The "Video Game Decency Act" is on the move
The U.S. government keeps adding more munitions into the war on the terror of video games. There is the "Truth in Video Games Act," (H.R. 5912) then the announcement that the ESRB must complete every game (S.3935) and now the "Video Game Decency Act" (H.R. 6120) is marching through the U.S. Congress.
Introduced by Republican Fred Upton, the bill is designed within the "guidelines of the Constitution, [and] is a simple, surgical approach to provide new regulatory authority for the Federal Trade Commission to punish bad players in the video game industry." You hear that? They are going after "bad players" now. So unless you have a video game championship under your belt, the FTC is coming for you. Better start practicing.
Seriously though, despite the awkward phrasing of this bill, H.R. 6120 seeks to give the FTC the power to "pursue financial sanctions" against publishers who "try to deceive the ratings system."
The Truth in Video Games Act is one thing, and making the ESRB play through every game all the way (no matter how ridiculous that sounds) is all good and fine. However, once words like "decency" start getting thrown around, we are touching the line of censorship and that's bad for everyone.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Subcon @ Sep 30th 2006 9:13PM
hey does that mean that the ESRB is going to be hiring more people to play through all these games? if so... anybody know where their headquarters are at? i would love to apply for one of those jobs.
Yaanu @ Sep 30th 2006 9:26PM
Hey, too bad the Constitution is DEAD. Thanks to that bill that passed that now allows Bush extra interrogation techniques, aka TORTURE, to terroism suspects (remember the warrantless wiretaps?), we have no use for a Constitution anymore.
Other than that, I think you can get jobs at www.esrb.org. Just look around.
Ahms @ Sep 30th 2006 9:39PM
A good game doesn't die under the fires of censorship, unless it depends on it what is being censored
If game makers had to actually focus on the quality of the game, rather than the gimmicks/themes prevelant to attempt to mask over that lack of quality to catch gamers, I think that's a very good thing for everyone. All I see are complaints about the unoriginality of games nowadays but no real good attempts to try and identify the problem
I forgot the direct quote, but comedian Jim Gaffigan made a great point that I really liked. He doesn't try to rely on curses and other "taboo" things to get a reaction, as he considers them the signs of a weak comedian (does anyone remember when Carrot Top was on the Daily Show and, when his routine stunk, just started swearing ouright?)
The same thing can be applied to games. I know folks on here love the slippery-slope argument of "If they censor my games, they'll burn books next!", but take a minute to think about what exactly that means. If you take something that a game maker might rely on out that makes the majority of games weak to begin with, then how do they have to sell the game?
They might have to find a new idea and/or try to reinvent the wheel, instead of relying on crutches and delivering the same hackneyed product all the time
I'm not sure why most gamers care so much anyways, as the ratings are designed for kids (Who's Silent Hill designed for? A tyke in elementary school or a teen/adult gamer?). In any case, if I get a better, more fun game instead of the same ol' sex & violence cliches out there that keep diluting the FUN of the game, I'm happy
A better quality game is good for everyone
Panadero @ Sep 30th 2006 9:48PM
Of course there is a lack of originality and overreliance on sex and violence to sell games that more often than not are shallow and sell on those qualities alone, but if you think that government intervention is preferable to us players simply not buying said games, you're way off the track.
Chris @ Sep 30th 2006 9:53PM
Every day I hate my country a little bit more.
Wulkar @ Sep 30th 2006 9:55PM
another breach in everyones right to free speech. i think the ESRB is doing a damn good job as it is.
otakucode @ Sep 30th 2006 9:56PM
The ESRB is not a government agency. At least, not right now. If a bill like this goes through, they will start to receive federal funding though, there's really no other choice. What purpose would the bill serve if the ESRB closed its doors?
Banish the ESRB, tell parents to step up and learn about the games their kids are playing, and tell everyone all around to stop being such pussies.
LaughingTarget @ Sep 30th 2006 10:01PM
Yaanu -
Great quote - "Republicans make things bad, Democrats make things worse."
Bush is just springboarding on a century of mis-management in government that began with FDR's great society. When Congress decided they could override the Constitutional ban on income taxes, and no one complained, they decided they could systematically remove the rest of it. Every political party simply moved government more and more toward what we have today.
Bush isn't doing anything that Gore or Kerry wouldn't have also done. The opportunity exists, and the little (R) or (D) next to the name won't make them behave otherwise. Until people stop voting for the (R) and (D) next to the name, and for the candidate him or herself, then this crap will just continue and will eventually go uncontested as politicians erode our rights and freedoms over the generations.
