Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2005-11-29 16:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:esrb, fcc, hillary clinton, lieberman, nimf, ratings

Clinton, Lieberman Announce Federal Game Legislation

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.



Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]featherspy
2005-11-29 09:45 pm UTC (link)
I love you guys, but maybe an el-jay cut?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]theogal, 2005-11-29 09:48 pm UTC
Holy sh**, a well written law.
[info]jabrwock
2005-11-29 09:49 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Holy sh**, a well written law. - [info]apathyislife, 2005-11-29 10:40 pm UTC
Re: Holy sh**, a well written law. - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:45 pm UTC
You're right. not a horrible law - [info]apathyislife, 2005-11-29 10:59 pm UTC
Re: You're right. not a horrible law - [info]konnidor, 2005-11-29 11:12 pm UTC

[info]ropotov
2005-11-29 09:50 pm UTC (link)
I love "There is a growing body of evidence that points to a link between violent videos and aggressive behavior in children." part.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]galin, 2005-11-29 10:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:08 pm UTC

[info]drgrumbles
2005-11-29 09:51 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, we wouldn't wanted to put the burden of responsibility on the parents.

Wait.YES I DO.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 09:56 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]apathyislife, 2005-11-29 11:09 pm UTC

[info]mikage_souji
2005-11-29 09:59 pm UTC (link)
Well, this seems to be more reasonable that three by three inch stickers.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:03 pm UTC
I wonder if this was the "win" Jack was "predicting"?
[info]jabrwock
2005-11-29 09:59 pm UTC (link)
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. :P

Wow, first dissed by Lieberman, and now by Hillary. Jack's having a baaaad week. So much for his "influence" with political leaders... :)

(Reply to this)


[info]darkmane
2005-11-29 10:00 pm UTC (link)
D and D... Frist won't let it hit the floor.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]darkmane, 2005-11-29 10:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 10:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]darkmane, 2005-11-29 10:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:48 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]celadus, 2005-11-29 10:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]celadus, 2005-11-29 10:57 pm UTC
Frist - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 03:45 am UTC
Re: Frist - [info]darkmane, 2005-11-30 04:18 pm UTC
What I like about this
[info]celadus
2005-11-29 10:02 pm UTC (link)
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!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: What I like about this - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:06 pm UTC
Re: What I like about this - [info]timbo1138, 2005-11-29 11:33 pm UTC

[info]galin
2005-11-29 10:02 pm UTC (link)
This pisses me off, primarily because video games are being singled out here. So I get to write letters to senators. Six, in fact: my home state (where my permanent address is), the state I live in, and Clinton/Lieberman. Maybe I'll use up all my stamps before the price goes up after all...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]galin, 2005-11-29 10:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:24 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]galin, 2005-11-29 10:36 pm UTC
The issue here is
[info]skemodan
2005-11-29 10:06 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: The issue here is - [info]sqlrob, 2005-11-29 10:16 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:18 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]zero_beat_x, 2005-11-29 10:31 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:38 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]revengeofthezio, 2005-11-29 10:30 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]locke_cole, 2005-11-29 10:32 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]skemodan, 2005-11-29 11:37 pm UTC
Re: The issue here is - [info]kunaifusu, 2005-11-30 07:53 pm UTC
Wow a bill that isn't a badly written piece of ****
[info]pixelante_ninja
2005-11-29 10:08 pm UTC (link)
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 minors

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Wow a bill that isn't a badly written piece of **** - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:10 pm UTC

[info]evilrockstu
2005-11-29 10:10 pm UTC (link)
Thank you, Senator people. Now, will someone please do something about that retarded 'E10' rating?

