ESA calls Oklahoma's bluff; lawsuit imminent
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jun 13th 2006 at 6:45PM }
Like clockwork, the Entertainment Software Association's Doug Lowenstein has issued a statement regarded the passage of Oklahoma's HB3004, a bill that, by classifying them as "harmful to minors," would restrict the sale or rental of violent video games to minors*. GamePolitics has reprinted part of Lowenstein's statement, in which he writes:"The ESA is deeply disappointed by the actions of the Oklahoma Legislature. We believe HB 3400[sic] will restrict the First Amendment rights of Oklahoma's citizens, and intend to file suit in Oklahoma federal district court shortly, asking that the state's new video game law be overturned..."
"We do sincerely appreciate and respect the concerns that these legislators have. However, six courts in five years have struck down similar laws, ruling that they were unconstitutional and rejecting the unpersuasive claims made by states that violent video games cause aggression..."
"We hope that sooner or later state legislators and candidates will stop trying to seek headlines by subverting the constitution and frittering away desperately needed taxpayer dollars and instead enter into a constructive partnership to educate parents about the tools available so they, not government, can raise their kids as they see fit."
*To answer the inevitable question of "What's wrong with keeping little Billy from killing hookers?" we'll direct you to star commenter 32_Footsteps' explanation: "the consequence of such laws will be that manufacturers will self-censor in order to prevent running afoul of the law. When a content producer self-censors to make something accessible to a wider audience, they risk losing something in the game."
Legislation may result in new retail environments that would force publishers to reconsider the content of games or risk financial inviability. That means adults wouldn't be able to play GTA either. The ensuing discussion in this post is well worth your time. Thanks, guys!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Frowelishnu @ Jun 13th 2006 6:57PM
I wish that the ESA could spend more capital promoting education like the recent Penny Arcade collaberation than fighting laws that legislators know won't hold up in court.
Nothing makes this law different than than others already struck down.
I don't know which is worse, politicians pandering uselessly to keep their seats or the uneducated public that keeps voting for them.
Shogan @ Jun 13th 2006 7:02PM
I think all this bill will do is prevent kids from purchasing games they shouldn't be playing in the first place. We have laws like that for movies, I don't see the difference.
Frowelishnu @ Jun 13th 2006 7:12PM
Shogun-
We don't have laws like that for movies. It is the same system, a voluntary ratings scheme from the industry. Not an unconstitutional law that props up censorship.
Sorry if I seem a little upset - I just like to keep my 1st Ammendment rights intact.
bv @ Jun 13th 2006 7:42PM
I find it hard to believe there are that many people under 18 who drive to video game stores without their parents, buy a "graphically violent game", come home, and start playing that on their parent's television. Even then, you can't drive until your 16, so in esscence this bill is protecting that 16-18 year old demographic that can drive to game stores. Really it sounds like such a waste of time. Also, I think if I was a developer and just cranked out this awesome game that took years to make, I would want maximum exposure for this game at every retail outlet possible. From what I've read, this new law makes it so indecent games are hidden behind blinders. So not only will people 18 and under not notice the game, every other individual who walks in the store will breeze right past it as well. These games aren't porno for craps sake, sure they may be violent but they don't hide movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre behind blinders because of their gory content. I know this bill is just affecting one state, but it sounds like this could become customary, via a "Well Oklahoma did it, why cant we" kind of thing.
William @ Jun 13th 2006 7:43PM
Wait.. What's the big deal? Isn't it already illegal for a minor to buy a M RATED GAME? How is this new law changing anything? I'm thoroughly confused here. Did they just make someonething that was illegal illegal again?!
Frowelishnu @ Jun 13th 2006 7:47PM
William-
No it's not illegal. See above.
haegen @ Jun 13th 2006 7:53PM
#3, a voluntary ratings system would definitely be preferable, but the only way it would work would be if the guidelines were actually followed. you wouldn't need to "prop up censorship" if people abided by the ratings instead of ignoring them and then having their hand forced.
as for manufacturers self-censoring, i can't really see that happening. the movie rating system seems to work well enough and there are no shortage of violent films.
besides, maybe it will help keep developers/publishers/whoever from using violence as a crutch instead of coming up with something more original.
i agree that i would rather not be told what i can and can't buy, but by not opperating within the ratings system in the first place, the industry screwed itself and is forcing this kind of thing to happen.