DBlock @ Sep 30th 2006 10:02PM
I'm not sure I see the "censorship" in all of this. This bill is an effort to produce consequences for any gaming industry group who tries to sneak material around the ESRB ratings. It's sort of a back-up to the ESRB's new requirements. Not only will the ESRB play through your game, but if they discover Jak and Daxter have a hidden bestial sex game when the publishers told the ESRB that it was strictly PG material, there will be consequences for thinking you could slide it past the ESRB.
Alternately, if the game publishers produces advertisements for a violent and sexually aggressive video game, but the ads depict it as a warm fuzzy family game, there will also be consequences.
This bill does not demand that all video games become non-violent. I think this affects advertisements and ratings without affecting the actual game or gameplay.
Seer S @ Sep 30th 2006 10:04PM
Did you guys (joystiq, commentors, et al) even bother to think about this bill? All it does is impose fines on companies that lie to the ESRB about content in their games. There is no censorship involved. This would be used in cases like Hot Coffee where they didn't say that the sex stuff was on there.
I think this is a perfectly fine bill which, if passed, should calm all the parents and legislators down about passing more draconian censorship laws. I think we as gamers should support this bill...it will help everyone.
Seer S @ Sep 30th 2006 10:06PM
Judge for yourself:
http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr6120.html
LaughingTarget @ Sep 30th 2006 10:07PM
Seer S -
It won't help anyone. Government has no business in stuff like this to begin with. The bill falls under the "give an inch, take a mile" doctrine. Give government an inch, they'll take a mile.
A trickling stream cut the Grand Canyon. We keep giving into demands to control society by allowing comparatively lenient allowances, the next step we though was draconian suddenly seems lenient, and the steps merely continue until we're back to Feudalism again.
Seer S @ Sep 30th 2006 10:17PM
"12. Seer S -
It won't help anyone. Government has no business in stuff like this to begin with. The bill falls under the "give an inch, take a mile" doctrine. Give government an inch, they'll take a mile.
A trickling stream cut the Grand Canyon. We keep giving into demands to control society by allowing comparatively lenient allowances, the next step we though was draconian suddenly seems lenient, and the steps merely continue until we're back to Feudalism again."
There are already THOUSANDS of laws against deceptive business practices!!! This is no different! If this bill is passed, there is absolutely NO ground given with regards to censorship. The government already has its nose in many things which arguably it shouldn't, and has since FDR. Unless you're really prepared to go Libertarian, it is hypocritic to claim that gov't should pull out of things like regulating business.
You are operating under the assumption that the general majority of politicians are "out to get us." While I think that there are a couple bad eggs like that, esp. in the current regime, most politicians want to get reelected. If this bill was passed, the politicians would go to their constituents and show tell them how they passed the "Video Game Decency Act," which really has nothing to do with decency, and the people would congratulate him/her, and the whole thing would blow over. Hating on video games is just the current societal fad. Pass a bill like this and let people get over it.
Steven @ Sep 30th 2006 10:31PM
Did they just pretty much make it really hard for MMO type games to be released? Especially because those types of games are usually updated all the time, and you cant really "complete" them for that reason.
I guess they'll put some disclaimer like that "Game experience may change during online play" thing.
Seer S @ Sep 30th 2006 10:40PM
"14. Did they just pretty much make it really hard for MMO type games to be released? Especially because those types of games are usually updated all the time, and you cant really "complete" them for that reason.
I guess they'll put some disclaimer like that "Game experience may change during online play" thing."
This bill has nothing to do with forcing the ESRB to play all the way through, nor does it change how it rates games. Please read my above comments on what it DOES do.
Jesse @ Sep 30th 2006 10:45PM
So Congress wants to force the ERSB has to play games all the way through before giving it a label? This sort of sounds like the "Read the Bills Act" which would force Congress members to read bills all the way through before voting.
Hypocrisy is grand!
LaughingTarget @ Sep 30th 2006 10:47PM
Seer S -
Sorry, it never works that way. Just take a gander at Europe. Little concessions over time, and the entire continent is now ready to go right back into the Feudal world.
They pass this law, which allows the government to fine companies not complying with the ESRB. What comes next? They get to next decide how the ESRB does business. Sounds fair, right?
