A bad day for the video game business just got quite a bit worse. With the industry still reeling from the shabby grades assigned this morning by the MediaWise Annual Video Game Report Card, another, perhaps far heavier, blow has landed.
Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) announced moments ago that they will introduce federal legislation aimed at protecting children from inappropriate video game content. The bill, to be called "The Family Entertainment Protection Act," will prohibit the sale of adult-themed games to minors. The senators plan to introduce the bill when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.
A press release issued by Sen. Clinton's office said she was motivated to take action on the issue by July's Hot Coffee revelations. Readers may recall that the Senator ordered up an FCC investigation of the incident. That probe is ongoing.
"I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids can't walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content," said Senator Clinton.
According to her press release, she acknowledges that video games are "fun and entertaining" and does not support any limitations on the production or sale of games to adults. "This is about protecting children."
Senator Lieberman, who stood with Dr. David Walsh of NIMF this morning during the release of the video game report card, added, "There is a growing body of evidence that points to a link between violent videos and aggressive behavior in children. We are not interested in censoring videos meant for adult entertainment but we do want to ensure that these videos are not purchased by minors. Our bill will help accomplish this by imposing fines on those retailers that sell M-rated games to minors," Senator Lieberman said.
Speaking of the report card, Sen. Clinton said, "Today's report is yet further proof that we need to make sure parents have the tools and support they need to make informed decisions for their children."
The following is from Sen. Clinton's press release:
Summary of the Family Entertainment Protection Act
Video game content is getting more and more violent and sexually explicit, yet young people are able to purchase these games with relative ease. In its 2005, 10th Annual MediaWise Video and Computer Game Report Card, The National Institute on Media and the Family found that retailers were more lenient in their selling practices this year compared to last. Boys as young as nine were able to purchase Mature-rated games 42 percent of the time. At the same time, a majority of parents are feeling increasingly victimized by a culture of violence that makes it difficult to protect their children against influences they find to be inappropriate. This bill would help empower parents by putting them back in the driver's seat. It would ensure that children can't buy games the video game industry itself has determined to be inappropriate for them.
I. Prohibition on Selling Mature and Adults Only video games to minors
The centerpiece of this bill is a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen. This provision is not aimed at punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system. That's why retailers would have an affirmative defense if they were shown an identification they believed to be valid or have a system in place to display and enforce the ESRB system. Similar prohibitions have become law in the last several months in California, Michigan, and Illinois.
II. Annual Analysis of the Ratings System
Since the bill relies on the video game industry to continue rating the appropriateness of games for minors, this bill requires an annual, independent analysis of game ratings. This analysis will help ensure that the ESRB ratings system accurately reflects the content in each game and that the ratings system does not change significantly over time.
III. Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Investigate Misleading Ratings
Part of the genesis of this bill was the revelation that the makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had included, through embedded code that was discovered and made accessible to the public, sexually explicit content inconsistent with the game's Mature rating. This bill requires the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether what happened with GTA: San Andreas is a pervasive problem. It also includes a Sense of Congress that the Commission shall take appropriate action if it determines that there is a pervasive problem.
IV. Authority to Register Complaints
This bill requires the Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) of the FTC to ensure that consumers can file complaints if they find content to be misleading or deceptive and requires the BCP to report on the number of such complaints to Congress.
V. Annual Retailer Audit
This bill authorizes the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers - sometimes referred to as a secret shopper survey – to determine how easy it is for young people to purchase Mature and Adults Only video games and report the findings to Congress.
| Game Politics ( |
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
November 29 2005, 21:45:27 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 21:48:35 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 21:49:10 UTC 6 years ago
Holy sh**, a well written law.
I'm shocked. Someone actually thought of all the legal issues, and addressed them without trying to rely on any BS science to "fluff" the law past judges. I'm impressed.November 29 2005, 22:40:46 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Holy sh**, a well written law.
Eh, Lieberman's "There is a growing body of evidence that points to a link betweent, yudda yudda yudda"I'm still reading, but snap reactions are as follows.
- Did NIMF ambush the ESRB?
