Video Game Decency Act: saving the children, or one-way ticket to tyranny?
As Congressman Fred Upton's Video Game Decency Act continues to percolate through Congress, Upton (R-MI) is singing its praises to the press, telling his local paper, the Niles Daily Star, "This legislation will restore parents' trust in a system in which game makers had intentionally deceived the ratings board to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids."This whole foofaraw kicked off when Rockstar Games tucked away some sex-related gameplay into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and, while the content was only accessible by using hacking tools, it was there for the minigaming. When word got out, lawsuits flowed like coffee, and Rockstar rushed out a "clean" version in order to avoid the dreaded "Adults Only" rating. The Video Game Decency Act would make it a crime to hide such content from the ESRB, the independent ratings board created by the industry in 1994 to avoid federal regulation.
Seems pretty reasonable, right? Well, it is. Whether you believe all sexual content deserves an "AO" rating or not, developers who want a rating from the ESRB should fully disclose anything that might affect that rating. But if the bill passes, the government will finally have its paws in the game rating pie, in a very official (and probably irreversible) way -- exactly what the ESRB was founded to prevent. Fine by you? Or is this the next step on a slippery slope of governmental control that will end with a dystopian, 1984-style wasteland?
[Via GamePolitics]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
sheppy @ Apr 9th 2007 3:03PM
We need only look at the gaming atmosphere in Germany to see the end results of this...
Game Artist @ Apr 9th 2007 3:07PM
And this bill will be shot down too just like every other related law has been once challenged in court.
Mr Khan @ Apr 9th 2007 3:18PM
While i find most video game legislation disagreeable, this looks alright on the surface. It would just give developers incentives to watch everything that they leave in their titles
The only problem with this is that if it passes, it would set the precedent for possibly more restrictive and unfair legislation in the future
87th @ Apr 9th 2007 3:19PM
No killer7? No Snatcher? No interest.
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Apr 9th 2007 3:20PM
This is going to be like the Friggin' Comics Act. If the gov't doesn't see the need to regulate all media like it does games, then it doesn't get to apply it specifically.
comtar @ Apr 9th 2007 3:23PM
I still say the ESRB doesn't need to rate games based on playing them, but rate games based on the content by looking at the materials used to create the game.
Example, I use to edit Doom3, you could view every texture, and look at every character models animation, and listen to every sound. There ain't a whole lot you could hide if the sound effects, characters models and textures don't exist. Doom3 had code and animation settings for a Female Zombie. But without the female zombie sound effects, and models and animation, if you try to spawn a Female Zombie, nothing appears, because that content doesn't exist anymore.
The sound effects and character animations for the sex mini game still existed in the GTA:SA. If the ESRB went through the sound effects and character animations before the game was put on the shelves, this would have been easily caught. Someone would a said "What are all these sex sounds for?"
Ryan LN @ Apr 9th 2007 3:25PM
As a criminal prosecutor, I want someone to explain to me exactly how I'm going to prove that a developer intentionally hid content from the rating board to a jury. The answer: good freakin' luck. With GTA's hot coffee mod, they would have had a pretty ironclad defense, seeing as you had to go far beyond the scope of the original intended use of the game in order to access that content. Getting politicians riled up over things they know precious little about is easy; proving criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt is something else entirely. This is just another example of feel good legislation that will end up doing nothing, and will probably be reversed on First Amendment grounds due to its chilling effect on artistic expression. There are two lessons in this: 1) vote; and 2) make sure your candidate isn't an idiot before you vote for him or her.
Zertoss @ Apr 9th 2007 3:30PM
"make sure your candidate isn't an idiot before you vote for him or her."
I wonder if a candidate that isn't an idiot can be found.
Arbuz Chokaro @ Apr 9th 2007 3:39PM
The Video Game Decency Act- also known as the "Because Parents Don't Want to be Responsible for their Children Act"
Craigo @ Apr 9th 2007 3:44PM
9: For once, this criticism is off-base. If parents try to be responsible for their children by buying age-appropriate games only, but then find out those games contained inappropriate content hidden from the board, how can they be blamed?
