turn into a river. I'd rather fight the trickle now, than get stuck throwing sandbags in front of a flooding dam of anti-videogame legislation.
What response did you get from the two?
From Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL):
" Dear Mr. Perry:
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 5990, the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act. I understand your concerns and appreciate your taking the time to be involved and informed about matters important to Florida and our nation.
Introduced by Representative Matheson, this legislation is pending before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Please know that I will keep your views in mind if this issue is considered before the full Senate. If you have any other concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me in the future."
From Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL)
" Dear Mr. Perry:
Thank you for contacting me regarding video game content. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.
The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) was established in 1994 and is a self-governing body that provides information and ratings for video games. Under the ESRB, games are given one of six ratings which include Early Childhood (EC), Everyone (E), Everyone 10+ (E10+), Teen (T), Mature (M), and Adults Only (AO). The ESRB also provides content descriptions on the back of each game package describing what elements may be displayed in the video game.
On April 12, 2007, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a report on marketing violent content to children. The study found that the video game industry seems to be complying with the advertising restrictions on M-rated video games on television shows that are popular with teenagers. However, the FTC found that the ESRB is not adequately enforcing internet marketing restrictions.
As a proud grandfather and father of three, I understand a parent’s desire to ensure our children are protected from violent or sexually explicit video games. While I believe that regulations should not necessarily restrict individual expression, I do maintain the belief that media outlets have a responsibility to their consumers to exercise proper judgment when providing or selling potentially offensive material.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any additional questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. In addition, for more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Mel Martinez
United States Senator"
Reading the responsees you posted, it sounds like Nelson is open to voting against the legislation but Matinez is more than willing to regulate video games. I would keep an eye on him.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
I keep an eye on anyone who represents me =)
Senator Nelson might be in opposition, but he doesn't really let on all that much. Whenever I write to both represenatives, I usually get a more detailed and personal response from Senator Martinez....a bit of irony in that, neh?
Senator Martinez might be more inclined to support regulation of violent media, but I am willing to take the plunge and say he at least sounds open to hearing the other side. That's why it's so important for other Floridians to get into contact with them. They are aware of the bill. They are considering which side to go for. Now, they need to know how the voters want to be represented!
So, all this bill asks is that retailers would be forced to hang up ESRB references as well as check IDs for adult games?
Honestly, I really don’t see anything wrong with this. They’re not even saying children can’t buy adult games, they’re just asking for a parent to be present if they want to.
It's still unconstitutional. "Compelled/coerced speech"
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...
Why not hold DVD movie sales to the same standards? No one's crying for those to be legislated.
There's a host of more ambiguous free-speech issues that not everyone cares about, but I always figure the failure to treat movies and games the same, when there's no reason to figure they're different, is the most damning feature. You can make an argument for controlling violent media, but I think saying you want to regulate one specific industry just because some parents don't like it is nothing short of shameless, useless political grandstanding.
They did, I think the last time was back in the 90s, but seeing how big and powerful Hollywood's lobbying groups were (and are more so today) it was squashed rather quickly. That might have been just theaters though, IIRC it's what lead to theaters cracking down on minors getting into R rated movies.
No, HR5990 wants to make it illegal to sell M-rated games to anyone under 17, AO-rated to anyone under 18, and a $5,000 dollar fine to anyone that does.
This bill is only OK with me provided it includes ALL forms of media and not just games. Otherwise I can't really see anything about it that annoys me...
-- mostly harmless
Really? All forms of media? Like billboards? Lawn signs? Newspaper editorials? Spoken conversations in public places?
It does annoy me that subjective opinions about the age-appropriateness of a game's narrative elements, as provided by a part-time employee whose salary is paid by the game publishers trade organization, will suddenly become enforceable by law.
I guess we're just different in that regard.
Looks like the PTC is throwing down the gauntlet on this one. I plan on wiriting my representative as soon as I can.
Minor's have First Amendment rights and rightly so. The nanny-state shouldn't be able to decide for children (esspecially older children and teenagers) or adults what media/speech they can or can't be exposed to.
If a parent doesn't want their children to have it then that is fine but it's their responsibility to make sure their kids don't get ahold of it just in the same way if they didn't want their children getting ahold of the Holy Bible or Harry Potter novels.
I find any attempt to restrict free speech whether it be to those over or under some magical arbitrary age limit dangerous.
Why do they keep doing this? It always fails, but still they come back for more. I predict that this will be found unconsitutional because: 1) it regulates free speech and 2) It gives a private organization the force of law.
Ever seen a mouse in a maze that keeps getting lost no matter how many times it's put in? Or the kid who keeps trying to push a square peg through a round hole? That's the US goverment and "our" politicians.
I sent this throug hthe PTC form:
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
EZK wins. I mean, it's a given, but its true. Way to lay down the law man!
Sad thing is that even if your e-mail doesn't immediately go to their "junk/we don't care and won't even bother replying" folder, they'll just reply with some comment that shows that they couldn't care less about what you said. Aside from the PTC's social agenda, their other agenda is to make money. As we already have clearly seen from previous stories involving this group.. I can't believe they still have any clout after all these years and being caught in their lies.
I have planned for the spam folder thing. I figure any smart politician will send all PTC form emails directly to the trash. So I will be sending it again from my personal email account when I get home. I will aslo add a few things that I have just remembered.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
COMBO BREAKER!!!!
LOL, those people are really inept to even answer you properly about every issue you were replying to them. PTC forums looks worst than 4chan in many levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/
Nah. That is the PTC's form letter to send to the politicians. I simply broke it up and did a point by point counter argument for my Representatives.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
Ohh, I get it now. They still look stupid. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The cynical side of videogames (spanish only): http://thelostlevel.blogspot.com/
Nice letter mate, I don't suppose you can send it to a few newspapers around america as a sort of open letter? Expose the pointless nature of the bill & hopefully open some eyes.
Also the PTC are being terribly insensitive, it's not "stripper", it's "Erotic Industry Personal Interaction Professional"
Thanks for the suggestion. I think I will.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
No probs mate, just slip in a few references to how great I am, I need the ego boost
Detailed, straight to the point, clear...I love it.
THIS is what kind of letter we should be sending (instead of rants, which I never agreed to). I certainly hope it'll works.
Keep us updated on this (and keep up the good work).
It is great to know that lawmakers feel this is a more important issue than a failing economy, weak dollar, rise in unemployment, highly polarized political system, healthcare, taxes, social security, etc etc.
Now that I got the sarcasm out of the way, I find this sad that they need to actually focus attention on this when there are more important things that need more attention.
I don't mind people carding to make sure someone is old enough to play a certain game, I just mind it when the government decides to step in and make it mandatory. Parents should be the one to make parental decisions for their children.
I haven't seen anyone bring this up yet, so I'm definitely going to say it...
WHERE is the ESA in all of this? I understand this is a consumer issue, but a consumer issue is an industry issue. When the gov't starts regulating things how you do your ID checks and what not starts getting a review by big brother over your shoulder. I doubt any game retailer wants gov't lackeys running around deciding if they're doing a proper ID check or not.
On another point, for those wondering what's wrong with this proposed law here's another angle. This legislation is to stop underage kids from getting their hands on games that are deemed too old for them. We've already seen many posts from people who let us know it's not the kids who are getting these games it's the parents. As soon as this passes and the numbers come out showing that parents buy GTA IV for their 13 year old there will be an instant cry for the law to be changed so a parent doesn't make the choice for their child, the gov't does.
This is a "we know best law". I, for one, am an American who's very tired of such laws from my gov't. It's a mentality that needs to stop.
-Loudspeaker
"Volume helps to get a point across but sharp teeth are better."
The ESA will get involved as soon as it is passed and signed into law. That is the only time you will hear from them.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
I'm beginning to wonder you know, maybe someone should write suggesting a bill to outright ban games & see if they say anything then.
For anyone that's curious, since the link is stuck in the spam filter, here's the text of the act:
Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act (Introduced in House)
HR 5990 IH
Mr. MATHESON (for himself and Mr. TERRY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act'.
SEC. 2. RATING LABEL REQUIREMENT FOR VIDEO GAMES.
(a) Conduct Prohibited- It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
(b) Requirement of Retailers To Post Ratings Information- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission shall promulgate rules requiring all retail establishments engaged in the sale of video games to display, in a clear and conspicuous location, information about the content rating system of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board. Such rules shall prescribe the information required to be displayed concerning the basic age-based content ratings of such Board.
SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON SALES AND RENTALS OF ADULT-RATED VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS.
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent, or attempt to sell or rent--
(1) any video game containing a content rating of `Adults Only' (as determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board) to any person under the age of 18; or
(2) any video game containing a content rating of `Mature' (as determined by such Board) to any person under the age of 17.
SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.
(a) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of sections 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.
(b) Penalty- Notwithstanding section 5(m) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(m)), any person who violates section 2 or 3 of this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per violation.
I cleared the link aboce just before you posted this. But thanks for the info.
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
Yeah, sorry about that, I saw that it'd been cleared just after I posted this. Ah well, people are more likely to read this anyways I suppose.
I still love the massive age gap between being mature & being an adult, it's so delightfully arbitrary.
Time for me to break down this bill:
You can no longer sell games from before the ESRB was formed. I am sorry. That you will not be able to get your old Atari, NES, Genesis, SNES etc games. But they are not rated by the ESRB so you will not be able to sell or buy them.
We know you already have these signs posted and the ESRB website is so easily accessable, but you will need to require all your customers to wear head gear that has a sign hanging in front of their faces while they shop. We cannot be sure that they see the rating information otherwise.
Seems straight forward doesn't it? Only the M rating is a suggested age by the ESRB while the AO rating is pretty set in stone by the ESRB. So they are over riding the ESRB's rules.
Basically, it will be considered unfair and deceptive trade practices to not follow these guidelines. They give the FTC authority to police and punish retailers who do not follow these guidelines.
Wow that is a lot. Too bad there are no applicable fines for R rated movies. Anyone know the penalties for selling alcohol and porn to kids?
E. Zachary Knight
www.editorialgames.com
I write (physical letters) to my congress people on extremely annoying issues. When I get home tonight, I'll study this carefully and will write a letter and mail it ASAP.
The PTC is a bullshit organization and their attempts to censor one form of media must be stopped.
Section 3 makes it illegal to sell my games to a friend below age, and if I make my own game, I can't release it without going through the ESRB. That's ridiculous. This bill is horribly written and is a prime example of just how out of touch our congress is. Hit the ECA link and send the letter to your senators/congressmen.
Right on! Also, think of the thousands of games released before 1994. Doesn't this bill also make it illegal to sell old NES or Genesis games? Collectors and classic gaming enthusiasts get totally screwed by this as well.
You would think... if a parent doesn't even know what video games their kid is playing - then other concerns like what they are doing when they are away from the house, will end up leading to the kid's demise anyway.
Remember Big Brother is watching. 0_0
They are called the Parents Television Council, so shouldn't that be more concern about stuff like movies since the are sold to underaged children much more often?
Or, you know, television?
Normal TV seasons are over for the moment. I'm sure that once the major networks start new programming the PTC will bitch and moan about it like they usually do.
They still whine about the shows the networks air in the summer.
They probably whined about CBS airing MMA matches May 31st, and they're whining over the CBS show Swingtown that debuted this past weekend.
You know, while I'm not surprised by these people backing the bill, I still want to say that it's a complete waste.
Stores are already supposed to check IDs. People that aren't now aren't going to do it later. But still, I've never been to any store that didn't check my ID. Yet, not only did I get into Rambo while it was in theatres unchecked, I also bought it on DVD last night unchecked. I've never actually played a game as violent as that movie, so why don't they check on this stuff?
Also, the games themselves have reasons for the ratings. Any partially compitent parent can see that the game their child wants is rated M for Mature due to violence, sexual content, drug references, etc.
This is a complete waste.
Wait wait wait...
"it merely helps ensure that children can only access age appropriate video games if they are accompanied by an adult."
Is there a typo here? Cause it seems to me that it's saying, If i go in with my 16 year old and say, "He wants to buy this M rated game, and I, as his parent say it