gamepolitics: Utah Congressman Introducing Yet Another Federal Video Game Bill

Game Politics (

gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-01-05 08:43:00

Entry tags:

congress, esrb, legislation, matheson, utah, violence

Utah Congressman Introducing Yet Another Federal Video Game Bill

Did you think a day might go by without news of another piece of video game legislation?

Not a chance.

The Deseret Morning News (Utah) reports that Representative Jim Matheson, a Democrat, plans to propose legislation in Congress which would make the sale of an M-rated or AO-rated to minors a federal offense. Matheson's bill, drafted but not yet submitted, is based on ESRB content ratings.

"The industry already has its own rating system. I'm just going to say you have to ID (the buyer) for any 'mature' or 'adult only' rated games."

The proposed legislation will also require that video games have the current rating prominently displayed on the box. (GP: isn't that the case already?)

In discussing the bill with the Morning News, Matheson expressed little confidence in the current retail system.

"You know darn well the 13-year-old is not being carded when he buys 'Grand Theft Auto 2.' You get points (in that game) for having sex with a prostitute; you get points for killing the prostitute." (GP: We're pretty sure he doesn't mean "GTA 2.")

How does Matheson plan to dodge the First Amendment bullet that has already doomed so many pieces of video game legislation?

"I stay away from that unconstitutional aspect." The Congressman told the paper that he believes basing the law on ESRB ratings avoids any government restriction of free speech.

Page 1 of 2
<<	[1] [2]	>>

(Post a new comment)

	i didnt get into gta till gta 3 but hilaryduffgta 2006-01-05 02:04 pm UTC (link)
	There were hookers in gta 2? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: i didnt get into gta till gta 3 but markusdragon 2006-01-05 02:21 pm UTC (link)
	nope There were lots of Hare Krishna, though. (Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2006-01-05 02:06 pm UTC (link)

I'm having mixed feelings about this. Matheson certainly sounds like he's willing to at least work with the ESRB rating system, but a lot of stuff he's proposing is already in effect, as mentioned above. And again with the getting points thing... Sure, you gain health when you have sex with a prostitute, but you lose money in the process, and killing anyone (including hookers) sends the cops on you.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	bigman_k 2006-01-05 02:14 pm UTC (link)
	In GTA: SA the hookers fight back if you try to attack them to. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	I wish...Just once... goodrobotus 2006-01-05 02:09 pm UTC (link)
	That politicians would actually research and learn something before making definitive statements. They just keep showing malleable and easily led they are. (Reply to this)

	bigman_k 2006-01-05 02:13 pm UTC (link)
	...""I stay away from that unconstitutional aspect.""... Congressman Jim Matheson fails to realize that using a private rating system as law is a violation of Due Process. Of course he's from Utah so what should we expect. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	No, it's not a violation of due process only... (Anonymous) 2006-01-05 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	it's also a violation of the First Amendment, and has been since the 1930s! Jack Thompson (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 03:53 pm UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

godofyouall, 2006-01-05 03:59 pm UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 04:13 pm UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

gamepolitics, 2006-01-05 04:39 pm UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 04:44 pm UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

mrfalcon, 2006-01-05 11:24 pm UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

jabrwock, 2006-01-06 02:48 am UTC

Re: I can see why Jack failed his exam... -

the1jeffy, 2006-01-05 04:59 pm UTC

Re: No, it's not a violation of due process only... -

goodrobotus, 2006-01-05 04:05 pm UTC

Re: No, it's not a violation of due process only... -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 07:55 pm UTC

Re: No, it's not a violation of due process only... -

pixelante_ninja, 2006-01-05 07:52 pm UTC

Re: No, it's not a violation of due process only... - (Anonymous), 2006-01-05 10:52 pm UTC

Re: No, it's not a violation of due process only... -

automancer, 2006-01-05 11:19 pm UTC

Re: No, it's not a violation of due process only... -

pixelante_ninja, 2006-01-05 11:45 pm UTC

Avoiding unconstitutional language...

dog_welder
2006-01-05 02:13 pm UTC (link)

From the article:

"'I stay away from that unconstitutional aspect' by not saying what can or can't be in a video game sold to a minor, he said."

But this is a contradiction. By saying a minor can't buy an M-rated game, you ARE saying what can and can't be sold to a minor. This is nothing more than semantics and is doomed to follow like the other bills.

It's just even more election year posturing and grandstanding.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Avoiding unconstitutional language... bigman_k 2006-01-05 02:17 pm UTC (link)
	Yep, people seem to forget that minors have significant First Amendment rights. So unless the material is obscene to minors or you have strong, consistant and undisputable evidence of actual harm being done, you can't contitutionally regulate what they can or can't watch, play, read or listen to. Hooray for the First Amendment. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Umm...
(Anonymous)
2006-01-05 02:15 pm UTC (link)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just more or less a copycat of what Hilary's putting forward?

Either way it's pretty sad that he can't even get the name of the game right. I wasn't expecting him to get details like "You don't get points for killing hookers." right, but I'd expected him to at least be able to call the game GTA 3, or GTA: San Andreas. You know, a game that actually had the content he's complaining about.