None of this would be necessary, of course, if the ESRB could actually enforce compliance. Maybe if this law seems like it will actually get somewhere, these do-nothing assholes will finally see light.
Rich @ Apr 9th 2007 3:46PM
Won't someone PLEASE think of the CHILDREN??!!!! :P
Neebs @ Apr 9th 2007 3:54PM
"This legislation will restore parents' trust in a system in which game makers had intentionally deceived the ratings board to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids."
It's this bullshit these Congressmen say which that 'experts' (Jack Thompson) and 'fellow congressmen' (Clinton (D-NY)) feed them that they repeat that's so childish here.
Mr Khan @ Apr 9th 2007 4:17PM
@ comtar
looking at all the code was the original alternative i suggested instead of having ESRB testers "play through the entire game"
the proof is in the code, people...
Steve @ Apr 9th 2007 4:22PM
What a funny world we live in.
A government tells us what doctor we're allowed to see, when we can see them, how treatments we are to be allocated, and keeps a record of all this information in the name of socialized medicine and everyone cheers.
A government tells us how much wealth we are allowed to earn. If we earn "too much" the government will take it in the name of progressive taxation. A desire to keep the property you've created will be labeled "greedy". Everyone cheers.
A government tells us how we're going to prepare for retirement by stealing a boatload of our income to fund some unsustainable pyramid scheme and everyone cheers.
A government tells us that terrorists are not a threat but that "global warming" is. In order to save us from this threat the government allows itself to regulate everything from what cars we can drive, what toilet we can use, where we can live, and any other aspect of our life that can affect the environment, and everyone cheers.
A government will limit freedoms of speech in the name of regulating the nebulous concept of hate, limit the expression of religion in the name of tolerance, and regulate the content of political ideas on the radio in the name of the "Fairness Doctrine" and everyone cheers.
A government then tries to tell us what video games we're allowed to play and suddenly everyone screams!
The moral of this story? Once you've released a hungry lion into a chicken pen you'll never be able to limit what chickens its allowed to eat.
Gimbal @ Apr 9th 2007 4:26PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040601799.html
"Goodling is one of 150 graduates of Regent University who have served in this administration, as Regent's Web site proudly proclaims. Pretty impressive for a 29-year-old school. The university says that "approximately one out of every six Regent alumni is employed in some form of government work." And that's precisely what its founder desired. The school's motto is "Christian Leadership to Change the World." Former attorney general John Ashcroft teaches at Regent, and graduates have obtained senior positions in the Bush administration. The express goal is not only to tear down the wall between church and state in America but also to enmesh the two."
Dear voting public: I want my country back. You know, the one that is being destroyed from the inside out by people who apparently don't respect the rights and freedoms this country is supposed to stand for over their own need to further their religious agenda? You remember America, don't you?
Dear game publishers: I don't care if an M or AO Rating will lessen the sales of your game or not. Make sure it has the appropriate rating so parents can make the proper decision. If Walmart won't carry your game, so be it! It is better than giving political extremists the ability to tell you exactly what you can or can't have in a game.
Dear Parents: Have child? Be a parent! When the elemetary school aged child you brought with you to the late showing of the R-rated 300 on a school night won't shut up, it is actually more of your responsibility to get him to shut up than it is mine. You are the parent, remember? It is better for your child to learn manners the easy way from you, than the hard way from me. It would probably help if you had some manners yourself before that cell phone gets shoved into your popcorn scarfing teeth.
(takes a deep breath)
Wait, what are we talking about again? Sorry...it gets hard to think over the sound of my teeth grinding. I'm counting to ten now...
vidGuy @ Apr 9th 2007 4:38PM
Hmmm, this is a tough one. On the one hand, I support a law that requires game developers to disclose all of their games' content to the ratings board. On the other, movie companies don't have to have deleted scenes rated. So how is rating removed game content any different than rating deleted scenes, which are much more accessible on the DVDs?
This bill won't create any censoring and doesn't violate any constitutional rights, so I support it.
You can read the (short) bill here:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6120ih.txt.pdf
Intentless @ Apr 9th 2007 4:42PM
What I don't get is... well M rated games are 17+ essentially right? So parents would expect anything 17+ legal wouldn't a mature rating also insinuate something that you would see in an R rates movie.... Which does include sex... Most recently 300 being an example?
paradox @ Apr 9th 2007 4:57PM
Now rating system doubleplusungood, encourage badthink. recommend be remade fullwise. Video Game Decency Act plusgood, encourge goodthink, helps crimestop, discourage oldthink.
Cheesehead @ Apr 9th 2007 5:36PM
I bet there's something buried in the bill somewhere about drilling for oil in alaska...
bVork @ Apr 9th 2007 5:56PM
I absolutely do NOT want your government to mess with game ratings. If the government gets to have a say in how to rate games, it'll invariably be used for political purposes. Games rated M because they criticize the current administration? That could become possible. How about the current idiocy of "violence is good but sex must never be seen" taken to a whole new extreme, with any form of sexuality getting an instant AO?
I do not want the games industry to be co-opted by a political agenda. The ESRB is good because it is independent of the government and answers to the industry. Yes, that means the ESRB is more likely to bow before pressure from videogame companies - but I'd rather have a business agenda affect ratings than a political agenda.
That business agenda is what makes AO games nearly impossible to find in stores. I think that's just fine, as the retailers are the ones who make that decision. But if your government starts taking an active role in rating and approving videogames, it may not stay a retailer's decision for long. Imagine a graduated licensing system that allows retailers to only stock games at or below a certain rating. Retailers can upgrade their license by proving to random inspections that they take the ratings very seriously and do not sell them to underage people. That doesn't sound too bad, right? But that would be excessive and completely unnecessary control of a single medium. Books don't have regulator bodies specifying what can and cannot be included (okay, barring when some gung-ho prosecutor in the bible belt goes after adult bookstores with obscenity charges), and nor should any other medium.
Furthermore, what about other countries? I can accept ratings from the American ESRB because industry tends to span borders - but I most definitely to NOT want to see a US political agenda affect the games I can play when I don't even live in your country!
hvnlysoldr @ Apr 9th 2007 5:57PM
Drilling Alaska is so old fashioned. People are getting ready to build a tunnel under the Bering Strait. Russia wants to sell its oil. China and US want to buy it. And this allows for intercontinental transporting. Imagine the ultimate road trip or walk from New York to Paris from the Cape of Cod to New Hope!
I agree with #14 Steve.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Apr 9th 2007 6:02PM
"SEC. 5. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.
This Act supersedes any provision of a statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that regulates the rating of video game content, or regulates the sale, rental, or display of a video game on the basis of the video game’s constitutionally protected content."
I'm surprised Jack Thompson isn't violently lashing out against this law. It's really quite tame. The best part, though? It completely screws over any legislator who wants to get political points from passing a games as porn law in the future. I'm not saying I necessarily support the bill because I'm not sure I want the government dabbling around in this sort of thing, but it doesn't look nearly as idiotic as some of the crap they've tried to pass.
I do think the congressman's remark, on the other hand, lives up to the stupidity that I've come to expect from government figures. If he seriously believes that Rockstar "intentionally deceived the ratings board to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids," he's delusional.
Also, the double-standard is irksome. The law itself really doesn't bother me, though.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Apr 9th 2007 6:09PM
bVork: The law only states that video game companies, if they want to put a ratings label on their games, cannot intentionally deceive the ESRB to get a lower content rating. It does not allow the government any freedom to affect the way a game is rated. If the government DOES raise a charge against a company inappropriately, the ESRB can simply testify that the rating given was what they felt was appropriate and that's enough to get the charges dropped. If I ran an independent ratings board that required at least one instance of an exploding head with blood splattering all over the place to get an OKAY FOR LITTLE CHILDREN rating, this law would do only do one thing, and that is that it would ensure that the state governments CANNOT pass any laws opposing me.