Felix Andrews @ Jun 13th 2006 7:57PM
With regards to self-censure in a regulated retail environment, here in the UK a lot (but not all) of the more mature-content titles are certified by the BBFC, and thus their sale governed by law. Retailers found selling a title bearing the 12, 15 or 18 certificates are supposed to be fined. And yet, we don't seem to have the problem that 32_Footsteps envisages. The GTA series all bear the BBFC 18 certificate, and yet, like in much of the Western world, it is one of the most commercially successful games in many years.
But then, the attitude here seems to be that if a minor really must own the latest piece of hyperviolent contraband, either their neglectful parents will buy it for them (which of course reinforces the notion that it's the parents who should be educated, rather than videogames being targeted by the reactionary press), or they will ask somebody older to buy it for them in-store (something I've been asked to do many, many times). Greed will always find a way.
As an outsider looking in, the First Amendment seems to be more trouble than it's worth sometimes. I'll admit to having next to no understanding of it whatsoever, but it does seem to paraphrase as "we have this 'freedom' thing, so we can do whatever the hell we like".
funkonaut @ Jun 13th 2006 8:05PM
I think on a higher level it's more about freedom of the individual. I've played video games since I was 4 years old and I'm not a violent bastard. The worst I've ever done is get a speeding ticket. Granted, they didn't have GTA when I was even 13, but they did have Liesure Suit Larry.
So who are these "others" who think they know what's best for other people? The reason we have record high prison populations is because there are more people in our country, not because of GTA. It's a lot like global warming. Is it real, or is it just Al Gore wanting attention? I personally think it's the latter, only because I'm conservative, as you can tell by my entire post.
Anyway.....
32_Footsteps @ Jun 13th 2006 8:14PM
I personally took more pride in my grasp of Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment from that thread, but I'm glad to be recognized.
Felix, this might sound a bit jingoistic of me, but it's because the major developers in the video game industry for the most part don't care about what happens in Britain. Whether it's fair or not, Japan and North America are the two markets the companies focus on. And as such, they worry most about what CERO or ESRB rating they'll get, not which rating they'll get in Britain.
As such, potential fines for sales in Britain don't really cross anyone's mind in the video games industry. Now if Japan and/or North America had serious fines to levy, then the industry will get quite concerned.
Moreover, you think we haven't seen anything like this in the past? How many games got butchered from their original Japanese version to the American version in the 8-bit and 16-bit days? We laugh about it now, but you don't know how much people were driven nuts by stuff like "You spoony bard!" and "The Book of Secrets".
And though we don't see it as much in video games, the principle holds true across all entertainment. Find some hardcore American anime fans and ask them about the American version of One Piece compared to the Japanese version (worth noting, they censor the game versions too).
The phenomenon is all too real here in the U.S. - if you don't see it in Britain, then you're either lucky or too small to be affected.
Michitastic @ Jun 13th 2006 8:15PM
#3 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The First Ammendment does not say no censorship. It says that there will be no restriction to free SPEECH.
Frowelishnu @ Jun 13th 2006 8:19PM
Felix-
On the 1st Ammendment: I understand that it can seem like anything can be justified by saying, "It's my right", it doesn't work that way.
The right is were protecting is speech (games included). Basically, the idea is that it is better to have no barriers on speech even though we protect things that are utterly stupid, wrong, hateful, offending, ect.
Otherwise, the only speech that would be protected would be that of those in power (might makes right). That is kind of what we were moving away from with the whole idea of American democracy.
I understand that you may not be well versed in the Bill of Rights, I don't understand much about Parlaiment (or whether I even spelled it right).
I think this is some of the best discussion on these boards - aren't you glad you have the right to it.
cbroz91 @ Jun 13th 2006 8:30PM
Michitastic, the Supreme Court has already ruled that by SPEECH, the founding fathers ment all expression, not just verbal. This was made because, obviously, they didn't have games back in that time period.
Psychofemm @ Jun 13th 2006 8:57PM
As an unfortunate resident and local game store employee of the lame state of oklahoma (fyi: do yourself a favor and never come here. the very best advice i can give anyone)This 'law' is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars. It frustrates me and makes me lose even more of the little respect that i have for the current government. maybe it makes them feel
like they're doing something constructive in the eyes of the voters so that they can be reelected and continue reaping their fat pay checks.
they want us to treat M rated games like PORN.