I also love how his response to the First Amendment concern is "I stay away from that unconstitutional aspect." when he's pretty much stepping into that "aspect" it by attempting censorship at all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Umm... goodrobotus 2006-01-05 02:18 pm UTC (link)
	I wonder if all this attention to violence and prostitution and drug-taking in games is merely a admission on the part of the politicians that they are incapable of doing anything about them happening in real life? After all, the content of computer games is effect, not cause. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Umm... -

bigman_k, 2006-01-05 02:26 pm UTC

	beardoggx 2006-01-05 02:22 pm UTC (link)
	Matheson's bill is similiar to Hillary's, which already is considered unconstitutional, so he's nothing more than a bandwagon jumper. Tell that moron Matheson and others of his ilk that saving Louisiana's receding coastline is considerably more important than his piece of shit bill. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	bigman_k 2006-01-05 02:23 pm UTC (link)
	..."Tell that moron Matheson and others of his ilk that saving Louisiana's receding coastline is considerably more important than his piece of shit bill."... Matheson's from Utah so i don't think he could care less about that. Maybe legalizing polygamy though. He, He. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

beardoggx, 2006-01-05 02:29 pm UTC

No No NO its bridges to nowhere!! -

tollwutig, 2006-01-05 02:56 pm UTC

Re: No No NO its bridges to nowhere!! -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 04:01 pm UTC

Re: No No NO its bridges to nowhere!! -

pixelante_ninja, 2006-01-05 07:54 pm UTC

	Great... jquilty 2006-01-05 02:22 pm UTC (link)
	Another misinformed dumbfuck. Really, what games besides sports games and the rare game like Meteos use points anymore? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Great... bigman_k 2006-01-05 02:25 pm UTC (link)
	Serious Sam: Frist and Second Encounter does. Painkiller might also, i don't remember. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Great... -

cyn1c42, 2006-01-05 03:48 pm UTC

Re: Great... -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 03:58 pm UTC

Re: Great... -

expert_gamer, 2006-01-06 01:28 am UTC

Re: Great... -

chuma, 2006-01-05 03:46 pm UTC

Re: Great... -

ace_ofspade, 2006-01-05 03:58 pm UTC

Re: Great... -

norumu, 2006-01-05 05:33 pm UTC

	too much stupidity hilaryduffgta 2006-01-05 02:30 pm UTC (link)
	Im off to sleep now.this Guy Is a moron and his bill wil also fail.as for Him saying Unconstitutional Aspect i wonder if he would be saying that if someone tried to take away his first amendment rights (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: too much stupidity l0que 2006-01-05 08:33 pm UTC (link)
	Grammar, please! ...I don't want to be rude, but at least try? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Time for a Career Change. Send this man home. verbinator 2006-01-05 02:32 pm UTC (link)
	The Gentleman from Utah is up for re-election this year. Any surprise that yet another DEMOCRAT is jumping on the Fammily Values bandwagon in an election year? Vote the Government-Class-Failin' Scoundrel out of office!! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Time for a Career Change. Send this man home. inabottle 2006-01-05 04:38 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, I hate how democrats are always using family values platforms to try and get elected. The worst part is when they exploit Christianity in that same vein. Republicans never, ever do that. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Time for a Career Change. Send this man home. -

dog_welder, 2006-01-05 06:24 pm UTC

Re: Time for a Career Change. Send this man home. -

beardoggx, 2006-01-06 01:07 am UTC

Re: Time for a Career Change. Send this man home. - (Anonymous), 2006-01-06 02:36 am UTC

Re: Time for a Career Change. Send this man home. -

beardoggx, 2006-01-06 03:14 am UTC

	sqlrob 2006-01-05 02:33 pm UTC (link)
	basing the law on ESRB ratings avoids any government restriction of free speech. Does this guy pay attention to anything? The equivalent for movies has already been ruled unconstitutional in several cases. "it is well-established that the Motion Picture ratings may not be used as a standard for a determination of constitutional status" - Swopes v. Lubbers (Reply to this)

beardoggx
2006-01-05 02:40 pm UTC (link)

"You know darn well the 13-year-old is not being carded when he buys 'Grand Theft Auto 2.' You get points (in that game) for having sex with a prostitute; you get points for killing the prostitute."

Actually, you don't.