The Bear @ Apr 9th 2007 6:12PM
@ Steve
Well said. Very well said. But I think it's always better to try and end a vicious cycle midway than let it play out to its inevitable conclusion.
Abscissa @ Apr 9th 2007 6:21PM
I like most of what #7 Ryan LN said, with a couple exceptions:
"There are two lessons in this: 1) vote; and 2) make sure your candidate isn't an idiot before you vote for him or her."
A: You're making the faulty assumption that there typically IS a candidate who isn't an idiot.
B: "Get out and vote" is great ***for the people who you actually understand the issues and candidates***. It should be "Learn the issues/candidates and vote", or "Vote IF you understand the issues/candidates", but not just blindly "Go vote!".
What these recent "you've gotta go vote!" rallying cries are doing is just turning the election process into more of a popularity contest than is already is. Yes, people should vote, but only when they're actually *informed* voters. A non-voter may be worse than an informed voter, but an uninformed voter is by far the worst of all.
And all of this still becomes moot when all of the candidates suck anyway (which is most of the time).
Abscissa @ Apr 9th 2007 6:21PM
#14 Steve:
Any of those things you've labeled as "everyone cheers" are controversial topics. Thus, the "everyone" portion couldn't be further from the truth.
Additionally, you're "hungry lion/chicken pen" analogy is inapplicable here since you're basing that connection on the faulty assumption that government power is an all or nothing deal, or a black-and-white "it's either universally good or universally bad". Unless you're heavily into either fascism or anarchy, it's pretty well established that the ideal case lies in some form of middle ground.
Abscissa @ Apr 9th 2007 6:37PM
I agree that there should be consequences for a game's content being misrepresented to the ESRB. However, I do not believe government intervention is necessary to make this happen. This is something the ESRB can handle on it's own through the use of something known as a "contract":
In this "contract" the ESRB says "We will give your game a rating for the cost of an administrative fee" as it does now. But then it can go on to say something like "...But if it is brought to our attention that you've misrepresented the content, you will be charged a hefty fine, and the nest time you want us to rate a game, we'll take our sweet time so you can kiss that holiday-season window goodbye."
See? No law needed thanks to the magical thing called a "contract".
Note also, that none of this is relevant to hot coffee anyway, since that was obviously inaccessible without actively hacking the game.
hegemonyhog @ Apr 9th 2007 7:16PM
"What these recent "you've gotta go vote!" rallying cries are doing is just turning the election process into more of a popularity contest than is already is. Yes, people should vote, but only when they're actually *informed* voters. A non-voter may be worse than an informed voter, but an uninformed voter is by far the worst of all."
Of course, who determines who is and isn't informed?
I'm a Democrat, and as such think that people who support the Republican Party are inherently less informed than I am. I think that they'd say the same about me.
In this case, there's a particular issue which motivates you - the regulation of content in electronic media, specifically games. The vast majority of voters simply don't know and don't care about this, as it doesn't affect them. Are they, therefore, "uninformed"? Are you uninformed because you don't know about certain issues surrounding ethanol subsidies, defense appropriations or the federal appeals process?
The problem with railing against ignorance in voters is that it's a process which unveils our own inherent biases, and causes us to disqualify people based on them...often unfairly.
So again, I ask - when is a voter sufficiently informed to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed franchise?
Diskoboy @ Apr 9th 2007 7:40PM
Thank god I'm Independent.
Republicans and Democrats both blow. And for you folks who voted Democcrat to force change in the government - all you did was make the problem witgh our government worse. Not better.
David @ Apr 9th 2007 7:47PM
The only thing worse than the slippery slope is the slippery slope argument.
or...