Absolutely Ridiculous. they will require us to hide 2/3s of the cover, because of the rating. I can understand why you would cover a porno mag. but video game covers are not anything worse than movie covers. even beyond that you can buy a gun at wal-mart. they're not stopping kids from running through sporting goods. If the government really cared they wouldn't be wasting time on creating frivolous laws. they would educate parents/grandparents about the ESRB. I can't tell you how many times i've had 8 years kids come into the store with their grandparents and ask for GTA. I promptly explain the ESRB and where the Content descriptors are on the game and let them know that the game contains prostitution and drug use. To which 10 times out 10 will reassess their decision to purchase the game. But from that day on, they understand the ESRB. It's a good system and if more people were educated about it, it would be a great system. All it takes is a little effort on everyone's part. I take the ratings pretty seriously at my store. I don't just treat it as a sale, give me your money. I want people to know what they're getting into.
Tirol @ Jun 13th 2006 9:10PM
Personally, having such restriction such as this is about as effective as stopping the drug trade. For example, China tries to suppress any kind of organized movement recently with Falun Gong, a type of "exercise" many practice. Consequently, many people still practice it but underground. The point is that this bill being passed won't work as the uninformed parent or older people will buy it for underage children. And as other people have said, this "restriction" is certainly not fair when you have movies/books that are just as bad or worse than video games.
Twist @ Jun 13th 2006 9:13PM
Good luck to the ESA on this one. As an Oklahoman I know just how conservative and worse how stupid our legislators and judges are. This state is overflowing with the so-called Moral Majority and bible-thumping southern baptists. Bring on digital distribution (and parents that actually pay attention to their children so stuff like this won't be an issue). Anyway education not legislation is the answer (perhaps that saying should become part of the ESRB's advertising push).
32_Footsteps @ Jun 13th 2006 11:46PM
Well, the ESA is prepared to fight up to the Supreme Court over this, and I really don't see them taking a different tack than they did in prior First Amendment cases (for example, Brandenburg v. Ohio, the case that established the "Imminent Lawless Action" standard for the restriction of free speech that is the prevailing judicial logic on the matter, was a unanimous decision). So even if the Supreme Court of Oklahoma won't budge on the matter, they'd just be biding time until the U.S. Supreme Court took the case.
However, in all this discussion, it occurs to me that video gamers and their defenders do have one potentially serious challenge that could arise related to video gaming. If Congress invokes Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (well-known as the Commerce Clause), a federal act levying fines upon the sale of certain games to minors might be able to pass. It would be one of those grey areas in which the ruling would depend on each Justice's reading of the Constitution, and whether they felt that the Commerce Clause or the First Amendment would be the overriding Constitutional principle. While I feel confident that the Oklahoma law will be squashed in the courts, I would feel nervous about the prospects of such a federal law.
The proper response to this potential is twofold. First, those in a position to potentially deal with such a case should prepare now for said arguments. And those of us who are not should exercise political power by talking to Congressional members and insuring that such a law would not be passed in the first place.
ben @ Jun 13th 2006 11:50PM
Yay!!!! I live in OK and that law makes my heart hurt. I am 16, and I find it near impossible to play T rated games... Most of the time, it the M rated games that are worth picking up. I am really glad to hear this and I completly agree with this statement.. "We believe HB 3400[sic] will restrict the First Amendment rights of Oklahoma's citizens"
Twist, however, is correct... OK is overun by southern baptists that just seeing the letter M on a game makes them start gasping for air and pulling out their crosses from their pockets.. It really steams my broccoli that they can't see over their church organs and see that maybe, just maybe, kids can't run into the empty fields and play with bunnies anymore. And maybe that video games aren't something that comes straight from hell. And now, because these are the people we have in our(Oklahoma) government, they are now restricting us from something we love because they are so closed minded. I hope ESA wins, stickin it to the man I suppose.
But, even tho this sucks, I still can get my hands on M rated games. Ebay, Amazon, anywhere on the internet will supply me with what I need... But now I have to feel like a criminal when buying my games... Even worse, I have to use words like "supply me with what I need."
Wow... I didn't want to make this a long comment, it's just that this is a sore topic to me.... And as I said before... It steams me broccoli.
r-deezy @ Jun 13th 2006 11:58PM
The biggest problem here is the generational gap (which sadly seems to always be an issue for yonger and older people alike). For some reason the ex-hippies, who were known for their rebelious nature, have a big problem with the youth and their rebelious nature.
Most of the people complaining about this issue are the people that don't know the first thing about computers/technology and have never picked up a modern controller. It's sad.