I tried that once in GTA3 and once in GTA:VC after I had already gotten 100% completion. It neither added points to the criminal rating nor did I get the money back either time.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	jesdk 2006-01-05 03:08 pm UTC (link)
	And the worst part is, he's quoted as saying "Grand Theft Auto 2"... That shows how much anti-gamers actually know about their enemy. xD (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

woundwalker, 2006-01-05 05:37 pm UTC

(no subject) -

notasholyasthou, 2006-01-05 06:56 pm UTC

(no subject) -

jabrwock, 2006-01-05 07:10 pm UTC

(no subject) -

tsknf, 2006-01-05 07:11 pm UTC

(no subject) -

pixelante_ninja, 2006-01-05 07:57 pm UTC

(no subject) -

jesdk, 2006-01-06 05:31 am UTC

	theogal 2006-01-05 02:47 pm UTC (link)
	How does Matheson plan to dodge the First Amendment bullet that has already doomed so many pieces of video game legislation? Easy, if he only goes after games like Grand Theft Auto 2... (Reply to this)

chuma
2006-01-05 03:28 pm UTC (link)

The soundbyte (despite it's mistaken sequel number) seems reasonable - Using the existing rating system and making companies card anyone who wants to purchase M or AO games. However it is unconstitutional due to it being a private rating system and not a government owned one, and that 1st amendment that politicians find so troublesome. My concern is, yet again, it only covers games and not other media like films and books. Scapegoat time.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

inabottle
2006-01-05 04:41 pm UTC (link)

The issue is that the ESRB doesn't have a public trust like the MPAA does. Hot Coffee wasn't really the issue- no one had a public trust in ESRB to begin with, it just drew attention. The only thing that can GET a public trust in the ESRB is time. The movie industry's been around, what, 60, 80 years? Game industry is pushing on 20 years, and less than 10 with the ESRB in it. Some waiting is involved at this point.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

chuma, 2006-01-05 05:04 pm UTC

	Will These People Ever Learn.................? godofyouall 2006-01-05 03:31 pm UTC (link)
	The courts have already made it clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional and therefore they could not give the ESRB ratings the force of law. Also this moron obviously doesn't do any research before talking about this subject. Killing Prostitutes in GTA 2 for extra points? -seriously WTF! (Reply to this)

	Jack Thompson Here (Anonymous) 2006-01-05 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	This approach is clearly unconstitutional. For those of you who are so crazed that you think I can't be fair about these things, think again. I just spoke at length with Congressman Matheson's staff person, and told them that this bill is constitutionally dead on arrival. Good luck to them, but they won't need luck if they reconfigure the bill. Jack Thompson (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Jack Thompson Here godofyouall 2006-01-05 03:52 pm UTC (link)
	You are not being fair about these things Jack. You have just finally had to resign to the fact that this legislation bull shit is unconstitutional. Remember "safety trumps freedom" Jack! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	ace_ofspade 2006-01-05 03:51 pm UTC (link)
	Making a game (rated M or AO) illegal to sell makes it worse than a current AO game. While the ESRB system is just a suggestion, selling these games is against the law. In effect, stores may not want to sell them. This goes for people wanting to ban "Hyper-mega-violent video games" too. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jabrwock 2006-01-05 04:05 pm UTC (link)
	Besides, it's redundant. Pornopgraphic AO games are already restricted by obscenity laws... So this would extend the restriction to violent games, without good reason. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Best dodge of 2006! jabrwock 2006-01-05 03:56 pm UTC (link)
	I stay away from that unconstitutional aspect. Translation: I don't know how to deal, so I just ignore it, and hope it goes away... (Reply to this)

	tsknf 2006-01-05 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	"but is perfectly willing to parrot Jack Thompson soundbites." I'm pretty sure he isn't plagarising Jack Thompson when he says you get points for killing the prostitude, or that you're required to kill the prostitute (neither of which are true.) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Jack Thompson questions quartermaine 2006-01-05 04:54 pm UTC (link)
	How would the bill need to be reconfigured so that it was no longer unconstitutional? You said you coached Hillary Clinton on her legislation, yet how come you weren't there when she announced it? If you were the vital role you claim to be, wouldn't it stand to reason that an invitation would've been given to you? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2006-01-05 05:01 pm UTC (link)
	Huh. Normally, politicians reserve filing DOA "Feel Good" legislation like this for an election year. But yeah, from looking at it, this guy's professional experience stems from studying Government and working in the energy industry. He's not going to be the brightest bulb when it comes to Constitutional issues or matters of free speech. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jabrwock 2006-01-05 05:17 pm UTC (link)
	Normally, politicians reserve filing DOA "Feel Good" legislation like this for an election year. Remember, these bills have to be well into the public spotlight, and hopefully passed, by the time the campaign rolls around. Otherwise it's just an election promise, rather than a "look at my accomplishments"... (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2006-01-05 05:22 pm UTC (link)
	Always nice to see this stuff in the news (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jabrwock 2006-01-05 05:28 pm UTC (link)
	Always nice to see this stuff in the news Reminds me why I can't stand politicians. All talk and no real thought. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Due Process nightwng2000 2006-01-05 06:02 pm UTC (link)
	I'm keeping up with what's being said in this article. Learning a few new things. I haven't commented yet because I'm facinated by what's being said (as if my saying anything is all that important anyway. :) ) For a definition of Due Process, I found this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html Anyway, I'm keeping up. Interesting arguements. nightwng2000 (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Due Process jabrwock 2006-01-05 06:13 pm UTC (link)
	I think due process wouldn't be a problem if there were government oversight of the ratings process, ala ratings board in other countries. Covered under "procedural due process". But that would bring it back to the government infringing on right to speech, and so we're back where we started. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs