And the band fails on: New law seeks to put warning labels on games

by Alexander Sliwinski { Jan 13th 2009 at 8:00PM }

California Rep. Joe Baca (D) and Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf (R) have introduced a bill that would require cigarette-style warning labels to be placed on games rated "T" or higher by the ESRB. GamePolitics reports that H.R. 231, titled "The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009," would require aforementioned games to provide the following notification: "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."

If the bill does pass, the ESA will no doubt release its lawyers and the organization could potentially collect another reimbursement check from a governmental organization for wasting its time. Not only is the science shaky on the media violence issue, but the bill singles out a single industry instead of going after every industry with violent media. Failure appears to be inevitable.

Tags: congress, frank-wolf, hr-231, joe-baca, law, video-game-health-labeling-act-of-2009

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Trickob @ Jan 13th 2009 8:07PM

*face-palm*

Markez (Anti-Panda Death Murder Squadron) @ Jan 13th 2009 8:21PM

WARNING: Excessive facepalming and other violent media has been linked to aggressive facepalming.

WiredKnight @ Jan 13th 2009 10:02PM

*aggressive facepalm*

t_m @ Jan 14th 2009 3:28AM

WARNING: Excessive warning have been linked to excessive face-palm warnings.

MajorHoorah @ Jan 13th 2009 8:08PM

no it hasnt maybe in germany but after seeing a certain video i think i know y, but otherwise no, no its not

TheKarmaPolice @ Jan 15th 2009 10:18AM

You mean the video with the little german kid going apeshit playing a PC game?

The video that is widely known to be fake?

that video?

Al2x @ Jan 13th 2009 8:09PM

As long as it's as small as the copyright info on the back bottom of the jewel case, I'm more than fine.

Now, if they want to slap a nice big ol' Surgeon General warning on the front cover, then we have a problem...

Doug @ Jan 13th 2009 8:18PM

Nooooo, you know how many organizations would benefit on ratting on video games?
Video games caused my son do drop out of school, kill his girlfriend and smoke weed. He never should have played The Sims 3. What is this world coming too?
Also, me drinking heavily while I was pregnant may have had something to do with his addiction to video games.

xeleion @ Jan 14th 2009 1:55AM

You know what? Maybe we need it. Even if the media takes pop shots at violent games, the games industry makes too much money to be destroyed by it, and we need something to keep violent games out the hands of underage children.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Jan 14th 2009 10:13AM

We do. They're called "parents". And it isn't the governments place to do their job even if they suck at it.

In A World (XBL) @ Jan 13th 2009 8:10PM

WARNING!!! Videogames will give you cancer! Danger! Danger! Be afraid of EVERYTHING! Do not microwave the videogame! Be sure to remove videogame from wrapper before attempting to play! Not safe for infants with HUGE mouths; deadly if swallowed!!!

Trickob @ Jan 13th 2009 8:39PM

Shame on you! That video game wrapper could suffocate small children and small adults! Witnessing someone die this way could encourage others to try it!!

You should never remove the wrapper!

Markez (Anti-Panda Death Murder Squadron) @ Jan 13th 2009 8:11PM

Just do what they do in Europe with cigarettes and put death warnings on videogame boxes. Might as well at this point.

"VIDEOGAMES HAVE BEEN PROVING TO CAUSE PREMATURE DEATH."

"GAMING WILL CAUSE ALCOPOP ADDICTION AND LIVER FAILURE AND BANKRUPTCY"

"HALO 4 WILL KILL YOUR DOG."

BananaBoat @ Jan 13th 2009 11:21PM

I thought the warning was going to be "WARNING: VIDEO GAMES WILL MAKE YOU FAT!". When I read that it was because games rated teen and up could turn you into a psychopathic axe murderer, I spit the water I was drinking all over the place (metaphorically). Other than the obvious reasons (that this is blatantly illegal, and that there is no proof to support the claim) would this mean that we'd have to put that warning on PG-13 movies? How about traditional toys like GI Joe? Where the hell do they consider the line to be, where a government mandated warning label is necessary?

This won't pass, and it will cost California tax payers millions of dollars in the process. Bravo.