There is a major difference between OSHA and this bill. There has never once been any reliable evidence that conclusively shows that content has any form of harmful effect on people. OSHA states companies are not allowed to place people in dangerous situations. Major, major difference. There are no rights protecting individuals or institutions from destroying the lives of others. Government does have a purpose in maintaining a certain level of order, but that is a minimal requirement that pertains to keeping people from infringing on the rights of others, not telling us what to think, how to spend our money, and what we can and cannot do to ourselves.
Government has no business in any kind of content regulation. Government can easily destroy the entire gaming industry if this bill passes. It follows under the same reasoning that religious organizatioins are not taxed. Even if the courts and public don't allow direct intervention with the ESRB's practices, it can still destroy the gaming industry though massive fines. Money is the second most powerful force on the planet, behind physical violence. Any institution can be destroyed by attacking its financial base. Governments have the greatest control when given the reigns of the financial flows without any overt show of force. This is why taxation is such a powerful tool, this is why fining is such a powerful tool. It may not seem all that destructive on the surface, but if you read the bill carefully, you'll notice a very important piece of information missing. They never once define the nature of the fines. This bill gives the executive branch an ability to create any fine it feels necessary. Imagine if someone like Hillary Clinton were given the office and, say, Microsoft published a game that violated the bill. Microsoft could easily be destroyed by fining it something outrageous.
This bill crosses that line. No laws exist regulating the movie industry, it is self-regulated. Even if it was a weak body like the ESRB, it does not open up any requirement for the government to step in and start controlling things. This bill makes it illegal to even SELL titles that are not properly rated. This, in essence, is the same thing as if the government made it illegal to sell unrated movies, which are sold all the time, even in major retailers. Just read over Section 2. American Pie Unrated Edition anyone?
The ESRB is a completely voluntary organization. No game company is under any obligation to take part in it. Any and all violations of ESRB code, a completely voluntary code, should be handled solely through the ESRB, no government control whatsoever. This bill essentially provides legal authority to fine a comletely voluntary choice. Essentially, the bill makes it manditory to file with the ESRB before any title can be sold in any way, shape, or fashion.
This bill makes it illegal for any indie studio that sells unrated titles to engage in business. Section 2, as written, can easily shut down the independant game development studio and snuff out the developing direct-sales industry.
It could also push publishers away from the ESRB entirely. If no publisher files with the ESRB, would places like GameStop still refuse to carry the product? I think not. Selling games is their entire business, and if they refuse to sell anything not ESRB rated, they'll be out of business entirely. If this happens, the ESRB will become a toothless, empty organization and we'll have no way to determine the content of a title without individual research on each title.
In either scenario, net loss to every last one of us. The bill is way too powerful and way too damaging. Government has no business regulating content, and fining is a powerful form of regulation.
Probot @ Sep 30th 2006 10:59PM
The bill is unconstitutional in the same way Hillary Clinton's bill is unconstitutional. A private organization cannot create laws. That's what the ESRB ratings will become if the government begins fining for trangressions. It's as simple as that.
This bill is lip service. If it does get passed, it will be ruled unconstitutional. These politicians understand that, but they have to put up a show to get votes.
Cynders @ Sep 30th 2006 11:05PM
The gaming industry needs to look at the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and consider leaping off of their model. This sounds an awful lot like the "Seduction of the Innocent" crap that led to the retardation of the comic industry in the U.S. for 40 years.
I'm still rolling my eyes that Congress has still failed to note that the "Hot Coffee" mod became public because of consumers who ripped the game. Even if the ESRB played the game through they would not have found it. Politicians are just vilifying the new kids on the entertainment industry block because it's an election year.
What's really harmful is that these days it is more and more feasible to develop and publish independant games.
/backseat internet lawyering
Lone Starr @ Sep 30th 2006 11:07PM
@ Yaanu,
"Hey, too bad the Constitution is DEAD. Thanks to that bill that passed that now allows Bush extra interrogation techniques, aka TORTURE, to terroism suspects (remember the warrantless wiretaps?), we have no use for a Constitution anymore."
Of course, because the Constitution's protections extend to non-citizens. Oh, wait....
@ LaughingTarget,
"Bush is just springboarding on a century of mis-management in government that began with FDR's great society. When Congress decided they could override the Constitutional ban on income taxes, and no one complained, they decided they could systematically remove the rest of it."
Ok, first of all, it began before FDR. Secondly, Congress did not just decide to override the ban on income taxes. The 16th Amendment was ratified by (at least) three fourths of the legislatures of the States on February 3, 1913. On July 2, 1909, it was passed by Congress.
Seer S @ Sep 30th 2006 11:12PM
Europe hardly has anything to do with this. You're just making vague threats about creeping socialism, while at the same time misinterpreting the bill. Note: I dislike socialism as much as you, but this thing is pretty much harmless.
"They pass this law, which allows the government to fine companies not complying with the ESRB. What comes next? They get to next decide how the ESRB does business. Sounds fair, right?"
This does not fine companies for not complying with the ESRB. If it said that, they could fined for not following in one of the ESRB's myriad instructions, like, "You must submit your game to be rated." "I don't want to." "TOO BAD FINE 4 YOU". Guess what, it doesn't work that way. The wording of the bill is VERY specific in what will get you fined, and this is limited to lying about content in the game in order to receive a less restrictive rating. Thats it.
ALSO... it has nothing to do with unrated games, only games that receive a "less-restrictive age-based content rating than otherwise would have resulted" by failing "to disclose content of the video game that was required to be disclosed to the independent ratings organization that assigned such age-based content rating." A rating of "Unrated" would be, therefore, quite accurate for a game that was, well, not rated. There is no conflict.
You ask "What comes next?" Well, nothing comes next, least of all what you suggested. How can you say that regulating the ESRB's operating procedures is the same thing as / comparative to / a small step from imposing fines for this very specific lying? The government regulating the ESRB would quickly be shot down in the courts. Plus, the whole issue of Violent Video Games will blow over. Just like rock and roll, comic books, improper clothes, etc. No one will give a damn about this relatively harmless law in 20 years. A more serious, draconian law could do much more damage.
Also, it is NOT content regulation. It's business regulation. The fining can occur regardless of what content is included, and only occurs if the business lies about the product for destructive purposes. I agree, there is room for abuse, and the the bill should be more specific on how the fines are to be carried out / decided, how much, who it goes to, etc. A limit on the amount fined in propotion to the revenue of the sales of the infringing game is definitely in order. There *IS* a huge potential for abuse otherwise, and I had not thought of that.
_habit_ @ Sep 30th 2006 11:45PM
Does this mean I won't be able to put my long blue Tetris piece into holes anymore?
Rod Oracheski @ Sep 30th 2006 11:46PM
"The same thing can be applied to games. I know folks on here love the slippery-slope argument of "If they censor my games, they'll burn books next!", but take a minute to think about what exactly that means. If you take something that a game maker might rely on out that makes the majority of games weak to begin with, then how do they have to sell the game?"
The question isn't "will they censor books next?"
The question is "What will the censor in games next?"
The problem with censorship is that, if you allow it, you allow it for everything. Where would the line be drawn?
No games about the war, unless it supports the government's position? No games featuring overtly gay characters, unless they're as a life lesson to 'stay straight'?
"All it does is impose fines on companies that lie to the ESRB about content in their games. There is no censorship involved. This would be used in cases like Hot Coffee where they didn't say that the sex stuff was on there."
The sex stuff WASN'T part of the game, and was completely inaccessible to anyone - of ANY age - who didn't use a third-party hack program to access it. What's next on that tack? Every game gets an M rating because users could add a nude patch?
Yeah, the stuff was there, and it really shouldn't have been. But it was locked away and not PART of the game. They don't have to disclose that any more than they'd have to disclose that mixing Skin A with Skin B in Photoshop then bringing it back into the game could result in the main character looking like an exhibitionist.
Rockstar didn't lie about what San Andreas contained for the customers, and they had no obligation to do anything else.
According to the end user license, the customers have an obligation not to do any hacking of the code...guess that part of "personal responsibility" doesn't exist anymore though.
I swear, someone's going to sue - successfully - a company that manufactures forks because they poked themselves, deliberately, in the eye.
Seer S @ Oct 1st 2006 12:57AM
Maybe San Andreas wasn't the best example. The rules were different back then. Current rules would require them to disclose that content. I fail to see how one poor example (if you could call it that) would invalidate my whole argument. Or maybe you just took issue with that single part. Plus, that's a wholly ESRB rule there, no gov't involved. You have to disclose all information shipped on the disc.
"The sex stuff WASN'T part of the game, and was completely inaccessible to anyone - of ANY age - who didn't use a third-party hack program to access it. What's next on that tack? Every game gets an M rating because users could add a nude patch?"
This bill has nothing to do with HOW the ESRB gives out ratings. It only pertains to companies disclosing content. If there are nude art assets (Breasts covered by clothing come to mind), all they have to do is show a couple pictures of them with the clothes hacked off, with a specific comment that it is normally impossible to do this. Disclosure done.
Jay @ Oct 1st 2006 1:45AM
I don't see any problems with this bill. It isn't going after content, it is narrowly defined as going after companies that engage in deceptive practices in order to achieve a more desired rating.
If a company is going to falsify documents or content in order to sell games, I see no problems with fines.
You have to realize -- companies really have no interest in doing this. Rockstar didn't engage in deceptive practices in the San Andreas situation -- they felt it was securely locked away in code, so I doubt the standard to prove that purposefully hid anything would be met.
You guys are overreacting on this one -- it has nothing to do with content and everything to do with good business practices. Now ... when the government steps in to try and rate things, then I'll come out fighting.
Undertaker @ Oct 1st 2006 1:45AM
Ok, for all those commenters saying this is no big deal, lemme go ahead and explain why this bill violates standing law and precident.
1. 1st amendment. While written in a sneaky way, it still attempts to use government authority to influence the content avalible in an expressive medium, ergo, it's a violation of free speech.
2. 14 amendment. Singling out games when unrated DVDs are sold on the shelf to kids every day is the hieght of hypocracy and violates the 14 amendment. Thus, another failure of this law.
3. The FTC has authority to control deceptive marketing practices, but HOt coffe was never used in any form of marketing or advertasment, and in fact, was never ment to be used in the game at all, which is why the FTC didn't fine or sanction Take Two for it. This bill is just Uptons way to getting back at the industry for the humiliation he suffered as a result of it. Lets also not forget what the Daily show did to he either.
This bill is utter garbage written by a pathetic hack politicans whose smarting from the politcal beating he took in the public eye. Give the industry five minutes in a courtroom, and the bill is dead as hell.
So those of you saying its no big deal, sit down, shutp up, and spend a few hours reading the law as it stands before you start to talk about it.
I did my research.
Dirk Dorkelson @ Oct 1st 2006 4:08AM
Don't get your panties in a bunch all at once. This bill isn't "marching through Congress." According to the Library of Congress THOMAS Web site, it's been referred to a subcommittee of the House, which is adjourned a month for the election. No comparable bill exists in the Senate, as far as I can tell, and the Senate typically doesn't waste as much time on stuff like this as the House does.
That said, here are all the bill's cosponsors:
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 9/20/2006
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 9/20/2006
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] - 9/26/2006
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 9/26/2006
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 9/20/2006
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 9/26/2006
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 9/20/2006
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 9/20/2006
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1] - 9/20/2006
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 9/20/2006
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/20/2006
Rep Weldon, Curt [PA-7] - 9/20/2006
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/20/2006
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 9/20/2006
If one of these people or Upton are your representative, e-mail or call them and tell them they're not serving your interests and tell them they won't be getting your vote if you're so inclined.
Also, to Joystiq in general: Familiarize yourself with THOMAS (http://thomas.loc.gov/), as it's handy for posts like this.
Rob @ Oct 1st 2006 4:54AM
Wow the FTC is using the "decency" bull that the FCC used/using in the 90/00+ slowly we shall garner our rights so the "few" can keep us "safe" Im so tired of seeing this rhetoric over and over again....soon bush will have to say "they did it coz they hate how safe we are" (that's sarcasm, i know its hard to convey in writing)
go USA USA!!
f it, we need to rename our country USM, united states of money
LaughingTarget @ Oct 1st 2006 8:33AM
Seer S -
Read the law again. It does not say if the ESRB determines that the game is rated below its actual content. It merely says, "Would have". It is subjectively written and does not require the ratings agency to return to the government and say, "Yes, we agree this game is improperly rated." The MMO angle was also hit on. If an MMO is rated T, and a player behaves in an AO manner, who's to say the publisher or developer didn't lie?
Furthermore, the way the law is written can result in two things:
1. The law will never be applied because it cannot be proven that the publisher lied about the content. R* did not lie about the rating on the original San Andreas. In no way was the AO material accessable to the general public without a series of hacks to open the content.
2. Will be utilized like a number of recent laws where the accused is required to prove his innocent or presumed guilty, contrary to our entire legal system.
Number 2 is the far more reasonable assertion, given that The Patriot Act allows government agencies to arrest and lock up people without an actual crime being committed and requires the accused to prove their innocence. The application of the now expired Assault Weapons Ban had the same provisions. Any individual found with an "assault" weapon was required to prove that the weapon was purchased prior to 1994. If they were unable to prove it, then they were fined, jailed, and had their legal weapon confiscated. We, as a people, allow this to go on. Yes, this is a minor, well defined concession against our time-honored "innocent until proven guilty" common law system, however, it has only proven to allow government to open up the doors even further. Had we not allowed government to prevail without proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual had, in fact, purchased his weapon after 1994, then getting the Patriot Act and other laws, like the Video Game Decency Act, would have a hard time passing, let alone being put on the table. It is no longer a "slippery slope" logical fallacy when facts are showing the trend has already occurred.
Remember, fact always trumps opinion, no matter how strong the opinion may be.
Again, this bill is poorly written and is allows far too much wiggle room in a field that otherwise should not have any form of government intervention.
Lone Starr -
Sorry, you're right, it wasn't Congress. It was FDR that bullied the amendment through the process using fear about how the United States would destroy itself if we didn't peel money out of every citizen's paycheck every year. He used the exact same fear tactics that Bush did to shove the Patriot Act through Congress. The 20th century, a century of using fear tactics to create laws that remove our rights and freedoms. I hope we can stop this trend before the 21st becomes the same thing.
32_Footsteps @ Oct 1st 2006 1:11PM
You want to know what I find the most ironic about all this?
The ESRB is already well-known in the industry for slapping fines on pretty much anything the video games industry does publicly (including advertisements) if it finds the manufacturer did anything that isn't according to their strict rules.
Based on what my contacts say, these fines are not insignifigant (I think it starts at $5,000 for a minor slip-up on an advertisement, like forgetting the ESRB rating anywhere in the ad).
Moreover, the companies have to pay up or risk being unable to submit games to the ESRB, and unrated games will not be carried in pretty much every large retail store (meaning no sales in Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, GameStop, etc.).
So there's already a significant fine system in place along with an impetus for the companies to pay up promptly.
With that in mind, what does this bill effectively do?
It's merely the government's attempt to muscle in on the cash the ESRB gets from when companies screw up.
This is by far the worst case of government interventionalism in video gaming history. However wrong-headed other bills regarding video games have been, at least you could argue it was trying to do something - admittedly trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, but at least the intentions were in part altruistic (misguided, but altruistic).
However, this bill is a blatant grab at power and money. It's completely unconstitutional, and completely pointless even beyond its constitutionality.
Don S @ Oct 1st 2006 4:24PM
What makes this a bad bill is not that the FCC will be able to fine publishers and/or developers for hiding rating-inappropriate content. The bad part is that this bill is a first step toward governmental regulation of games by the FCC. Once the FCC has fining powers, it is only a bill away from being given authority to rate the games itself, rather than allowing the ESRB continue to do so. Once that happens, there will be no turning back.
Ctrl-Z @ Oct 1st 2006 4:57PM
"unless such person or entity has reviewed the content of the video or computer game in its entirety"
It seems like HR-5912 could affect the Modding Community for future games, if this is passed. As it would be impossible for ESRB to play a game in its "entirety" if the game is released with an editor.
I would think if this became the case it would be deemed unconstitutional and the bill could be thrown out. As far as I know I still have freedom of speech and modding a game as I see fit, is protected. This bill reeks of unconstitutional consequences, heaped up with more unwanted Government control.
I get the feeling that most Americans won't feel happy and safe, tell the Government tells them they're allowed to feel happy and safe... I guess I'm really no good at predicting the future, as I seem to have stated the present.
Josh @ Oct 1st 2006 4:57PM
I hate this government more every day.
yubastard @ Oct 1st 2006 10:01PM
I believe it's a good thing that videogame companies don't try to be smartasses and try to decieve the rating system. Now, how do they plan on enforcing that, and with what rules, is the million-cent question...
KFC @ Oct 1st 2006 10:19PM
The video game industry's reaction should be along the lines of, 'go ahead and slap a Mature rating on everything we put out. We don't want the snotty nose brats of idiotic soccor moms who fall for this nanny state crap to play our games in the first place.'
fludblud @ Oct 2nd 2006 7:34AM
only in America.
wanted creative @ Oct 2nd 2006 11:27AM
You really have to start wondering what will be the final slap in the face. I would think the last thing politicians would want to do is make the sub-cultures become politically active.
That get out the vote bs doesn't really work that great for the young voters. You fuck with their Mario too much and it sure will