- DAMN LIEBERMAN
- DAMN HILLARY
- DAMN LAZY ASS PARENTS!!!!
- AND DAMN ROCK-F@^@$^%@-STAR GAMES!!!!
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 21:50:34 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:00:30 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 21:51:13 UTC 6 years ago
Wait.YES I DO.
November 29 2005, 21:56:37 UTC 6 years ago
While I disagree with the need for a bill, I do applaud the fact that this one appears (unlike it's predecessors) to be well thought out, and deals with all the legal complexities of trying to restrict material.
I do think it will still fail though, seeing as how they tried to get MPAA ratings legislated, and that was found to be unconstitutional.
But for a videogame bill, this one was actually crafted by people who assumed it would be challenged, and designed it so that it would be able to address at least some of the issues facing such a bill...
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 21:59:02 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:03:47 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 21:59:35 UTC 6 years ago
I wonder if this was the "win" Jack was "predicting"?
Remember Jack talking about how him and a bunch of legislators were going to do a "big" announcement from Capitol Hill? Guess he wasn't invited. :PWow, first dissed by Lieberman, and now by Hillary. Jack's having a baaaad week. So much for his "influence" with political leaders... :)
November 29 2005, 22:00:57 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:07:59 UTC 6 years ago
This makes AO and M games the same rating as far as who can buy it.
Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:02:22 UTC 6 years ago
What I like about this
I like that this uses the game rating system as part of its framework. From what I've seen, all previous bills/laws seemed to use general language such as games with violence/sexual content as being prohibited to sell to minors.(Am I wrong on this, did California et al's bills use the ESRB system or just the vague description of violence?).With this it's clear what games can be sold to what age group, it's just the enforcing of the game ratings which retailers should be enforcing anyway.
It's too bad that this has come about and is probably not needed as most retailers do have a dialogue come up when an M rated game is purchased asking the clerk to check to see if the buyer is over 18. But there was going to be some fallout from Hot Coffee, and while this does not seem totally related to hidden content except for where that causes a misleading rating, something like this was definitely coming.
One thing I noticed is that this does not address game mods. Did Clinton realize correctly that she and Lieberman cannot control what people decide to do with software after they purchase it? Modding is a huge part of gaming, and to impose limits on that would be disastrous to the video game industry. And unlike what Thompson believes, modding does not dilute the copyright of the developer. It is well within the copyright holders rights to decide that certain derivative works can be created from their intellectual property while still retaining the copyright. Trademark law does not equal copyright law!
November 29 2005, 22:06:46 UTC 6 years ago
Re: What I like about this
California required ESRB ratings, but also used the definitions from the jury instructions for the death penalty as a guide for whether the violence was "ultra" enough.
Most likely. This bill affects purchases only. What people do with the games in their own homes is their own business. Copyright law doesn't cover in-home tweaking. (Unless it's encryption, but that's covered under a different law...)
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:02:43 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:07:26 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:06:51 UTC 6 years ago
The issue here is
Not that I disagree with this bill. It's very straight forward. M and AO games can't be sold to minors. The ratings system can't be adjusted to dodge the law, and that's the end of the discussion. That's fair. I can live with that. However, the problem lies in "why is the government targeting video games only?" If they wanted to enstate a ratings system that has legal binding, then I feel everything should have a ratings sytem that has legal binding. Books, movies (albeit they already do have one), video games, and TV (which has the consideration of the V-Chip), and radio. You can't parent the world, so don't try.November 29 2005, 22:16:55 UTC 6 years ago
Re: The issue here is
So just legislate V-chip functionality in next-gen systems.Problem solved.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:08:56 UTC 6 years ago
Wow a bill that isn't a badly written piece of ****
Though does any one know how it will enforce it since it didn't say in the summary what fines would be administrated if the games were sold to minorsNovember 29 2005, 22:10:50 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Wow a bill that isn't a badly written piece of ****
I'm assuming those details will come later. Probably finable offence, or whatever the FTC deems to be a suitable punishment. There will likely be guidelines (first offense, etc).
