Violent Games Legislation Introduced to US Congress
66 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Yesterday, President Barack Obama outlined a series of plans to help stem the growing tide of violence in the United States, including a series of autonomous executive orders and a set of legislative suggestions to Congress. As we pointed out when examining Obama’s speech, gaming (and the media sphere generally) were largely ignored, with the exception of a $10 million study – which Congress may never pass – examining the effect of violent media on America’s youth.
But in the United States, it’s Congress’s role to create laws and legislation, and Utah Democrat Jim Matheson has done just that. With the 113th United States Congress freshly sworn-in, the legislative maelstrom has begun unabated with H.R. 287, entitled the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act”.
At first glance, this may seem confusing since the ESRB has been rating games in the United States for nearly two decades. However, the ESRB is entirely voluntary and self-regulating; this legislation, in essence, would make the ESRB the law of the land. “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.”
Should this legislation be brought up for a vote and pass unamended through both the House of Representatives and the Senate, it would give the Federal Trade Commission 180 days to “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.”
Specifically, “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”… to any person under the age of 18; or (2) any video game containing content rating of “Mature”… to any person under the age of 17.”
Breaking this proposed law wouldn’t result in a criminal charge; rather, it would result in a civil penalty of upwards of $5,000 per transgression.
Interestingly, The Hill points out “that video games are protected under the First Amendment,” citing a 2011 decision derived from contention over a California law in which Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas – and even social messages… No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm… but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”
In other words, if this law were to pass, it’s likely to go before the Supreme Court, and if the court’s decision from two years ago is any indication, the law would be nullified.
We’ll keep you updated on further developments.[/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/17/violent-games-legislation-introduced-to-us-congress?abthid=50f86be3cab6cfb906000059[/url]
What's this guys point. Unless it's over the internet, you can't even buy a game in stores if it's AO.
[quote]At first glance, this may seem confusing since the ESRB has been rating games in the United States for nearly two decades. However, the ESRB is entirely voluntary and self-regulating; this legislation, in essence, would make the ESRB the law of the land. “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.”
[/quote]
what if it doesn't have packaging, like the clouds of digital voodoo that make up steam purchases and console e-shops
do they even know that digital distribution is a thing
I can honestly only think of two games that are AO, the european version of Indigo prophecy because it had a humping qte (IT STILL HAS SEVERAL NUDE SCENES IN TACT) and that leisure suit larry game.
I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - GunFox))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39259511]what if it doesn't have packaging, like the clouds of digital voodoo that make up steam purchases and console e-shops
do they even know that digital distribution is a thing[/QUOTE]
Interstate seems to imply retail, but it's like. They don't even produce AO games for those. They're only sold online, because a store doesn't want to be seen as selling smut.
I expected a republican would've done something this retarded.
Surprised.
I thought you already couldn't sell AO/M games to people under 18 without a fine.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39259511]what if it doesn't have packaging, like the clouds of digital voodoo that make up steam purchases and console e-shops
do they even know that digital distribution is a thing[/QUOTE]
Probably not since most are living relics from the Revolutionary War.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39259511]do they even know that digital distribution is a thing[/QUOTE]
"whats a digital"
The ratings sorta do need to be enforced. it would week out all the 10 year olds playing Call of Duty
[QUOTE=rrunyan;39259526]I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.[/QUOTE]
and this is definitely the best way to do it and in no way contains any vague, unenforceable, or easily exploited wording
it is also important that the state raise kids by your arbitrary standards through the inefficient application of bureaucracy
oh wait
This seems really unnecessary. Stores are already enforcing ESRB rules well and I don't think I've seen a game being sold in stores without a rating on it. Also, there are VERY few games that have an AO rating. My local game stores don't sell any at all with it.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39259547]The ratings sorta do need to be enforced. it would week out all the 10 year olds playing Call of Duty[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't really matter. They get the games from their parents buying them. They can't just walk up and get it.
And besides, if I was a parent, I'd rather my kid play something harmless like that, rather then go out and do something stupid to pass the time.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39259547]The ratings sorta do need to be enforced. it would week out all the 10 year olds playing Call of Duty[/QUOTE]
Not really since 10 year olds just get their moms to buy it.
It doesn't help that CoD and such are [i]marketed[/i] toward 10 year olds, despite having an M rating.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39259547]The ratings sorta do need to be enforced. it would week out all the 10 year olds playing Call of Duty[/QUOTE]
except most kids get their parents to buy games for them anyway so this is invalid???
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;39259547]The ratings sorta do need to be enforced. it would week out all the 10 year olds playing Call of Duty[/QUOTE]
RIP Activision
Why is there a distinction between AO and M titles? What's the point?
I kinda blame the parents for buying the games for their young kids, they can come up with any excuse to buy it. But no I have no hope that any of this will solve anything.
[QUOTE=digigamer17;39259587]I kinda blame the parents for buying the games for their young kids, they can come up with any excuse to buy it. But no I have no hope that any of this will solve anything.[/QUOTE]
Violent video games don't usually cause any real issues. If anything, they stop crime. Most people would rather just sit inside and play whatever sports or shooting game, then go with their friends and do stupid shit that could cause property damage or get themselves arrested.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;39259586]Why is there a distinction between AO and M titles? What's the point?[/QUOTE]
I guess it's the line between stuff like Max Payne and Half Life, to those old Japanese games from the 80s where you undress young children. Basically violent action-adventure and deliberately trying to be disturbing and illegal.
[QUOTE=jptalbert;39259562]This seems really unnecessary. Stores are already enforcing ESRB rules well and I don't think I've seen a game being sold in stores without a rating on it. Also, there are VERY few games that have an AO rating. My local game stores don't sell any at all with it.[/QUOTE]
The AO rating is the equivalent of NC17. It's a kiss of death to sales.
That's why if you're smart you just put your stuff online and tell the ratings boards to choke on a barrel of dicks.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;39259614]I guess it's the line between stuff like Max Payne and Half Life, to those old Japanese games from the 80s where you undress young children. Basically violent action-adventure and deliberately trying to be disturbing and illegal.[/QUOTE]
Because the San Andreas Hot Coffee incident was Rockstar deliberately trying to be disturbing and illegal.
[QUOTE=rrunyan;39259526]I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.[/QUOTE]
Kids who solely play video games usually do so because they have nothing else to do. This legislation wont stop that.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;39259614]I guess it's the line between stuff like Max Payne and Half Life, to those old Japanese games from the 80s where you undress young children. Basically violent action-adventure and deliberately trying to be disturbing and illegal.[/QUOTE]
So, porn.
[QUOTE=rrunyan;39259526]I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.[/QUOTE]
You might have videogames confused with meth. You don't need some government bill to stop your child from getting violent videogames. That is your job as a parent, You either trust your child with them or you don't.
[QUOTE=Source]“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.” [/QUOTE]
Think about how vague this wording is. What about self published/indie games sold online?
This law was written by people who don't understand technology, and I don't understand how anyone here on facepunch could support this.
[QUOTE=rrunyan;39259526]I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.[/QUOTE]
lmao, what is wrong with you.
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
in fact, what is wrong with ending up like your average Facepunch user, we're not bad; we're generally an intelligent bunch of people who share common interests whether that be gaming or programming or any of the other many topics of discussion here.
[QUOTE=rrunyan;39259526]I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.[/QUOTE]
it isn't possible to play a "violent video games" AND live your life? I know people who do both and they're doing fine.
When was the last AO title, anyway.
[editline]17th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=rrunyan;39259526]I sincerely hope it passes.
Kids need to stop playing videogames and live their lives.
Dumb me if you want but I wouldn't want my child to end up like you.[/QUOTE]
Live their lives without a certain form of entertainment, when they're surrounded by violent television and movies?
Also, video games are very obviously fake and fictional, but movies usually have actual people in the roles, why does nobody single movies out when by all means they would probably effect people more with the more realistic visuals?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.