Markez (Anti-Panda Death Murder Squadron) @ Jan 14th 2009 1:17AM

"GI JOE CAUSES BARN CANCER (AND BRAIN CANCER)"

Metal Gear!? @ Jan 13th 2009 8:11PM

Yay, another legal waste of time. We need Obama, with his mad Wii bowling skills to stop these in their tracks. I still can't believe that Toys(backwards)'R'Us actually has a red bar at the top of Mature rated games, why not just not sell them. I'm a collector(open but don't sell my games) and it would suck if someone got me a mature rated game from Toys'r'us as a gift and I didn't get a receipt.

Hah! I just wasted your time.

offday @ Jan 13th 2009 8:26PM

Just because Obama has claimed to play Wii bowling from time to time doesn't mean he's a new video game defender super hero. You probably aren't a fan of George Bush, but even he said at one point that he believes monitoring video games is up to the parents and no one else.

And of course Toys R Us still wants to sell M rated games. It makes them money. They just have to basically put huge flashing red lights all over the game to warn parents that it's not for kids. And even then some dumb parents still don't understand and buy it, get mad, and try to sue Toys R Us.

Metal Gear!? @ Jan 13th 2009 8:31PM

The Obama thing was just a joke dude, chill out.

offday @ Jan 13th 2009 8:34PM

Um? I was unaware I freaked out?

jmarto @ Jan 13th 2009 8:12PM

WARNING: DO NOT STARE DIRECTLY AT COMPUTER SCREEN WHILE READING THIS COMMENT. EXCESSIVE EXPOSURE TO COMMENTS LIKE THIS MAY CAUSE SARCASTIC BEHAVIOR.

ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Jan 14th 2009 6:12AM

Yeah right.

/sarcastic behavior linked to comment exposure

Paul Miller @ Jan 13th 2009 8:13PM

warnings on cigarette boxes are there because in the world of medical science, it's been determined that smoking is a direct cause of lung cancer and other serious health risks.

and they want to put labels on these games because occasionally someone who commits a violent act happened to also play a violent video game or two in their lives.

i wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of violent acts in our population hasn't gone up much from way before violent games entered the scene. fact is, almost everyone under 30 has grown up playing video games including violent ones. this philosophy is just absurd.

Bluebrake @ Jan 13th 2009 8:37PM

Violent crime has actually been in a steady decline since the 1970s (coincidentally enough, right around the time video games came onto the scene). Read into that what you will.

EricC @ Jan 13th 2009 8:56PM

Your post started with fail, but ended with win. Doesn't that usually go the other way? =)

Smoking has not been proven to cause cancer. It's a theory, just like global warming, that a bunch of legislators and the media have latched on to like a starving baby to its momma's teat.

If it caused cancer, everyone would get cancer from smoking. That's what "cause" means. It's a very specific word that has a very specific meaning in science (the field from which this theory comes).

The truth of the matter is that only a small percentage of cancer victims have smoked. The most generally accepted number of smokers who will develop cancer is

EricC @ Jan 13th 2009 8:57PM

(continued)

EricC @ Jan 13th 2009 8:58PM

(continued for real...oops, comment system doesn't like the less-than symbol =)

(continued)

less than 10%. This isn't just lung cancer, either. Other cancers (such as breast cancer and leukemia) are grouped into this number. There's absolutely no way to prove that smoking caused (or didn't cause) their cancer, or that they wouldn't have developed cancer anyway. It's just that X number of cancer victims smoked. That's quite literally the only "proof" that has been afforded to date.

I can guarantee a higher number of cancer victims have driven cars. Does this mean that driving cars causes cancer? According to the reasoning behind the "smoking causes cancer" thought process, it does.

It's no different than the studies that claim that violent video games lead to violent behavior because people who exhibit violent behavior have played violent video games.

It's interesting, however, to see how some people pick and choose their battles. Most people have no problem believing that smoking causes cancer and man caused global warming, but will fight tooth and nail to defend violent video games, when they're all based in the same plain of fantasy.

The Dark Wayne @ Jan 13th 2009 9:02PM

this website is called joystiq
not joycig, no one wants to hear your rant about cigarettes not causing cancer

Phantom @ Jan 13th 2009 9:36PM

Actually, scientists have found that smokers lungs are less healthy then no-smokers lungs. While non-smoker lungs are nice and pink,smoker lungs are red and covered in tar.

Not sure how this affects cancer,but it's still not good for you.Plus, being addicted to nicotine is very expensive, makes your teeth yellow, and you end up smelling really bad.