November 29 2005, 22:10:14 UTC 6 years ago
Stopping minors from buying adult content, that's good, I encourage that. Stopping my son from being able to play the Chicken Little game after seeing the movie is just utterly stupid. Stopping minors from being able to shoot prostitutes in GTA, that's good. Stopping my son from being able to play Donkey Kong Jungle Beat with his Gamecube bongo drums for some vague reason that I've never really been able to work out after playing through the game myself... it's just unreal how stupid it is. Abolish the stupid rating, or only apply it where actually necessary.
That's what this concerned parent wants to see, anyway... and I don't think I'm in the minority just because I'm 'savvy' to videogames, there are millions just like me.
November 29 2005, 22:11:51 UTC 6 years ago
This won't do that though. Only M & AO will be enforced. Everything else is just a guide for parents.
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:11:35 UTC 6 years ago
Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto
Seeing as using a private industry's rating system is prior restraint and has been rules unconstitional many times over when applied with the MPAA rating system, this bill will go nowhere even if passed.Also i think Bush might veto it if it does get to his desk as during the 2000 election he said it was up to parents to keep their kids away from material they think is inappropriate for them when asked a question during the debate. Of course if the Governator Arnold signs a bill like this then anything is possible.
November 29 2005, 22:16:14 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto
Except last time they didn't have a provision for the government to review & approve the private ratings. This is similar to the system up here in Canada where the ratings are reviewed, and then rubber stamped to make them "official". Only when there's a disagreement does the ratings board actually issue their own rating.
Oooo, good point. I wonder? Maybe we'll hear comment later today?
6 years ago
6 years ago
Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:13:04 UTC 6 years ago
Final-frickin'-ly.
Now *this* is progress. A law that does not seek to censor games, but rather go after the weakest link in the chain- retail-level enforcement of ESRB ratings. The fact that they're using the ESRB ratings as their legeslative basis is proof positive that they're trying to work with the industry instead of against it.Best of all, if the enforcement goes into effect, it will shift the onus of responsibility off of the retailers and onto the shoulders of parents, where it belongs. Oh, you bought Manhunt for your ten year old? Too frickin' bad. You can just as easily buy them cigarettes and alcohol. Legal? Yes. Does it make you an irresponsible scumbag? You bet.
This is the best news I've heard in game legislation in months. I man, if you've got a youngster of advanced maturity whose morals and priorities are so straight that wanton carnage rolls off their psyche like water off a duck's back, go ahead and but them Vice City. It's a deep and robust game with many positive qualities. But you're still the one making that decision and authorizing that purchase by your presence.
I fully support this bill.
November 29 2005, 22:30:01 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Final-frickin'-ly.
Regardless, this bill is still unconstitional as it restricts minors access to Free Speech materials they have a constitution right to buy, rent and use. Also the federal government has shown no compelling interest (with requires causation as proof) that violent video games are harmful to minors.In order to be barred to minors a video game, or any other free speech material must be obscene as to minors. In order to be obscene to minors a video game must fallow the Ginsberg as applied with Miller definition of obscenity in regards to minors. Essencially:
1. Would the average adult person find the material, as a whole, and with respect to minors, appeals to the prurient (i.e. sexual) interest.
2. Would the average adult person. find the material depicts or desribes sexual conduct as specifically defined by state law, in a manner that is patently offensive in regards to minors, according to contemporary community standards.
3. Does the material, as a whole lack serious artisitic, literary, scientific or political merit for minors.
Anything beyond that is protected speech for minors and therefor no government can restrict access to minors from getting ahold of that material.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:15:09 UTC 6 years ago
Moderate Democrats like Clinton and Lieberman are only doing this to win over the totalitarian demographic from the Republican party, anyway.
November 30 2005, 03:23:02 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
Anonymous
November 29 2005, 22:17:17 UTC 6 years ago
Hell has oficially frozen over
This is in my eyes the best bill so far, the only two problems that I see so far are a.) what happens with online retailers, or most importantly, people who are reselling their games on ebay? They can't check the age of their buyer that easily.b.) We really have to ensure that the analysis is done by _independent_ people - I'm sure NIMF&Co would be more than happy to be in there, but they should be tehre as much as the ESA - NOT AT ALL!
We should really try to cooperate with them in this.
BTW, any chance you can get the full text of the bill and post it?
Gloranor
December 1 2005, 12:05:18 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Hell has oficially frozen over
Full text should be available at the Senate's web site when Hillary submits the bill in a couple of weeks...November 29 2005, 22:18:26 UTC 6 years ago
Back when I worked retail (Target) and kid was buying an M-Rated game, I would usually say something the parent (if they were there) to the effect of "You do know this is an M-Rated game, right?" Usually, they'd say yes and that was the end of that. Had a few kidss go home dissapointed that way, too.
Anonymous
November 29 2005, 22:23:58 UTC 6 years ago
About time.
Finally .... an initiative that actually tries to deal with the problem rather than slapping the hands of everyone involved. Put the decision in the parents hands where it belongs. If they buy it, they can't complain later that it is inappropriate. Kudos.November 29 2005, 22:28:06 UTC 6 years ago
What the crap?
"I have developed legislation that will empower parents by making sure their kids can't walk into a store and buy a video game that has graphic, violent and pornographic content," said Senator Clinton.""Today's report is yet further proof that we need to make sure parents have the tools and support they need to make informed decisions for their children,"
So Clinton wants to empower parents and help them make informed decisions. Then instead of trying to go after game developers, why don't you find the parents who make blind buys for there children (finding the sheer number of these parents won't be hard, I can assure you). Why is it that people won't listen to cases where parents simply don't care what their kids play/watch/red?
I don't know. Sure, this sounds like a coherent piece of work, but I still think it will be abused by all the Jack Thompsons of the world.
November 29 2005, 22:28:54 UTC 6 years ago
In a sense, this hurts NIMF, Clinton, and Lieberman
If so many minors have M games, then how do they explain the low crime rates? Surely all these kids playing GTA would equal horrific amounts of school shootings?Anonymous
November 29 2005, 22:40:13 UTC 6 years ago
Re: In a sense, this hurts NIMF, Clinton, and Lieberman
indeed... remember that a government agency ( i don't remember which one) releases those crime reports that show crime in america is lower than it's been in the past 10 yearsNovember 29 2005, 22:29:46 UTC 6 years ago
-P
November 29 2005, 22:30:32 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:32:42 UTC 6 years ago
well THAT wasn't too difficult...
seriously! now we're getting somewhere. I have no problem with a law that prohibits minors from buying M games. It's just like ciggarettes...November 29 2005, 22:50:58 UTC 6 years ago
Re: well THAT wasn't too difficult...
Yep, comparring cigerettes to "M" rated games is the perfect comparision one could make. Sorry, but you're an Idiot. At least compare it to something more reasonable like say "R" rated moves, which of course are not barred by law to minors.Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
Anonymous
November 29 2005, 22:33:04 UTC 6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:43:05 UTC 6 years ago
Couldn't disagree more.
..."kids obviously can't make the right decisions about this."...About a fuckin video game. BULLSHIT!!!
..."Limiting access to what kids can have doesn't strike me as censorship or threatening in any way."...
Actually it is censorship. The government is deciding which Free Speech materials are appropriate or not for dessemination to minors. Minors (especially older kids and teenagers about 12+) should have the right to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to materials that express ideas, information, messages, and opinions. Otherwise by the time they reach the age of majority, and can vote, their mind will be a blank and they won't have yet defined thier own person in society. You might as well just give there parents their vote then.
P.S - Hope i made sense as i'm bad at explaining things from my mind to written or typed word.
Anonymous
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
November 29 2005, 22:34:00 UTC 6 years ago
Though I would have loved some equality with this, like with music and movies. All music CDs have is that little sticker and I managed to buy some of those when I was 16. Movie theaters rarely card people when you go see a rated R movie.
Then again, those industries have ploticians in their pockets so that's why only video games are getting this stuff.
November 30 2005, 20:18:24 UTC 6 years ago
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →