Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill for Games

Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill for Games

February 12, 2009

The Entertainment Merchants Association, the trade group which represents the interests of numerous video game retailers, has weighed in against game-oriented legislation currently before the Congress.

GamePolitics readers will recall last month's report that Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) had proposed a measure in Congress which would require cigarette-like warning labels for any game rated T (13+) or higher by the ESRB.

The EMA has termed the proposed legislation "unnecessary."

As we have previously noted, Rep. Baca has proposed a number of bills targeting video games over the years. To date, none have passed. In 2008 Esquire named him to its list of Ten Worst Members of Congress.

UPDATE: We've received the EMA's full statement on the Baca bill:

Retailers educate parents about the ESRB video game ratings and content descriptors and enforce the "Mature" rating at the point of sale. Last year, the Federal Trade Commission found that children it sent into video game stores to buy Mature-rated games were turned down 80% of the time.

 

The video game turn-down rate is higher than the turn-down rate for movie theaters and R-rated tickets, DVD retailers and R-rated and “unrated” DVDs, and music retailers and “Parental Advisory”-labeled albums. In fact, it is the highest turn-down rated ever recorded for an entertainment category in any of the undercover shopper surveys the FTC has conducted since 2000.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

"In 2008 Esquire named [Baca] to its list of Ten Worst Members of Congress."

Sounds like the perfect ally for Thompson.

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

Wait... so any game that wasn't rated E for Eveyone would have to have a warning label?

So things that would have a comparitive rating to PG? Would you put a warning label on E.T. the Extraterestrial? It was rated PG, someone think of the children!

If he was talking about a warning label on a M rated game, I'd still be against it, but I could see where he was coming from, but on T games, he can just bite me.

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

Not to mention it's a non-government-regulated recommendation, so I seriously doubt the government can use it for ANY type of legislation. And since they're not allowed to make their own recommendation/enforcement for it, they can't do a thing about it.


Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

So wait..... warning lables for media..

"it might make you think"

"will make you non conform?"

"Is anti religious"

"Dose not have black people in it"

"Might be raicst if you watch it upside down on LSD"

"Might have clevage"

 

For fcks sake what are the disciptors for...

 

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label ...

And now begins another long and pointless battle.

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

Internet troll > internet paladin

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

How hard would it be for the government to force the rantings boards to come under government "supervision" meaning they would become government boards and regulation of sales by ranting level would become legitmite..

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

Pretty hard considering the constitution I think, since that's a regulation of free speech?

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label Bill

One of the arguments I hear about regulating media is that it can not be done by a indapendant board, it must be from a government board.
Ok so if that becomes real then whats next, limiting stuff to fines to the retailer?

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label ...

Moving it from independent to government just moves the Constitutional violation from Fifth Amendment to First.

 

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label ...

So anyway you look at it it will need sweeping goverment support and not these small thigns that fail befor they are shot down.

It would be intresting to see how far it gets considering what has past befor some of whitch are still law.

 

 

 

 


Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

Re: Retailers' Trade Group Weighs in Against Warning Label ...

The only sweeping government support that would work is a stacked Supreme Court or an amendment.

There was one amendment that took away rights. Look what happened wheb that was passed.

 

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Login or register to post shouts