DON'T SMOKE KIDS

Bluebrake @ Jan 13th 2009 9:43PM

Eric, you're deluded. The relationship between smoking and cancer has been established to be causative rather than correlative for ages. It wasn't that hard to do, given sufficient time and appropriate research methods such as longitudinal studies. This is settled beyond a doubt in the medical community.

Video games, on the other hand, haven't even been correlated with violence. The studies are all nonsense about vague links to "aggressive thoughts," which is meaningless outside of a laboratory.

Not even close to the same thing.

Nick8708 @ Jan 14th 2009 12:00AM

Smoking doesn't cause cancer. It increases the risk of developing cancer. Hence why not everybody who smokes gets cancer, but smokers have a higher chance of developing it than non-smokers.

Violent games don't cause violent kids. If they did, I'd definitely have murdered someone by now.

But no they should put this warning on games. They should also put the warning before wrestling shows that "Excessive viewing of wrestling has been linked to suplexing behavior." Or before techno music "Excessive listening of trance-techno music has been linked to glow sticking and tripping on ex."

bm @ Jan 14th 2009 12:12AM

It's only through ample experience in life that I can say this:

Smokers are some of the biggest fucking douchebags, egotists and liars on the planet.

BadassSailor @ Jan 14th 2009 7:40AM

I gind it fricking hilarious that the same Government that asserts smoking and second hand smoke are direct links to cancer are also denying that the burning of everything under the sun, including styrofoam, aputated remains, medical waste, fuels and assorted types of garbage "post no significant risk" to troops living right next to the burn pits.

The pentagon is trying dismiss all the claims of the people that developed lukemia, respiratory issues and other fors of cancer from being stationed in the desert next to a pit used to burn every nasty thing you can imagine, yet is insisting that a little smoke smelled on your way into your building in the morning is going to kill you.

http://vets4politics.blogspot.com/2008/11/burn-pit-fallout.html

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_burnpit_102708w/

Guido @ Jan 15th 2009 3:27AM

Meh, I don't care if smoking causes cancer or not. What I do care about is that people smoking in my vicinity stink - that's the real problem with smoking.

EricC @ Feb 13th 2009 6:04PM

"The relationship between smoking and cancer has been established to be causative rather than correlative for ages."

Not even close to reality. There's no way to prove that a smoker that has cancer wouldn't have developed cancer without smoking. Cancer occurs naturally, so there's absolutely no way to prove that it wouldn't have happened without smoking.

The funny part about the "science" behind the link between smoking and cancer is that it's about as far from real science as you can get. It's all circumstantial at best.

On top of all that, if smoking caused cancer, everyone who smoked would get cancer. That's what "cause" means. It's a very specific word with an extremely specific meaning in the scientific world, where this nonsense supposedly originated.

Anyhow...I can see that you've been adequately brainwashed, so I won't proselytize any further. The ignorant are ignorant for a reason, and there isn't much I can do to change that, especially in your case.

Doug @ Jan 13th 2009 8:15PM

FANBOYS... UNITE!!!!
AGAINST THE EVIL DOERS(ERS) OF VIDEO GAMES!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvWOe5e3Pd0

neko to kuruma @ Jan 13th 2009 8:17PM

"Aggressive behavior has inconclusively been linked to violent media." I'd be fine with that, because that's true. There are too many competent studies that say the exact opposite of what they're assuming. I'd like to see something about that defined first before the government slaps a warning on our games because they want to "protect our children".

Nick8708 @ Jan 14th 2009 12:06AM

I'd be afraid to many parents wouldn't realize the difference between inconclusively and incontrovertibly. Better just to fight this and not roll over to every proposed government regulation. They've got their fingers in enough pies as is, and something like this is usually just a ploy to distract voters from important matters and to have a bullet point when it comes time for reelection.

Guido @ Jan 15th 2009 3:32AM

Exactly, inconclusively at best at that.

Really, don't these people realize that there's fundamental problems with our societies that are definitely linked to violent behaviour? Video games are just another outlet, they're potentially a symptom, definitely not a cause. Potentially, because there's many other reasons than suppressed violence to play and enjoy games that might contain violence.

Except for the odd nutcase, of course.

Jason @ Jan 13th 2009 8:22PM

Wow, this makes us, as a general populous, look completely retarded. I feel like we really are moving closer and closer toward "Idiocracy", if anyone here has seen the movie.

Teach your kids right from wrong, get involved, know what they are up to. And know them enough to understand that when they laugh at someone getting their head blown off, they aren't going to go out and actually do it.