Clinton legislation goes to congress
by Blake Snow 
{ Nov 30th 2005 at 10:30AM }
A new bill in response to the Hot Coffee Mod has been
set into motion and is on its way to congress. Headed up by New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the bill's main purpose
is to prohibit the sale of mature rated games to minors. Here's a rundown of the six proposed parts:
-
Prohibition on Selling M and AO games to Minors - Retail enforcement of ESRB.
-
Analysis of the ESRB - An annual independent analysis of the games rating system must be undertaken.
-
FTC Investigation of Misleading Ratings - FTC would be empowered to see if there were more pervasive problems in the industry.
-
Complaint Registration - The Bureau of Consumer Protection within the FTC will track complaints filed on behalf of consumers regarding misleading or deceptive content.
-
Annual Retailer Audit - FTC will be empowered to conduct annual audits of retailers and have those results reported to congress.
The implications of the proposed act run deep, and many, including EA believe it's the parent's job to regulate video game content to minors, not the government's. What's your take?
_thumbnail.jpg "Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce (Ryu)")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Working at Electronics Boutique, it's rather "natural" and expected of all of us to card people until-age for videogames. Hell, our sales screen prompts us to check for I.D. when a game is rated M or AO... how difficult is that?
Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I think it is up to the parents, but the government should aid in that process. Parents could still buy the games for their kids if they aren't old enough, but it makes sense to try and stop kids from buying games that their parents may have a problem with.
Master misChief @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Leaving everything to the parents, especially in this country, is not the answer. If all the parents could do their parenting duty as intended, we would not have all the teen pregnancies, drug abuse and Columbine shootings.
There should also be regulation and enforcement by the government. If the parent is so hell bent on letting their kids playing the M and AO rated games, let them buy the games themselves and give to the kids to play at home. The law is well-intentioned and doesn't need all the hullabaloo about infringement of rights.
Are EA and Rockstar afraid that little Timmy would not be able to walk into the nearest EBGames and pickup the next cop-shooting, whore-mugging, gangster-glorifying mega-game ??
rodan32 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I just can't see the government not screwing up the whole process. I can think of much better things my money can go towards than paying schmoes to audit my local GameStop. One fine example might be equipment for our guys in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Honestly, if this is the best our Senate can do with their time, we're not really getting our money's worth from them.
Neal @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
The only responsibility the government should have is a system of letting parents know what their kids should be playing, which it already does.
The government is an easy target after the fact, but it's the parents that need to take the responsibility to educate and help their kids develop into balanced adults
All next generation systems are going to have parental controls... but will parents stop their kids from playing the games they want? I doubt it. It's a lot easier to sit a kid down with a videogame or let them watch tv than actually raise them.
ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Let's be real...how can a parent prevent a kid from going to the store abd buying the game. This isn't 1960 anymore. Kids have money. Kids can get around.
It's no different than a store being required not to sell cigarettes to a minor. Or alcohol. How about movies? Let's face it, video games have gotten very realistic...it's time for them to grow up.
Tis isn't censorship...it's helping out a parent who's concerned. If the parent is OK with their child having the game, the parent can go with the child to get it. It's no big deal.
Be thankful Bill Frist didn't push this bill...it would have banned these games entirely. :-)
Sense @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this law. It's better than some of the outright censorship ideas out there. I'm talking to you John Bruce Thompson.
Still, if retailers were legally required not to sell M or AO games to minors, then would-be Jack Thompsons would have little to complain about. The ironic thing about this law is that it does place the responsibility on the parents. With a law like this in place, parents would have no one to blame but themselves.
I do find it a little disturbing that gaming is treated as a substance and not a form of media. What I mean is that music, movies, and TV are all self-regulated, with no legal repercussions when their systems are violated. Alchol, tobacco, and pornography, on the other hand, do have laws preventing their sale to minors.
So, essentially, this law would put games on the same level as drinking and porn. I'm not sure I agree with that. Strike that, I don't agree with that.
And further still, alcohol and pornography are regulated at the state level, and laws regarding them are different state to state. If those things aren't federal issues, why are video games?
Just a few thoughts.
flyNN @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
If you're a minor you can't buy cigarettes or a porno mag... no reason this should be any different.
Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Obviously our government can be questioned for many things they do, but protecting our youth from inappropriate material should be on their priority list (where on that list it should be can be debated). If done correctly, this would be a simple process that would set a standard for limiting sales to children. This should be in place, and if nothing else, we need somewhere to start. Even if the whole thing gets revised, as long as we have the impetus, I think we're headed in the right direction.
Jack @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
" If the parent is OK with their child having the game, the parent can go with the child to get it. It's no big deal."
But the thing is some parent buys a kid a game which is mature since they dont have any knowledge of the rating system or video games at all or willing to look it up. They end complaining at video games at what their kids playing. It just comes down to square one sometimes, but I guess part of the ban is good since kids wont play it.
We're already getting corperate involvement why dont we see parental involvement, seems like clinton is only caring about her PR.
Sense @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Actually, after a little thought, I'd like to revise my statement.
This law doesn't affect the vast majority of games, just M and AO. While I'm a little iffy on the M category, AO should be kept from the kids. By law if need be. That is no different from porn, and I'm okay with that.
So, yes, I'm for this law. Though part of me thinks this should be a state decision. Unfortunately, a lot of stupid states (like my own dear Oklahoma) would consider banning them altogether. But Hilary's law is the most sensible one I've seen, and now I have to say I'm for it. As long as it's not tweaked into an entirely different law with an amendment for Senatorial pay raises.
JouninZero @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
There's nothing wrong about this bill. I don't like seeing kids playing stuff like that. There's a reason for the ratings, but if parents can't take responsibility, the government is going to have to help them pay attention.
ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"But the thing is some parent buys a kid a game which is mature since they dont have any knowledge of the rating system"
Sure, that could happen...nothing is foolproof...but this law is aimed at helping concerned parents, not ignorant ones.
I should point out that this law is NOT about government control...otherwise these games would be prohibited as in the Middle East...this is about parental control.
A parent can't keep their child from sneaking out and buying the game on their own...so they need help. There's nothing wrong with it.
Clinton is certainly centralizing herself for her 2008 run, but she'd only be doing this if there was an outcry or need for it -- and there is.
Let's be honest...most people on Joystiq are not parents and regularly play extremely violent video games, so it's easy as a group to point fingers here. But, just keep in mind who's sitting on the other side...concerned parents who are trying to do well for their family and children. These people shouldn't be victims, they are our hero's.
...
I should also add that I hope that these are very few games rated "Mature." A game like Mortal Kombat, for instance, should not be considered "Mature." Blood, gore, or perceived violence is not enough...there has to be an extreme.
Truth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
All these people that are trying to ban violent games don't even play games, so it is one sided. Now if somebody wanted to ban violent movies all these anti-game bastards would go crazy.
ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"All these people that are trying to ban violent games don't even play games, so it is one sided."
Nobody is banning games.
Truth @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"Violent games"
ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Yes, nobody is banning violent games either...it's an effort to regulate to younger kids. For the same reason they can't smoke or drink either...(in theory :-))
magaman @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I really hate thes people that think videogames should be monitored by the government. And to make things worse its all because of the HOT COFFEE MOD, which was MADE BY HACKERS not the game developers. Why are we wasting itme on videogames when we should be lookign at the idiot running this country who;s actions are causing the deaths of our military men and women. These people think they know what is good for us but the have no clue, and they have NO CLUE what they are talking ABOUT. We really need to ban together and make our voices heard. SPend more time on educating parents on how to shop for games and less time trying to keep games off the market. If your a stupid parent and buy your young kid GTA I hope that kid pulls a Knife on you and stabs you cause you deserve it for being stupid. When I have kids I will never buy them a M game till they are old enough and I will monitor what they watch and play, why? CAUSE THATS MY JOB AS A PARENT.
magaman @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
and I understand they don't want to ban games, but because of more strict laws devs. and retailers are less likely to sell the M rated games we play today, which will boil down to GTA type games not even being made in the future.
If this keeps going the only games we'll be playing are Barbie and Nancy Drew
alienhead @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
It's a good way to waste our tax money.
Jack @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"A parent can't keep their child from sneaking out and buying the game on their own...so they need help. There's nothing wrong with it."
If a kid is willing to sneak out, doing things his parents doesnt like then it seems its more a domestic issue rather social one. If a kid buys a game without parent approval then makes me wonder what kinda relation both parent and child have. If the parent did have good natured relationship with the child and told the kid why he or she shouldnt then maybe the parent would have the problem to begin with. One day the child is buying violent games next drugs?
"most people on Joystiq are not parents and regularly play extremely violent video games, so it's easy as a group to point fingers here"
Like-wise most parents arent gamers, they point fingers other way.
"But, just keep in mind who's sitting on the other side...concerned parents who are trying to do well for their family and children. These people shouldn't be victims, they are our hero's."
They're not really heros, if they really had concerned to kids to begin with, maybe they should be involved with their children's lives, really pay interest in their children's hobbies and have an active role in them.
magaman @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"A parent can't keep their child from sneaking out and buying the game on their own...so they need help. There's nothing wrong with it." ok 2 things, number 1 i fthis is happening your a BAD parent, number 2 retailers already are not allowed to sell M games to anyone under 17, so why do we need to waste time and money on this????
ZaBlanc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
"If your a stupid parent and buy your young kid GTA I hope that kid pulls a Knife on you and stabs you cause you deserve it for being stupid."
Dude, read the bill...it has nothing to do with a stupid parent buying their kid GTA...it has to do with the parent trying to PREVENT their kid from getting it. If this is your argument, then you should support this bill.
...
As for games like GTA being "passed over" in the future, gimme a break. You can make GTA and remove a few elements and it's still a great game. GTA 1 was a great game, and that was 2D and had far less details.
If you love GTA, you love the gameplay...it's not a hidden sex scene that convinced you.
Andrew Fong @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
How does online distribution fit in? My hunch is that if minors can easily get pornography online, they sure as heck can easily get violent video games and "hot coffee."
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with violent video games. There's no empirical evidence showing a link between violence in video games and violence in everyday life. All of horror stories are anecdotal. Rather than shielding children from video games, parents really should get involved in the gaming experience and make sure that kids aren't learning the wrong lessons. That is, let little Timmy play, but make sure he understands the difference between fantasy and reality.
Otherwise, kids are just going to circumvent the system.
Lone Starr @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Honestly, if a kid wants it, he will be able to get it.
HardwareGuy @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Yeah, aren't cigarettes illegal to sell to minors as well? We all know how well that works. If kids want it, they will get it.
What's needed is for parents and kids to get together and talk about the themes-including drugs, sex and violence-that make these games inappropriate for youngsters. It all comes down to personal responsibility taking another blow as lazy parents want the gov't to do their jobs for them.
John @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Hillary thinks EVERYTHING should be her, er, I mean, the federal governments business. It's clear from the comments here that most of you don't even understand the IDEA of limited government, much less any particulars.
The idea was that the Federal government could only do things that it was specifically allowed to do! Some people argued that the bill of rights wasn't even necessary, since Congress wasn't given the right to control speech or guns or anything else in the Constitution. These days, it just does whatever the heck it wants (usually justified by saying whatever they want is interstate commerce), and here is another great example.
The Federal government of this country already controls what kind of fricking TOILET you can buy, so why stop there?
Ask yourself: Is a store owner selling a game to a child living in the same state interstate commerce? If it is, what ISN'T? What part of our lives can Congress NOT control?
Ken @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Right on. Hillary has latched onto violent video games as her phony pet issue to attract the concerned Christian Soccer Moms who would otherwise be repulsed by her sham marriage. It's a calculated political move, just like everything else she does. Of course her solution is to waste more of our tax dollars. Who's Bill having hot coffee with this week, Hillary?
bd (formerly b) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Why are you morons pissed off about this? Personally, I don't give a shit what she does, and if games can't be sold to minors, I'm so fucking glad. Nothing new, nothing that affects me here.
If you are pissed off, you are most likely under age.
Ken @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I visited both left-wing and right-wing forums to research this legislation and, for once, both sides agree that it's a waste of time. So why Does Hillary get to use it as her "save the children" moment? Obviously gamers don't vote.
Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
All the government would be doing is making it so children cannot buy games that are meant for mature gamers. This is not some crazy level of government intervention that would mean the end to all civilization. As long as the retailers follow the rules, the only thing that will happen is that children will be unable to purchase these mature games on their own. It would protect children and help make parents more aware of what games their children want to play. Is this some terrible thing? When I was 12 I may have thought so, but now, as an adult, and with a better understanding of the impact of the media on children, I think this is a good thing. Will it put an end to children getting their hands on mature games? No. Will it take a step toward that end? Yes. Nothing's perfect, but to me, there's nothing wrong with putting an effort forth.
And for anyone who says that parents are responsible and should talk to their kids and know what their kids are playing... of course they should, and I think this would, to a certain degree, force that to happen. Whereas some kids now just pick up a game and play it without ever involving their parents (avoiding any type of parental interference or conversation whatsoever... and this can easily happen), if the kid needs to ask their parent to buy the game for them, parents will be forced to at least SEE what their children are playing. What they decide to do from then is what makes them a good or a bad parent. Parents should know their children, and can decide whether or not their child is intelligent/mature enough to play a certain type of game.
John @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Matt, I suspect this might very well make it EASIER for parents to abdicate their responsibilities regarding parental oversight of video games. As it stands, the most viable option for parents is to control the CONSOLE, and maybe the TV as well. This bill serves to lull them into a sense that they don't need to be so "controlling", since they're kids technically can't buy "bad" games (and again, they can rely on the government to define "bad" for them). Yet the government can't keep MARIJUANA out of the hands of teenagers, why in the world do you think they stand a chance with video games?
Will Strinz @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
Would this be helpful to take M rated games out of childrens hands? Maybe
Would this be a waste of taxpayer money? Probably
Id say that about sums it up
kyle @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
I dont understand parents now a days. Everything we watch, listen to or play is rated. If parents cant understand the rating systems then they shouldnt have kids. Videogames, movies, and tv were just as violent back in the 80's as it is now. The only thing that has changed is parenting in this country. Parents have become so lazy and want everyone else to raise thier kids for them. Its the whole Clinton "it takes a village" crap. Most people dont undersatnd that the average age of a gamer is 28. I just dont understand why the people in this country love giving up their rights. we are becoming more and more like a comunist country, by being told what to watch, read, and listen too.
A! @ Dec 18th 2005 9:02PM
for better or worse most dudes that i know (older than 8) have played san andreas. they love it. like crack.
i think it comes down to each kid, i know some who should be playing it and some that shouldn't. it comes down to what each kid has seen and knows about. the parents/guardians should be responsible.