I am of the opinion that most people are aware enough to know the difference between video games and reality. And for those that are not - it's only a matter of time before they cause some havoc and the media finds a way to blame it on anything except for parental neglect or just an act of ignorance from a person who doesn't care.
bill pullman @ Jun 14th 2006 12:11AM
American citizens under the age of 18 should not be allowed to purchase mature-rated titles. a law that enforces this is welcome, to me. being able to purchase them is a right that children in this country should NOT HAVE.
Probot @ Jun 14th 2006 1:57AM
#17,
"If Congress invokes Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (well-known as the Commerce Clause), a federal act levying fines upon the sale of certain games to minors might be able to pass."
Quiet! Jack Thompson reads this blog!
#20,
Yeah, and minors should not be allowed to watch any movie or read any book that may cause trauma to their fragile, developing mind. Everything a minor experiences must be filtered and approved by their local authorities or maybe by their parents if they're not too busy. One size fit all legislation always turns out well, right?
Because this is the internet, I have to explain that the preceding paragraph was sarcasm. Minors are not stupid. And they are also not all "children." These laws are unnecessary because there is no (credible) link to video games and real violence.
And some (most?) teens are responsible and intelligent enough to know the difference between reality and fantasy. It's really sad that some people think we need laws to regulate everyday behavior like buying a video game.
WamBam @ Jun 14th 2006 1:59AM
I seem to recall that the majority of people that buy and play video games are adults. There is no doubt in my mind that a large percentage of the video game audience is under 18 but I always get the feeling that to many, specifically many politicians, the industry is still looked upon as something akin to toys. Maybe, in a way, they're right but that speaks more to the value of toys then the childishness of video games. The point though, is that the industry really needes to raise the awareness that video games can be and is an adult industry and that the mature content reflects mature consumers.
However, video games being what they are, they are nothing if not expensive to produce. For a developer to see a reasonable return on a game, they have to capture at least some of the under 18 audience or else produce games for less.
This reminds me of the movie industry. Most of the top grossing movies are rarely, if ever, above PG-13 simply because movie studios crave an audience of minors and adults. We seldom see big budget, blockbuster pictures with R ratings. I can really only think of the Matrix as one of the few movies in recent memory that carried an R rating, was expensive to produce and did well at the box office.
Most R rated hits aren't made for that much money. They tend to be lower budget pictures with mature content made for an adult audience and intended to capture adult money.
It's often been said that Nintendo is the "kiddy" company, that's its titles are meant for a younger audience. Does that make Sony or Microsoft the adult companies? Should Sony or Microsoft be billing themselves as adult companies when they so obviously need to rely on a good percentage of minors to make their systems? Should GTA or Halo, both rated Mature, be the center pieces of these systems? I think not.
Sean DL @ Jun 14th 2006 2:00AM
" American citizens under the age of 18 should not be allowed to purchase mature-rated titles. a law that enforces this is welcome, to me. being able to purchase them is a right that children in this country should NOT HAVE."
Well is that up to the government or the parents?
Do we have a law that enforces bookstores to not sell kids books with mature content in them? No. That'd be silly.
Do We have a law that enforces movie stores to not sell a mature movie to a adult if they have a child with them at the time? No. That'd be silly.
So why do we have need to have a law that enforces gaming stores to not sell mature games to children.....since MOST stores will not allow this to happen a anyway. It's silly to think other wise.
This reminds me of all hype around the GTA of it's time, American Pie. When that movie came out, many teens between 13 and 17 seen that movie in the theater..even though it was a rated R movie. Parents got pissed, the media hyped it up and setup hidden cameras, the Movie industry didn't really care, and the rating board got all pissy and they chewed off the Movie theaters chains ears.
After that they started to check ids and would only sell one ticket to a person.
This was really enforced when American Pie 2 came out. There wasn't a need to have a law in place to oversee the already in place system. The theaters and parents did there job. Did this mean that no one saw these Rrated movies? Not really Parents took there kids to see Scary Movie(R rated) because it wasn't that bad....and I know kids who sneaked into American Pie 2(Via the Rugrats in Paris or Jurassic Park 3).
Fast forward to today, all the hype calm down and the enforcement is down(The Omen was full of ticketed payed high schoolers) till the next "Shock" media horror story is created and a movie is too much for teens and id are checked again...Hell do I even have to bring up all the kids forced to see the snuff film called the Passion of the Christ(Rated R for violence and alot of blood).
And I wonder how many people stop kids from buying the Passion on DVD...Specially in this so called bible belt...
So again..why is it that gaming needs such laws, yet movies get away with alot more and no one is going all nazi on them(yet)?
It's just silly...