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.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]evilrockstu, 2005-11-29 10:16 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:20 pm UTC
Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto
[info]bigman_k
2005-11-29 10:11 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:16 pm UTC
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-29 10:34 pm UTC
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:39 pm UTC
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 03:49 am UTC
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-30 03:56 pm UTC
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 08:05 pm UTC
Re: Prior Restriant, Possible Bush Veto - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-30 10:36 pm UTC
Final-frickin'-ly.
[info]getwellgamer
2005-11-29 10:13 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-29 10:30 pm UTC
Ginsberg definition - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-29 10:36 pm UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]thenamelessdan, 2005-11-29 10:36 pm UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-29 10:46 pm UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]ryukisargi, 2005-11-30 05:39 am UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-30 03:53 pm UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]getwellgamer, 2005-11-29 10:49 pm UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]theliel, 2005-11-30 06:11 pm UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]shaun_skipper, 2005-11-30 04:31 am UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-30 04:38 am UTC
Re: Final-frickin'-ly. - [info]jabrwock, 2005-11-30 05:19 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)
(no subject) - [info]acquana, 2005-11-30 03:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]assamite36, 2005-11-30 08:51 am UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

(Reply from suspended user)
Hell has oficially frozen over
(Anonymous)
2005-11-29 10:17 pm UTC (link)
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

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Hell has oficially frozen over - [info]gamepolitics, 2005-12-01 12:05 pm UTC

[info]hammerslag
2005-11-29 10:18 pm UTC (link)
As much as a free-marketeer Libertarian as I am, I like this bill. It isn't condeming game companies, and it isn't trying to censor them.

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.

(Reply to this)

About time.
(Anonymous)
2005-11-29 10:23 pm UTC (link)
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.

(Reply to this)

What the crap?
[info]cowboybeboper42
2005-11-29 10:28 pm UTC (link)
"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.

(Reply to this)

In a sense, this hurts NIMF, Clinton, and Lieberman
[info]quartermaine
2005-11-29 10:28 pm UTC (link)
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?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: In a sense, this hurts NIMF, Clinton, and Lieberman - (Anonymous), 2005-11-29 10:40 pm UTC

[info]vaminion
2005-11-29 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Hell, I'm fine with this as it stands, long as the group that audits ratings is actually somewhat objective about it and not just a bunch of whackos chanting "It's a game, rate it M. It's a game, rate it M."

-P

(Reply to this)


[info]theogal
2005-11-29 10:30 pm UTC (link)
Maybe we gamers should start claiming victory if this bill passes. It seems to be about what everyone thinks is reasonable, and it might shut Jack up.

(Reply to this)

well THAT wasn't too difficult...
[info]rol34
2005-11-29 10:32 pm UTC (link)
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...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: well THAT wasn't too difficult... - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-29 10:50 pm UTC
Re: well THAT wasn't too difficult... - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 04:41 am UTC
Re: well THAT wasn't too difficult... - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-30 03:58 pm UTC

(Reply from suspended user)

(Anonymous)
2005-11-29 10:33 pm UTC (link)
I still don't see anything wrong with legislation of this sort. Stores won't regulate themselves, parents can only do so much with conflicting information from varying sources, and kids obviously can't make the right decisions about this. Limiting access to what kids can have doesn't strike me as censorship or threatening in any way. This kind of legislation is extremely important ot me, and I applaud it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Couldn't disagree more. - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-29 10:43 pm UTC
Re: Couldn't disagree more. - (Anonymous), 2005-11-30 03:54 am UTC
Re: Couldn't disagree more. - [info]shaun_skipper, 2005-11-30 04:34 am UTC
Re: Couldn't disagree more. - [info]mrmunkeepants, 2005-11-30 04:45 am UTC
Re: Couldn't disagree more. - [info]shaun_skipper, 2005-11-30 05:04 am UTC
Re: Couldn't disagree more. - [info]bigman_k, 2005-11-30 04:05 pm UTC
Umm... - [info]bustermanzero, 2005-11-29 11:01 pm UTC

[info]revengeofthezio
2005-11-29 10:34 pm UTC (link)
Wow. That law doesn't has as much bullshit as I thought it would. And it looks like I won't have to go to some "Adults Only" store to buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto if it was passed. And best of all, it might shut some people up.

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.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]iceph03nix, 2005-11-30 08:18 pm UTC

Page 1 of 4
<<[1] [2] [3] [4] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…