IEMA to Government - We Need Education, not Regulation

[fitbabits]

IGN (http://www.ign.com) has the story (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/672/672718p1.html):

November 30, 2005 - Yesterday, Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) announced (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/672/672469p1.html) the Family Entertainment Protection Act -- an ambitious legislative proposal which would not only ban violent videogame sales to minors at a federal level, but would establish federal oversight, and possible regulation, of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB)."The impetus for this piece of legislation appears as fundamentally misguided as it is fatally flawed," IEMA president Hal Halpin said today in an official statement. "The IEMA retailers committed voluntarily to a self-regulatory enforcement system substantially similar to the motion picture business, which the very same legislators hold up as the 'Gold Standard.' While our success rates may not be as consistently high as movie theatre owners, it is important to note that they are leveraging a system which, through decades of reinforcement, has become a part of the collective unconscious."
I know we're all probably tired hearing about this sort of news, but this one seems more far-reaching and worrisome to me.

[Ozymandias]

Honestly, while I'm the first to believe parents are the ones who should be responsible for deciding what content their kids are playing, the simple fact is that they generally aren't.

So I'd be in support of something that banned Mature titles from being sold to kids, and was carried out at a store level. Kid either gets old enough to buy on his own (along with his or her Playboy/girl magazine), or convinces the parent to get it.

The big worry is that the legislation won't be crafted well, and individual store clerks will be held responsible.

[Banacek]

Honestly, while I'm the first to believe parents are the ones who should be responsible for deciding what content their kids are playing, the simple fact is that they generally aren't.

So I'd be in support of something that banned Mature titles from being sold to kids, and was carried out at a store level. Kid either gets old enough to buy on his own (along with his or her Playboy/girl magazine), or convinces the parent to get it.

The big worry is that the legislation won't be crafted well, and individual store clerks will be held responsible.

Sweet! Give your rights away all for the kids. I hope you don't vote...

[Ghost_Saint]

It's the same kind of thing that when a small liberal group lobbies with a lot of money, the people in government take notice because they want to get re-elected.

I doubt that Senators Hillary Clinton or Joseph Lieberman have ever even purchased a video game for someone, much less played one themselves. It's like rednecks saying that rap music is the reason why youths are violent.


THERE IS NO ROOT OF ALL EVIL PEOPLE GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!!!!!!

[OUX]

The thing is that it is ALREADY illegal to sell them to minors at a store level when I worked at target over christmas a couple years ago I had to check IDs on mature titles. If it is not working it is because of the how the stores are checking it and if parents are just buying the games for their kids without checking into it. Good job Hiliary lets waste another ass load of tax payer money to up your image. I am seriously habor strong feelings of animosity toward that woman.

[Ozymandias]

Sweet! Give your rights away all for the kids. I hope you don't vote...

I do. :)

But I'm not sure I follow you. Not trolling here... but I'm not sure why you think I'm giving away any rights here? I'm against censorship in general - with you there. But I do think there's a problem here that the current system isn't fixing.

What would a better solution be? I'm not seeing Parents step up and take responsibility. Even ESRB statistics show that most mature games are bought for kids *by* the Parents. Perhaps having a legal responsibility to prove age (like you do for alcohol, porn, etc) would cause those parents to think about what they were buying for their kids?

[Banacek]

I do. :)

But I'm not sure I follow you. Not trolling here... but I'm not sure why you think I'm giving away any rights here? I'm against censorship in general - with you there. But I do think there's a problem here that the current system isn't fixing.

What would a better solution be? I'm not seeing Parents step up and take responsibility. Even ESRB statistics show that most mature games are bought for kids *by* the Parents. Perhaps having a legal responsibility to prove age (like you do for alcohol, porn, etc) would cause those parents to think about what they were buying for their kids?

Sorry, I was in a really bad mood when I posted that. I mean, the majority of parents will never step up and take responsiblity because the majority of people in general never take responsibily. You're really comfortable with the government putting video games in the same category as drugs? I'm not.

Anyway, in case Congress forgot, US MEN AND WOMEN ARE STILL DYING OVER IN IRAQ. Jesus, they have more important things to do right now...

EDIT: I forgot to mention, oh yes, video games definitely should be regulated, but not by the government...

[swiftdraw]

I thik most of the current ID checking laws are state laws, not federal. I'm for the ID thing for M rated games, but I really leery of federal regulation on the industry. From a business and creative stand-point, federal regulation is very rarely a good thing.

[motorhappy]

The only state with a current ID check law is California and the ESA is already fighting that law in court. Other states, namely Illinoise, have passed similar laws, but they have been overturned because of that damned first amendment.

By the way, is anyone else confused about which political party promotes increased government regulation and censorship. Politicians keep confusing me by trying to pass these laws from both parties.

[Meatgortex]

Making it a federal crime for stores that sell to minors is overkill, but not a huge deal. The vast majority of M rated titles are purchased by adults. Sometimes for their kids, but the adult makes the purchase so it doesn't really change anything.

The more troubling parts of the act are:
- Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate misleading ratings.