Brian @ Jun 14th 2006 2:35AM
Sean, We've had movies for 100+ years, we've had video games for 30.
Ken Kannif From Connecticut @ Jun 14th 2006 3:36AM
The problem with bills like these is that they are essentially lumping violent video games with pornography, alcohol, and cigarettes. They don't even address exactly what "violent" video games are. Some people consider Looney Toons to be violent. That's just one flaw that damns this bill.
Pornography, cigarettes, and alcohol are not available for minors. Why exactly? They are shown to be a direct and immediate danger to minors. Alcohol and cigarettes effect your body immediately and pornography is considered obscene. There are no full-proof studies that show video games to be a "direct and immediate danger" to anyone of any age. If video games were truly dangerous, you would have mass murders following the release of Halo 2.
Another glaring problem with this bill is the bias against video games themselves. Jack Thompson (who we all know and love so much) says that the GTA series is responsible for so many murders. I wonder if he's ever heard of "The Turner Diaries" or "Mein Kampf". Yeah, maybe he should Google those and see just how many deaths a "book" can cause.
Austin @ Jun 14th 2006 8:58AM
Though 32_Footsteps seems to have a grasp on first amendment law we have to remember that such rights can be impaired if the state can prove secondary effects. It was first used for the zoning regulation of "adult" businesses but has been applied in a multi-pronged approach outside of the original use. If the state can show that exposure can be detrimental to minors the law may hold up. As a gamer i hope it doesn't hold up. The ESA might have avoided all of this if they were more vocal about what they have done and tried to work with the legislatures before these get on the books.
Mal F4cti0n @ Jun 14th 2006 9:02AM
The real issue ranges far outside the realm of just video games.
What would stop the government passing a bill that states, "Violent video games are harmful to adults, so they are illegal as well."
The next step would be movies, books, artwork, driving in your car (more people die from car accidents than from playing video games), eating food (choking on food kills more people than a video game, I have never heard of someone choking on a PS2 game disc), having sex (again, more people die while having sex than while playing video games), cigarettes, alcohol, food that was too unhealthy, and so on.
I don't know about you, but I like having my government not telling me what I am allowed to eat on a particular day.
Can anyone say, "1984"? (It's a book for those not in the know, go read it)
32_Footsteps @ Jun 14th 2006 9:29AM
Tying in two comments together, Minitrue fortunately hasn't been able to create the proof that the secondary effects exist - this is why I repeatedly bring up the Brandenburg case and the Imminent Lawless Action test. Thus, while Congress does have the power to restrict sales in such an instance, Austin, they need proof that they have the right to, which does not exist.
Also, Probot, if the courts continue their interpretation of the Constitution as they did during the Renquist court, it's actually a moot point. The First Amendment's language is actually more restrictive (to the government's action) than the Commerce Clause. Moreover, while the Commerce Clause does not contain any language that allows it to override the First Amendment, the First Amendment does contain language that allows it to override the Commerce Clause (which is why such cases are often fought over the First Amendment).
My worry only comes in the idea that the court would suddenly reverse course, but so far there's little indication that the Roberts court would do so.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 14th 2006 9:34AM
"As an outsider looking in, the First Amendment seems to be more trouble than it's worth sometimes."
That may be one of the more disturbing things I've read in a post on Joystiq (and that's saying something). I am also an outsider looking in (Canadian), but I have some family experience on the issue.
My father was forced to escape Hungary at the age of 14, leading his mother, 4 year-old brother and 12 year-old sister with him across the border into Austria, in the mid-fifties. For those that don't know the troubles that Hungary faced at that time I will explain. The government was in a state of flux and there was little or no telling if you would be under fascist or communist rule from one day to the next and coup d'etats were the order of the day following the fallout of World Wars I & II abd the redrwaing of borders in Europe. When my father woke up to the sounds of gunfire and tanks rolling down his street twice in one week he decided to depart for a country where a government is the one elected by the people rather than taken by military might. This is why the 1st Ammendment rights and its equivalents in countries around the world are so important. When an unjust system rules the first right that its populace loses is that of free speech, which allows its people to speak out against the government and rally support through education and awareness along with the freedom of the press for the same reasons. There have already been many breaches of these freedoms in the world over recent years and the smallest breach can create a flood. Before this becomes a debate about the Patriot Act or NSA wire-tapping or some of the other controversial actions taken around the world, let's try to remain on topic.
Games, like movies or books (etc..), are a medium where not only is entertainment is provided, but political messages are delivered (think Metal Gear Solid). It is important that we continue to allow for self-policing of these types of content rather than allowing the government to establish their own rules and edicts concerning appropriateness of content. It is important because there is a slippery slope as to defining what subject matter is unsuitable for children (or adults). The free market must decide this through development and sales. I, for one, do not want my children playing games like GTA, or others of its ilk, but I want to be free to make my own choice on the matter. The ESA has its faults, but I implore that you look at its alternatives before you wish for its end. Do you really want people like Jack Thompson deciding what material is appropriate for sale? I promise that he would be one of the first hired to head up such an organization.
Jake @ Jun 14th 2006 9:39AM
The law is a waste of time and money, and misdirects people from the actual problems with our youth. People like to tack on an easy solution that has nothing to do with the problem just because it is easy. Violent games do not matter. The reason kids get f'd up is that they are ignored and/or abused. The kids that get messed up are the ones that the parents let the TV and video games babysit. Yes, if GTA teaches your kids morality, social duty, and compassion, your kid may steal your Benelli 12 guage semi-automatic shotgun, get a crate of 2xO buck shot, and go crazy in downtown LA.
But, if you take your kid fishing, camping, hunting, spank them when they f' up, make sure they clean after themselves, take them bowling, read to them, etc., playing a little GTA at their friend Billy's house is not going to turn them into a homicidal maniac killer.
Oh, and for god's sake, don't let them watch the news and shield them from advertisements as much as possible. As a matter of fact, your kids will turn out much better if you don't have cable TV until their 14ish, just posses a solid movie collection. I know it sounds crazy and many couldn't live without it, but that shtuff does mess up an 8 yr. old's head a bit.
Deuce @ Jun 14th 2006 10:00AM
People are way overreacting here. First of all, the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. That is, it guarantees the right to publicly argue for your opinions. This is necessary for a democratic society, where people try to get elected and get laws passed by persauding the public of their opinions. The "freedom of expression" schlock is just that - liberal schlock. It's silly to claim that the 1st amendment guarantees your right to "express yourself" however you want, regardless of whatever norms society sets. That's a bunch of post-modernist, namby-pamby, Oprah-esque "self-esteem" bullshit being read back into a document that predates it. Sure, a number of judges have ruled that way, but a number of judges are morons. Besides, even then they aren't consistent. If they were, it should be legal to prance around naked in the Central Park pond, yelling "I'm a pretty balarina!" (It's not). Obviously, limits are needed on expression if a society is to even function, and the point of democracy is that a society gets to decide those limits itself.
As for this law, I wouldn't have voted for it, because I doubt it's enforceable, and I don't like unnecessary statism, especially when the situation is already being handled pretty well by the private sector (at least as good as its likely to be handled by the government, anyway). However, I don't think it's un-Constitutional (at least by any rational thinking person's reading of the Constitution), and it's not the end of the world.
Also, I think the main argument here, about self-censorship, is specious. Presumably the publishers are already self-censoring, right? When they put an M rating on a game, the idea is to keep minors from buying it, isn't it? 32_Footsteps' argument rests on the premise that the game companies, while they claim to be trying to keep innappropriate content out of the hands of minors, are actually unserious about it and are secretly relying on such sales, and that this law would force them to stop doing so. In other words, the argument undercuts itself by assuming that the current private ratings system is a farce that would be remedied by the law, but that it should remain a farce so that you personally can have anything you want in a game. Not likely to convince many others.
A better argument would be that the current system is working at least as well as government intrusion would, but without all its typical beauracratic incompetence, and without costing any taxpayer dollars.
JP @ Jun 14th 2006 10:08AM
This is the thing. You kids under 18... you should blame the individuals that commit violent acts and then say they picked it up from a video game. (Columbine) If you are a kid under 18 blame a developer that puts code into a game to reveal content that is not specifically mentioned on the cover. (Rockstar)
Have to admit I'm a gamer and a parent. And if I bought my kid a game and that game was a certain rating only to find out by tweaking this and that the game reveals somethings I don't think is appropriate...I'm pissed. Now who do I become pissed at...not myself because I clearly went by the ESRB rating. So I as a parent whose doorstep is this going to fall on?
And this is where we are at now. All of you complaining ... blame Rockstar's GTA for bringing this to the forefront. ESRB is so worried about the suppression of First Amendment rights....code is going unchecked. If the ESRB wants me as a parent to use their rating system....how and why after finding "hot coffee" can I trust them?