The slippery slope starts at the bottom and leads to bullsh...
unrealy2k @ Apr 9th 2007 9:51PM
Wow I love how the arguement to regulate kid gamers has gone so far as federal regulation. I also enjoy how parent see uncontrollable kids and they immediatly blame video games and not themsleves. I don't mind the ESRB ratings since it is a good idea I mean I wouldn't want my 10 year old kid to be Playin GTA. however I do have a problem with federal regulation since by invoking criminal charges It will drastically change the content developers produce, this bill will no only affect kids with irrespondsible but could eventually effect the type of content that us hardcore gamer play. If this bill is enacted I will be the first one marching on Washington. Videogames are an artform and should not be regulated by government just like movies, books, paintings, TV. Bottomline federal regulation will ruin the developing industry.
Anonymous @ Apr 9th 2007 11:17PM
If this bill just said it was a crime not to disclose all the information to the ESRB, and left it to the ESRB's discretion as to when a violation has occured, then it would be fine. But it sounds like the bill would leave it up to congress, and that definitely isn't ok. The next time a titty can be accessed through an arcane and tedious hack, someone will get fined. That is absolutely not a good thing. Although Hot Coffee was stupid, I absolutely agree that Rockstar never should have programmed it in to begin with.
Thanks alot to the asshole that dug through the GTA:SA code and found the mod. It's costing gamers like you and me alot, and will continue to cost us for years to come. STOP DIGGING
GhaleonQ @ Apr 10th 2007 1:31AM
Percentage of posters on this topic who appear qualified to decide our country's future: 5%.
RealNickus @ Apr 10th 2007 3:58AM
Simply allowing the government any say in this is going to allow them more say later. Once this is passed, they may try to gain control of the ESRB and make it government sanctioned, which would then take its privacy out completely. Anyways, to try and stay on topic, this bill is written by people that assume video game console = children's toy box. When one is under the assumption that all games are for kids, of course they assume that it was marketed to them. We all here know without even thinking that isn't the case. I cannot recall one GTA trailer or commercial directed at children. Even without prior knowledge of the titles, each M game is clearly marked on the back with nearly every possible instance of material that one would be wary about. I guess Parents pick up something like Vice City and see "Drug Use" and "Blood and Gore"; those are okay but if sex goes unmentioned, start firing the flares of lawsuits!
Ignorance is the only thing that needs solved here, not any issue about game content. Everyone knows what an R rated movie is (though some PG-13 nowadays surpass anything R used to be sans the number of times the word F--k is used) and usually people can see when a book is Adult oriented. The problem with games is that some folk see them as accessories to their child or grandchild's favorite electronic "toy". I really hope that the Wii begins to change that paradigm with not more M games, but games that could be played and seen by anyone, just are not appealing to most kids in the least. More adventure puzzles like Hotel Dusk or games like Brain Age could help set that pretty quick. Regardless, gamers really need to unite and mail their political leaders explaining this because relying on the courts will eventually fail. Heck, that's why we pay tax on our labor when there's no law about it. Even the 16th amendment that supposedly provides the government and IRS the power to tax income doesn't grant it. Income in that amendment refers to corporate profits and not on labor. At least 8 supreme court cases tell us that.
Anyways, educating ourselves is not the strong suit of the American people. Democrats try to make government make all our decisions, while Neo-con Republicans tend to say that they themselves should make our decisions like dictators. This is not a left/right issue like most would try to say. No, the key players in the left and right all follow the same goals. Any true conservative should be doing everything possible to limit government control, and that includes the censorship of content in the name of "protecting minors". Look at schools nowadays. Students are under constant surveillance and what-not and has it made them any better or safer? Just look up what's going on with the Texas Youth Commission. Go on, look it up! People and organizations can pose all they like saying they have Christian and/or moral values in mind... but that doesn't make it so. Even our president is heralded as some great Christian when he's a self professed 3rd generation member of Skull and Bones and still says today that he "can't talk about it". There's more to things than what they tell you, and this bill is the gateway they've been looking for in video games. Not only will this be backed to get the moron vote, but it will found all other new "games as porn bills" once it passes and the ESRB is made into some kind of government owned organization. Open your eyes to what is out there! PLEASE!