• Welcome to DestroyRepeat - The #1 place to talk about Video Games. Why not take a minute to register for your own free account now? Registration is completely free and will enable the use of all site features including the ability to join in or create your own discussions.

Hillary Clinton Introduces Videogame Regulation Legislation

  • Thread starter AirRaidJet@gmail.com
  • Start date

Welcome to Destroy Repeat

We are the gaming and tech community for you

A

AirRaidJet@gmail.com

Guest
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html

...................................................
This afternoon, Clinton's office announced she has written a bill that
would institute federal regulation of games sales. Co-authored by
longtime game critic Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the Family
Entertainment Protection Act will be jointly submitted by the two
legislators when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.

If made law, the Family Entertainment Protection Act would be a "a
prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature,
Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than
seventeen." It would punish violators with unspecified fines, though it
did not specify if the clerk who sold the game or the retailer where
said clerk worked would be punished. "This provision is not aimed at
punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment
Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system," read a statement from Clinton's
office.

While the retail part of the bill is similar to laws recently passed in
Michigan, Illinois, and California, the Family Entertainment Protection
Act goes much farther. It would authorize "the FTC to conduct an
annual, random audit of retailers to determine how easy it is for young
people to purchase Mature and Adults Only video games and report the
findings to Congress." These findings would be part of a larger annual
analysis of ESRB game ratings. "This analysis will help ensure that the
ESRB ratings system accurately reflects the content in each game and
that the ratings system does not change significantly over time," read
Clinton's statement.

The bill would also allow private citizens to file complaints with the
FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) "if they find content to be
misleading or deceptive." The BCP would issue an annual report on said
complaints to Congress as part of the aforementioned annual review.

As justification for the act, Clinton's office claims that "video game
content is getting more and more violent and sexually explicit." It
cites the recent 10th Annual MediaWise Video and Computer Game Report
Card, issued by the National Institute on Media and the Family, which
gave the industry a "D+" and said the ESRB was "beyond repair." Also,
the study's secret shopper program found that 42 percent of the time
boys under 17 were able to buy M-rated games from retailers, with
underage girls succeeding 46 percent of the time.

"A majority of parents are feeling increasingly victimized by a culture
of violence that makes it difficult to protect their children against
influences they find to be inappropriate," read Clinton's statement.
"This bill would help empower parents by putting them back in the
driver's seat. It would ensure that children can't buy games the video
game industry itself has determined to be inappropriate for them."

Despite the strong language, Clinton underlined the fact the Family
Entertainment Protection Act would not directly censor games. "Senator
Clinton acknowledges that video games are fun and entertaining and does
not support any limitations on the production or sale of games to
adults," read the statement. "This is about protecting children," she
said.

That said, one aspect of the act will undoubtedly send shivers through
the industry. Not only will Section III of the bill give the FTC the
authority to investigate misleading ratings, it will actually require
the body "to conduct an investigation to determine whether what
happened with GTA: San Andreas is a pervasive problem."

An even more ominous-sounding aspect of Section III is how it will
empower the FTC to "take appropriate action if [Congress] determines
that there is a pervasive problem" with the ESRB's rating system. This
means a new, federal game ratings which could replace the current
system if sufficient fault was found by the FTC.
..........................................................


UGH!
 
J

Jordan

Guest
The cynic in me says this is just a bid for her inevitable Presidential
run, but this kind of thing was also the main reason I voted for Ralph
Nader instead of Gore/Lieberman in 2000.

Lieberman, for those who don't know, was the brain trust behind the
video game hearings in the 90s. Tipper Gore was the idiot behind the
similar music hearings in the late 80s.

The problem is that Clinton doesn't explain why we need to punish
retailers who sell M rated games (there are no AO or RP games being
sold in any game store that I'm aware of) while we apparently don't
need laws that restrict video stores and movie theaters for failing to
card kids for R-Rated movies.

If a voluntary restriction works for movies and video and no
restriction at all works for books (any kid can go buy a copy of "The
Story of O" if they knew what they were looking for) then what makes
games any different?

That's what needs to be discussed here and it's also the reason that
every single gaming law to date has been struck down as
unconstitutional.

- Jordan
 
A

aether

Guest
A dying country always introduces new laws and legislation in a feeble
attempt to stave off it's decline.
 
F

Fizzlestix

Guest
i just want the cushy government job of the guy who has to test all
these games to see whether or not they cross the line... now that would
cool!
 
E

El Guapo

Guest
"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1133311940.859317.120940@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The cynic in me says this is just a bid for her inevitable Presidential
> run, but this kind of thing was also the main reason I voted for Ralph
> Nader instead of Gore/Lieberman in 2000.
>
> Lieberman, for those who don't know, was the brain trust behind the
> video game hearings in the 90s. Tipper Gore was the idiot behind the
> similar music hearings in the late 80s.
>
> The problem is that Clinton doesn't explain why we need to punish
> retailers who sell M rated games (there are no AO or RP games being
> sold in any game store that I'm aware of) while we apparently don't
> need laws that restrict video stores and movie theaters for failing to
> card kids for R-Rated movies.
>
> If a voluntary restriction works for movies and video and no
> restriction at all works for books (any kid can go buy a copy of "The
> Story of O" if they knew what they were looking for) then what makes
> games any different?
>
> That's what needs to be discussed here and it's also the reason that
> every single gaming law to date has been struck down as
> unconstitutional.


I don't like the idea of creating more federal legislation for this kind of
stuff. Leave it to the states and local communities. Otherwise the US is
going to turn into a "nanny state" where the federal government regulates
every little thing you can and can't do. This is a bad idea. One of the
great things about this country is that people can still "vote with their
feet" and move to another place if they don't like how things are done in
another. Also, if something works in one state, other states will emulate
that, and vice versa.
 
F

Fred Liken

Guest
"Jordan" <lundj@earthlink.net> wrote

> The problem is that Clinton doesn't explain why we need to punish
> retailers who sell M rated games (there are no AO or RP games being
> sold in any game store that I'm aware of) while we apparently don't
> need laws that restrict video stores and movie theaters for failing to
> card kids for R-Rated movies.


There's laws for x-rated, so the premise is sound.

> If a voluntary restriction works for movies and video and no
> restriction at all works for books (any kid can go buy a copy of "The
> Story of O" if they knew what they were looking for) then what makes
> games any different?


Because it has taken time to get to the level of voluntary restriction in
movies. Movie ratings and the attitude around them also came at a different
point in time where the industry would have been more sensitive to the
desires of the community.

Games need it because voluntary restriction isn't working.
 
J

JoblessDave

Guest
<AirRaidJet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133310038.643410.312020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html
>
> ..................................................
> This afternoon, Clinton's office announced she has written a bill that
> would institute federal regulation of games sales. Co-authored by


I can just see it now. We won't be able to walk into any video store
without some kid asking us to buy games for him.
 
J

JoblessDave

Guest
"Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
news:438dc315$0$196$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> <AirRaidJet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1133310038.643410.312020@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news_6140535.html
>>

>
> WTF's the big deal? So a kid can't buy a murder simulator... what's bad
> about that?


I'm almost certain you aren't that stupid.
 
C

Calife

Guest
Jordan wrote:


> Tipper Gore was the idiot behind the
> similar music hearings in the late 80s.



Silver lining to that one: a fine testimony/performance by Frank Zappa,
and a record as well "FZ meets the Mothers of Prevention"
 
F

Fred Liken

Guest
"JoblessDave" <JoblessDave@notlisted.us> wrote in message
news:Oikjf.170$fz5.87@dukeread04...


>> This afternoon, Clinton's office announced she has written a bill that
>> would institute federal regulation of games sales. Co-authored by

>
> I can just see it now. We won't be able to walk into any video store
> without some kid asking us to buy games for him.


Yeah, just like at the liquor store....
 
D

Dub

Guest
Fred Liken wrote:
> WTF's the big deal? So a kid can't buy a murder simulator... what's bad
> about that?


The MPAA ratings system isn't subject to federal regulation. There's
no federal oversight of books, music, or periodicals, either. Why is
it suddenly so important to focus so much attention on gaming? Video
games are being singled out because it's a nice avenue for
opportunistic grandstanding on the way to '08. Plain and simple.

Self-regulation works. There's a reason these laws have been shot down
in state after state that tried to enact them.
 
D

Dub

Guest
JoblessDave wrote:
> "Fred Liken" <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote in message
> news:438dc315$0$196$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com...
> > WTF's the big deal? So a kid can't buy a murder simulator... what's bad
> > about that?

>
> I'm almost certain you aren't that stupid.


Based on what?
 
L

laziejim

Guest
My take is not so much as "whats so bad about that." Its more so that
this is just another attempt at granting parents an even easier job
than they already have. Granted I am not a parent. So all that I have
to say comes from a)my own experiences being a kid b)my own experiences
being around other peoples kids c)speculation on the life of a parent.

That being said, I have a big problem with something like this simply
because, not to be cliche, age is nothing but a number. When I turned
21 I didn't magically become more resistent to alcohol in my body. Now
I am not suggesting that every one be allowed to drink as they please.
But the thing here is that once a kid turns 17 he/she does not
instantly mature to a point where they can view violence, sex etc.
without being negitively impressioned.

That onus falls on the parents. If you are a parent, you should be
regulating what your kid is playing. If they buy a game behind your
back, the parent should take the game away and explain why they can't
play it. Pay the kid for his game (if you have to), and then return it.
I'm just sick of all this legislation that takes the onus of parenting
off the parents. If a parent deems their child to be mature enough to
play GTA and watch porn at the age of 15 then so be it.

Just my take
 
F

Fred Liken

Guest
"Dub" <dub273@gmail.com> wrote

>> WTF's the big deal? So a kid can't buy a murder simulator... what's bad
>> about that?

>
> The MPAA ratings system isn't subject to federal regulation.


The ESRB isn't either.

> There's
> no federal oversight of books, music, or periodicals, either. Why is
> it suddenly so important to focus so much attention on gaming?


Because self regulation isn't working.

> Self-regulation works.


There's no evidence of that.
 
F

Fred Liken

Guest
"laziejim" <laziejim@gmail.com> wrote

> That being said, I have a big problem with something like this simply
> because, not to be cliche, age is nothing but a number. When I turned
> 21 I didn't magically become more resistent to alcohol in my body. Now
> I am not suggesting that every one be allowed to drink as they please.


Being 21, you are less likely to cause a problem to society in respects to
alcohol than someone younger.

> But the thing here is that once a kid turns 17 he/she does not
> instantly mature to a point where they can view violence, sex etc.
> without being negitively impressioned.


17's, like you said, just a number. A compromise.

> That onus falls on the parents. If you are a parent, you should be
> regulating what your kid is playing.


That's exactly what the law is trying to protect.

> If they buy a game behind your
> back, the parent should take the game away and explain why they can't
> play it. Pay the kid for his game (if you have to), and then return it.


.... ? Pay the kid then they just buy it again? Not sure I follow.

> I'm just sick of all this legislation that takes the onus of parenting
> off the parents.


What are you talking about? It puts the onus specifically on the parent and
takes away the ability of someone else to violate the parent's ability to
parent.

> If a parent deems their child to be mature enough to
> play GTA and watch porn at the age of 15 then so be it.


No one is taking that away from the parent, you understand, no?
 
D

Dub

Guest
Fred Liken wrote:
> > The MPAA ratings system isn't subject to federal regulation.

>
> The ESRB isn't either.


Ummm... like, duh.

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but the all-voluntary
MPAA ratings system has operated successfully for decades without
federal interference. The ESRB is showing itself capable of doing the
same.

> > Self-regulation works.

>
> There's no evidence of that.


Bullshit. The aforementioned MPAA is plenty of evidence that
self-regulation works. The ESRB is doing the right thing by following
the motion picture model, and even though there are a few kinks at the
retail level, the awareness of the ratings is starting to rise. They
provide plenty of information to parents to make informed choices, and
the system doesn't require federal regulation.

There's no federal law, for example, that says a kid can't walk into
Best Buy or Suncoast and come out with a Terminator 3 DVD. Why doesn't
Hillary make a stink about that? Could it be something to do with
Hollywood's close ties to the Democratic party? Shrug.

The lack of evidence, quite frankly, is in YOUR argument. But, I guess
I'll just put you down for one vote for "big government".
 
D

Doug Jacobs

Guest
In alt.games.video.xbox Fred Liken <nothanks@toocoolforschool.com> wrote:

> Games need it because voluntary restriction isn't working.


Why? I've never seen the movie ratings being enforced. I never had a
problem getting into an R movie when I was under 17, and even took my
youger brother with me a few times.

Even after Columbine, there were plenty of clearly un-escorted kids 12+ in the
theater when I went to watch things like Blade, Matrix, and Traffic.

With the exception of X-rated material, most video stores don't check the
age of the renter to make sure you don't have under-age kids renting R
movies. There are a few that will allow you to put a restriction on R
movies on your kid's membership card, but I doubt many people use that
option. Heck, I doubt most parents even bother to use the V-chip that's
installed in their TV to restrict programs and channels they don't want
their kids watching unattended.

Games already come with more descriptive labels than movies or music
combined. If parents refuse to heed the labels, as they refuse to heed
movie ratings, why should it be the business of the government to
interfere? Who knows? Maybe the parent feels their child is mature
enough to handle the material presented in the movie or game without them
becoming a murderous psychopath?

IF we're going to apply these restrictions to games, the we better be
prepared to apply them to ALL forms of media. Games, DVDs/videos, music,
BOOKS, MAGAZINES and NEWSPAPERS. Otherwise, why single out games? You
can read about more horrifically violent acts in the daily newspaper or
magazines - and ANYONE can get access to this material at the local
library!
 
D

Dub

Guest
Fred Liken wrote:
> > That onus falls on the parents. If you are a parent, you should be
> > regulating what your kid is playing.

>
> That's exactly what the law is trying to protect.


No, it isn't. That's the government coming in and playing nanny. The
government's job is not to act as a substitute for parents, nor is it
government's job to create a layer of bureaucracy on a specific
entertainment medium while turning a blind eye to other forms of media.

> What are you talking about? It puts the onus specifically on the parent and
> takes away the ability of someone else to violate the parent's ability to
> parent.


A video game doesn't just take away all the lessons learned through
childhood; good parenting trumps any video game, even Grand Theft Auto.
Saying that a retailer is violating a parent's ability to parent is
nonsense.
 

Like DestroyRepeat!

Advertisements

Top