See everyone is at fault here and no one wants to take responsibility. ESRB, developers, parents, politicians, kids...etc.
barryska @ Jun 14th 2006 10:21AM
Boy, i'm glad we don't have all this crap up here in Canada. It's seriously nothing compared to the drame the US faces...
Charterboy @ Jun 14th 2006 10:26AM
Deuce,
I can't help but laugh at that comment.
"post-modernist, namby-pamby, Oprah-esque "self-esteem" bullshit" - well said.
But onto something you say later on. I wouldn't exactly say that the rating systems is a farce, but I do think it is exploited a little bit. Just like an "R" rating for a movie, an "M" rating for a game is used as a means of promotion. Now I know that it isn't the intent, but from the point of view of alot of Kids, playing a game with that rating makes them cool.
Now ideally I wouldn't want the government to have there hands in this at all. I would think that parents should have ultimate control over this. Now I don't believe that playing these games necessarily effects people in a negative way. But I do believe that they can enhance a certain pre-disposition towards violence. And unfortunatly (Caution: gross stereotype coming up) it seems to me that the kids with this pre-disposition towards violent behavior have parents who don't pay attention to or care what there kids are playing. Which means that leaving the responsibility in the hands of parents doesn't work. And without every retailer in the country chosing to self-restrict the sale of "M" games, I see no other choice but for the government to force restrictions.
I expect a federal law in the next couple years to address this situation, and I sincerely doubt that the Supreme Court will strike it down.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 14th 2006 10:32AM
JP, the ESRB never checked code. Logistically that is impossible, whether they do it or a government agency does it. There are too many games and too much code for them to check it. As it stands now the publishers and developers put together a sample of the most offensive material in the title and pass it on to the ESRB and their panel discusses and rates it accordingly. What Rockstar did was not disclose code that was not accessible without a hack. It's a tough issue, but frankly their biggest fault in this is lying about it after it was discovered by saying it was an add-on by a modder.
By the way, I see your children must be very technically savvy to have searched, found, downloaded, installed and then played through to discover the Hot Coffee mini-game. Also, I guess having your children participate in virtual wholesale slaughter amongst other things, but viewing some pixelated, poorly animated sex mini-game that is tamer than some 14A movies was just too damn much. You know, I'd be pretty pissed too. Lighten up a little.
r-deezy @ Jun 14th 2006 10:39AM
When i was a kid, i went over my friends house and we found some porno's in his dad's closet.
Austin @ Jun 14th 2006 10:40AM
32_Footsteps the rational of secondary effects may be tougher on the industry than your giving it credit for. The state legislature is not required to perform its own study and Erie v. Paps AM only gave the plaintiff a reasonable period to contend the findings. With the current rating system in place it would be tough for the industry to argue there are no secondary effects when they already recommend that the games not be sold to minors in the firs place. I have to say i agree with you on Roberts. Souter and Stevens have both extended the limitations on the first in the past, but if Roberts is the constitutional conservative they claim him to be the decision should be pushing back into our favor.
JP @ Jun 14th 2006 11:03AM
Prof-Kos-
Kids as some one posted earlier "are not stupid". Internet is all they need. So how hard was it to search for the hot coffe mod on the internet. Not hard. I saw it posted and/or linked where to get it. And I never claimed my kids played GTA. Not allowed. But the idea of it being in the game and not disclosed is a concern.
Now as far as me lightneing up..I can see you are not a parent or have a wife. Put it to you like this....I control the games in the house. Mom has no idea what games are good or bad..I do. But if a game she feels is not appropriate and walks by and sees the boys playing....who hears about it....me. Not a doghouse any man wants to be in. So yeah I take it seriously.
So I ask you this....if the ESRB can't check code ....who should? If the developer has the propensity to lie or hide things..who does the parent trust?
Just curious though ... you asked me to lightnen up..I ask you to be a parent and walk into the room only to see your kid playing a game where the chracters are banging away what would your reaction be?
KilgoreTrout XL @ Jun 14th 2006 11:19AM
Footsteps:
A law restricting/implementing fines on the sale of certain video games that passed under Congress' power under the commerce clause would be just that- a law restricting CERTAIN video games.
No matter how you cut that, separating some video games from others based upon content is simply content-based regulation of free speech. Ipso facto strict scrutiny and a straw horse. (And O'Connor's gone, and with her the only member of the court to ever say that strict scrutiny doesn't necessarily mean unconstitutional.)
Thus the push to carve out a space for video games in obscenity laws. There's very little room elsewhere to place content based restrictions on free speech under our constitution.
Prof-KOS @ Jun 14th 2006 11:44AM
JP, I understand absolutely what your beef is. However, you brought a speceific reference in to the discussion by placing the blame for this scrutiny on Rockstar in your earlier post. I was responding as such to that, albeit a bit flippantly. The fact of the matter is that the debates regarding the ESRB ratings and classification efficacy have been around a lot longer than the Hot Coffee scandala or for that matter the GTA series. Censorship issues are a always at the forefront of media discussions and always masked as the 'protect our kids' or some other flag that has more headline appeal.
As to Deuce's statement;
"Sure, a number of judges have ruled that way, but a number of judges are morons. Besides, even then they aren't consistent. If they were, it should be legal to prance around naked in the Central Park pond, yelling "I'm a pretty balarina!" (It's not)."
The laws that are set by lawmakers are revisited every day in order to make sure that they are the most reasonably just laws possible without infringing on a person 1st Ammendment rights. This is done in courtrooms around the country where defence lawyers challenge these laws in defence of their clients and when they are successful and set precedence. Unjust or highly infringent laws are struck down often and have to be modified so as to be more caring of a person's rights. It's not the perfect system, but it's the one that works best. That's how we've seen indecency laws changed to allow topless people of both sexes inpublic (in some areas) for example. Rarely, do these occur in fromt of the Supreme Court. Those that do are the more hotly contested and therefore the ones that garner the most media attention.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 14th 2006 12:14PM
"Obviously, limits are needed on expression if a society is to even function, and the point of democracy is that a society gets to decide those limits itself."
Hey, if you don't like freedom, there's plenty of places other than America to live. Personally, I like freedom alot, so I'll stick with America, thanks.
Also, interesting to see you refer to limiting the power of the government via the First Amendment as "liberal," Deuce. Especially since restricting the power and scope of the federal government is at the very core of the definition of "politically conservative." I suppose Minitrue is having its successes after all.
Really, the core of my argument stems from the basic premise that the government should not, in any way, dictate what I or those I am responsible for take in so long as it does not interfere with another person's life. And any action that fines video game publishers for content serves to dictate that indirectly.
Also, glad to see people attack the idea of a federal video games bill. I don't want to see one myself; I merely presented the possibility to get gamers thinking on how to properly defeat it should one ever arise. I'm glad to see others here are up to the task.
In the end, it all boils down to the fact that despite all claims of video gaming's opponents, nobody can actually prove even circumstantially that video games as a whole are bad for society, or even that certain video games are bad for society. Barring such proof, you cannot make an effective argument for the governmental control of video games.
JP @ Jun 14th 2006 12:29PM
Prof-KOS-
Not blaming ROCKSTAR exclusively. I placed blame on all the parties. Parents, politicians, ESRB, developers, etc. I mentioned Rockstar because they allowed the modification within the game. If Rockstar had not allowed that modification in this game ....the hair on the back of the neck is not raised by parents or politicians. Yes the debate on video games has always been an issue. Hot Coffee fueled this round of legislation. This gave the politicians another reason to blame video games for society's ills.
No one wants to take responsibilty for this. And that is the disappointing thing.
r-deezy @ Jun 14th 2006 1:07PM
I have not read this entire thread - but from what i did read, many are looking at the possible tagets to place blame. A target i did not see come up, are the folks that actually hack the games and discover these HIDDEN programs such as the one in GTA. Not only that, but the fact that they go to the media (or are media) about it - and the end result is proposed legislation that is attempting to censor gaming.
If a kid has the know-how to hack a game themselves and find a hidden 'gem', i think they should be 'rewarded' by seeing/experiecing what they find. But, more times than not, they discover these hacks because of it being blown out of proportion by the media. And at that point, the responsibility then lies in the partents hands (blame game again) to take the game away.
Stupid hackers.
KwadDamyj @ Jun 14th 2006 1:18PM
I can't believe that people are having 1st Amendment concerns because of freaking computer games.
Then again, I can't believe a lot of things that are happening these days.
r-deezy @ Jun 14th 2006 1:41PM
This whole thing is BS. No one will actually be able to prove that video games make people commit (serious) crimes. I'm willing to bet people who play M rated games also have similar tastes in Music & Movies... so which one is the bad influence?
Maybe a serial killer likes violent games... i would expect nothing different, it makes logical sense. It's probably a stress relief more than anything. Because if these games are as real as people say, then Mr. Crime Boss should get satisfaction out of killing in games and not feel as big a need to do it in real life.