- The authority for consumers to register complaints with the FTC regarding game content.

Both of these are potentially very dangerous to pass into law. It's unlikely the FTC understands the difference between what a game directly offers, and what users might choose to do with it. It's easy to see them wanting to classify "The Movies" as an AO title because someone makes a violent or sexual film with the game. We don't ban selling newspapers to minors because they might wank off to sears underwear ads, but I wouldn't put it past the FTC to do exactly that with games. Not the wanking part, but the banning bit.

In addition the consumer complaints leading to investigation has turned the FCC into an enforcement arm for various small special interest groups. There is no reason to believe these same groups wouldn't do the exact same thing with the FTC. Attempting to get games not only out of children's hands, but off store shelves all together because a small group who wouldn't buy them anyway find them objectionable.

[GrinR]

The sooner they start regulating violent video games, the sooner I'll feel safer walking by a gang of teenage hoods hanging out on the corner.

Get to it Hillary! Take back my streets, I say!

[The Letter 3]

The more troubling parts of the act are:
- The authority for consumers to register complaints with the FTC regarding game content.
This reminds of the rather intense debate that recently happened regarding Internet polls. There were those who said that an Internet poll asking about defective 360s were worthless because only people having trouble or people wanting to cause trouble would vote, while happy consumers wouldn't bother to vote.

This is the same thing, only on a much larger and far reaching scale. The FTC won't be asking if people DON'T have complaints (or if they do, not too many people who don't have complaints would go out of their way to tell the FTC). And many of the people who complain will be people who don't even appreciate a game for what it is.

*sigh* 1984, here we come.

[Heretic Machine]

Just another reason not to vote for that gold-digging whore, Hilary Clinton. I'll vote republican before I'll vote for her.

[motorhappy]

Making it a federal crime for stores that sell to minors is overkill, but not a huge deal...

The more troubling parts of the act are:
- Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate misleading ratings.

- The authority for consumers to register complaints with the FTC regarding game content.


Those are definately the scariest parts of the bill, but we should actually be glad it includes criminalizing sales to minors. Why? because it's much easier for the supreme court to overturn because of the first amendment issue and previous legal precedent. The retail sales part is how Clinton and Lieberman will try to sell the bill, but it could also be it's Achilles heal should this ridiculous law get passed.

[Serapth]

Just another reason not to vote for that gold-digging whore, Hilary Clinton. I'll vote republican before I'll vote for her.

Yes, I pretty much despise her too. The only reason I would like to see her elected is so I could refer to Bill as the First Lady.

[laggerific]

The only state with a current ID check law is California and the ESA is already fighting that law in court. Other states, namely Illinoise, have passed similar laws, but they have been overturned because of that damned first amendment.

By the way, is anyone else confused about which political party promotes increased government regulation and censorship. Politicians keep confusing me by trying to pass these laws from both parties.

They all do...the trick is to figure out how to use the topic as a club to beat the opposition with it. Of course this administration is giving a lot of ammo, at least on this topic, to their opposition.

And man...Hillary, you have got better things to do than to waste your time with this crap. If you ask me, it's the abuse or complicity of our freepress that is more harmful than the games...it helps blur the lines of reality more and more with all the lying and manipulation...no wonder people are going to blogs more and more for information...it's at least interactive enough to call bull on people's more stupid thoughts. Something our MSM is lacking.

[Mason]

It's the same kind of thing that when a small liberal group lobbies with a lot of money, the people in government take notice because they want to get re-elected.

Hillary and Lieberman are not liberals. Not even close. They're DLC Democrats, which is the "centrist" part of the party (actually pretty damn conservative, Lieberman is a bigger apologist for the Iraq war than most Republicans). They were briefly influential during and after Clinton's presidency, but they've lost pretty much all of their influence over the DNC. Expect the DLC to fall apart before too long. Everyone hates those guys.

DLC Democrats are socially quite conservative, and their attacks on video games are socially conservative actions (i.e. opposing free choice). Not at all representative of the rest of the party.

Pointing to Hillary and Joe as examples of all Dems being anti-game zealots is like pointing to the Log Cabin Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_Cabin_Republicans) and saying that all Republicans are gay.

And do you really think that the Christian Right, which calls for boycotts of Harry Pottery films due to portrayls of witchcraft, is cool with GTA and Doom? The Christian Right hasn't even started raising hell about games, they're just still stuck on books and movies. Give them time, and a few conservative Dems will be the very least of our worries.

[Mason]

Just another reason not to vote for that gold-digging whore, Hilary Clinton. I'll vote republican before I'll vote for her.

DKos strawpolls has her way, way down in the pack among internet-literate Dems (basically, the Dean crowd). She won't have any grassroots support in the primary, not a single bit, and since attacking Hillary is about the favoritest thing of the right wing media blowhards, expect her to get pummelled. Not a chance in hell, thankfully.

But even if she somehow got the nomination, dude, she could spread baby-eyeball jam on her toast in the morning and still be the lesser of the two evils. You've noticed how America has started torturing people and using chemical weapons, right?