Mr. Nukem goes to Washington Gaming as a felony: Part II? Congress prepares to resume
01-17-03, 10:43 AM
#1
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Nukem goes to Washington Gaming as a felony: Part II? Congress prepares to resume
http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/15/comm...ming/index.htm
Comments:
This article seems to be pretty down to earth, nice factual content, not a bunch of editorial/emotional opinons.
I personally could not agree more, there should be better control over who purchases "M" labeled video games. The rating is there because of the same people complaining about video game content, now the people that bitched about it should READ it and ABIDE by it.
I author also notes that PARENTS are dropping the ball!
Mr. Nukem goes to Washington
Gaming as a felony: Part II? Congress prepares to resume the debate.
January 15, 2003: 3:06 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Politically, 2003 isn't getting off to a great start for gaming companies. Rested from its winter vacations, the government seems more eager than ever to hold the industry's feet to the fire.
In February, Rep. Joe Baca (D. Calif.) is expected to resurrect "The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act". (The original version died last year in the subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security.) When it's reintroduced, the bill will have the same goal: making it a federal crime to sell or rent violent video games to anyone under 18. The language, though, is being reworked. Last year's proposal failed to get traction because of concerns about the scope of the bill and potential first amendment issues. Aggressive lobbying efforts by retailers and the gaming industry – certain to be repeated this year – also played a role in the defeat.
Baca's office told me the new bill is being modeled on a St. Louis ordinance that makes it illegal to sell or rent a violent video game to a minor without a parent/guardian's consent. Passed in 2000, that ordinance withstood a legal challenge by the gaming industry in 2002, which claimed the law was a violation of First Amendment rights. (That U.S. District Court ruling currently stands as the gaming industry's most significant legal defeat, though another appeal is underway.)
Baca's original bill solely targeted retailers. This year's version, though, might widen its net and include Cyber Cafes, though no final decision has been made on that. (Over the past year, there have been occasional acts of violence at these cafes in California, including one incident where two teens suffered gunshot wounds.)
Cyber Cafes are a fairly limited market, though. The real impact of this proposed law, if passed, would be on retailers, who would be the ones penalized for infractions. The gaming industry would see a trickle down effect if sales suffered.
"Postal 2," which is bound to earn an "M" rating upon release, would be affected by the bill.
Directly targeting gaming companies, you see, would be a fool's mission for politicians. The St. Louis ruling notwithstanding, any government effort to dictate what developers put into a game would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Putting the onus on retailers is safer legally, but raises some issues of its own.
There's no question that stores need to do a better job policing themselves when it comes to the sale and rental of "M"-rated games. Children are getting their hands on mature titles too easily, thanks in part to the teens that typically work the registers. (There's no quicker road to popularity than giving your peers access to something verboten.)
The obvious solution is to hire adults to work those registers. The pay scale for such a job is a lot less than many adults are willing to work for, though. This leaves retailers facing two less than appealing choices: Substantially raise salaries while sales remain flat or take the risk of violating the law.
Some stores tried an unusual approach when the controversial dud "BMX XXX" went on sale, putting the game behind the counter, with everything except the title covered by a thick piece of black plastic (picture Playboy magazine behind a convenience store counter). The game flopped, but it wasn't because of that plastic. Aside from a few curiosity seekers, gamers scoffed at this title.
Better parental supervision is unquestionably required, but we're not seeing a lot of progress on that front. Too many guardians cling to the belief that games haven't progressed beyond Pac Man and Mario, and thus take little to no interest in what their children are playing. Others vilify all M-rated games, not realizing there's a world of difference between titles like "Postal" (where you kill indiscriminately) and the "Thief" games (where stealth is encouraged and you face repercussions for killing).
Federal laws regulating sales of these games is a knee-jerk reaction. (Note that you don't see any such laws regulating the film or television industries, which depict more brutal acts of violence all the time.) Retailer efforts to do something about the situation have obviously floundered. I'll admit I'm a little stumped here, too. What do you think? Send me your proposed solutions and we'll compare notes in a future column.
Gaming as a felony: Part II? Congress prepares to resume the debate.
January 15, 2003: 3:06 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Politically, 2003 isn't getting off to a great start for gaming companies. Rested from its winter vacations, the government seems more eager than ever to hold the industry's feet to the fire.
In February, Rep. Joe Baca (D. Calif.) is expected to resurrect "The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act". (The original version died last year in the subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security.) When it's reintroduced, the bill will have the same goal: making it a federal crime to sell or rent violent video games to anyone under 18. The language, though, is being reworked. Last year's proposal failed to get traction because of concerns about the scope of the bill and potential first amendment issues. Aggressive lobbying efforts by retailers and the gaming industry – certain to be repeated this year – also played a role in the defeat.
Baca's office told me the new bill is being modeled on a St. Louis ordinance that makes it illegal to sell or rent a violent video game to a minor without a parent/guardian's consent. Passed in 2000, that ordinance withstood a legal challenge by the gaming industry in 2002, which claimed the law was a violation of First Amendment rights. (That U.S. District Court ruling currently stands as the gaming industry's most significant legal defeat, though another appeal is underway.)
Baca's original bill solely targeted retailers. This year's version, though, might widen its net and include Cyber Cafes, though no final decision has been made on that. (Over the past year, there have been occasional acts of violence at these cafes in California, including one incident where two teens suffered gunshot wounds.)
Cyber Cafes are a fairly limited market, though. The real impact of this proposed law, if passed, would be on retailers, who would be the ones penalized for infractions. The gaming industry would see a trickle down effect if sales suffered.
"Postal 2," which is bound to earn an "M" rating upon release, would be affected by the bill.
Directly targeting gaming companies, you see, would be a fool's mission for politicians. The St. Louis ruling notwithstanding, any government effort to dictate what developers put into a game would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Putting the onus on retailers is safer legally, but raises some issues of its own.
There's no question that stores need to do a better job policing themselves when it comes to the sale and rental of "M"-rated games. Children are getting their hands on mature titles too easily, thanks in part to the teens that typically work the registers. (There's no quicker road to popularity than giving your peers access to something verboten.)
The obvious solution is to hire adults to work those registers. The pay scale for such a job is a lot less than many adults are willing to work for, though. This leaves retailers facing two less than appealing choices: Substantially raise salaries while sales remain flat or take the risk of violating the law.
Some stores tried an unusual approach when the controversial dud "BMX XXX" went on sale, putting the game behind the counter, with everything except the title covered by a thick piece of black plastic (picture Playboy magazine behind a convenience store counter). The game flopped, but it wasn't because of that plastic. Aside from a few curiosity seekers, gamers scoffed at this title.
Better parental supervision is unquestionably required, but we're not seeing a lot of progress on that front. Too many guardians cling to the belief that games haven't progressed beyond Pac Man and Mario, and thus take little to no interest in what their children are playing. Others vilify all M-rated games, not realizing there's a world of difference between titles like "Postal" (where you kill indiscriminately) and the "Thief" games (where stealth is encouraged and you face repercussions for killing).
Federal laws regulating sales of these games is a knee-jerk reaction. (Note that you don't see any such laws regulating the film or television industries, which depict more brutal acts of violence all the time.) Retailer efforts to do something about the situation have obviously floundered. I'll admit I'm a little stumped here, too. What do you think? Send me your proposed solutions and we'll compare notes in a future column.
This article seems to be pretty down to earth, nice factual content, not a bunch of editorial/emotional opinons.
I personally could not agree more, there should be better control over who purchases "M" labeled video games. The rating is there because of the same people complaining about video game content, now the people that bitched about it should READ it and ABIDE by it.
I author also notes that PARENTS are dropping the ball!
01-17-03, 10:53 AM
#2
Retired
I agree as well. I don't know about making it a felony, but there should definitely be a fine for anyone who sells M-rated games to a minor. Parents have dropped the ball in many cases, so this will only help at least project the image of keeping M-rated games out of kids hands and shut up the politicians a little. Another plus is that if this law is enforced fairly strictly and the M-rated games still sell well (as they will) it will help show the public that the average gamer is over 18 (by several years) and maybe help get rid of the "games are for kids" stigma.
01-17-03, 12:58 PM
#4
DVD Talk God
yawn. Until they make it a crime to allow children into rated R movies, it'll never happen.
01-17-03, 03:01 PM
#8
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
Don't theaters already get fined for letting minors into R rated movies without a parent?
Don't theaters already get fined for letting minors into R rated movies without a parent?
01-17-03, 03:09 PM
#9
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
Don't theaters already get fined for letting minors into R rated movies without a parent?
Don't theaters already get fined for letting minors into R rated movies without a parent?
Conversation in prison:
Serial Rapist: "So, what are you in for?"
Former Blockbuster associate: "I let this 17 year old rent Halo."
I know I'm exaggerating a little bit...
01-17-03, 06:05 PM
#10
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
There's no question that stores need to do a better job policing themselves when it comes to the sale and rental of "M"-rated games. Children are getting their hands on mature titles too easily, thanks in part to the teens that typically work the registers. (There's no quicker road to popularity than giving your peers access to something verboten.)
01-17-03, 06:16 PM
#11
Retired
I disagree, and understand the authors point. A 16 or 17 year old will face peer pressure to sell M-rated games to his under-18 friends. Not caring is also a major factor, but the author's point is valid. No teen is going to want to look like a prude to his friends. If they manager's not around, he'll sell the games to his friends.
01-18-03, 01:03 PM
#15
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Jason
Theoretically. But theoretically people under 18 can't view pr0n on the internet either.
Theoretically. But theoretically people under 18 can't view pr0n on the internet either.
01-18-03, 07:25 PM
#16
Retired
Originally posted by darkside
Federal Crime? It should be a federal crime to be a crappy parent. If your kid is getting M rated games its your fault not the game store.
Federal Crime? It should be a federal crime to be a crappy parent. If your kid is getting M rated games its your fault not the game store.
But I agree that a federal crime is going to far. Just put a fine on it, and enforce it every once in a while like with movie theaters. I know the theater where I went to undergrad used to never check IDs, then they got fined (it was in the paper) and the started checking, and where still checking 2 years later when I moved away. Even a fine that isn't strictly enforced will make some difference. Many managers will start being more strict just to avoid it.
I have no problems with it because anything that at least provides the image of keeping mature games out of kids will quiet the politicians for a while and reduce any chance of censorship.
01-20-03, 10:55 AM
#17
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Just FYI. Toys R Us already has a policy in place where someone (not sure if it is corporate or what) fines an individual store if they get caught selling M rated games to anyone under 17. We have signs posted in the break room and at the RZone registers. We also have a little "note" on the register that pops up when we scan an M title that lets us know and reminds us to check ID. They take it pretty seriously.
X
X
01-20-03, 02:23 PM
#18
Retired
That's a great policy. I have no problems with the government stepping in and requiring all stores to have a policy like that. Making it a felony is going over board though. Just come up with a fine, require stores to post signs saying they won't sell to those under 17 (like the cigarrete and alcohol signs you see), and do periodic inspections to try to improve compliance.
01-20-03, 02:49 PM
#19
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
[B]That's not true at all. Many kids (especiall teens) earn their own money mowing lawns and what not, and then go shopping with friends. It's the gamestores jobs not to sell it to them if their under 17. Even the best parents can't keep their eyes on their kids all the time.
[B]
[B]That's not true at all. Many kids (especiall teens) earn their own money mowing lawns and what not, and then go shopping with friends. It's the gamestores jobs not to sell it to them if their under 17. Even the best parents can't keep their eyes on their kids all the time.
[B]
The stores should be more responsible, I agree. But parents HAVE to check on what their kids are getting into. This whole "I don't invade their personal lives" crap has to go.
01-20-03, 02:57 PM
#20
Retired
That's not the point.
Sure a parent can watch what their kid is playing, but the issue at hand is the kid being able to walk into the store and buy the game. That should never happen. It doesn't matter that the parent can take it away from them.
Parent's definitely need to be 100% involved with, and informed on, what their kids are doing. However, stores need to help them out by not selling M-rated games to kids.
Sure a parent can watch what their kid is playing, but the issue at hand is the kid being able to walk into the store and buy the game. That should never happen. It doesn't matter that the parent can take it away from them.
Parent's definitely need to be 100% involved with, and informed on, what their kids are doing. However, stores need to help them out by not selling M-rated games to kids.
01-21-03, 12:55 AM
#21
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
That's not the point.
Sure a parent can watch what their kid is playing, but the issue at hand is the kid being able to walk into the store and buy the game. That should never happen. It doesn't matter that the parent can take it away from them.
Parent's definitely need to be 100% involved with, and informed on, what their kids are doing. However, stores need to help them out by not selling M-rated games to kids.
That's not the point.
Sure a parent can watch what their kid is playing, but the issue at hand is the kid being able to walk into the store and buy the game. That should never happen. It doesn't matter that the parent can take it away from them.
Parent's definitely need to be 100% involved with, and informed on, what their kids are doing. However, stores need to help them out by not selling M-rated games to kids.
01-21-03, 04:00 AM
#22
DVD Talk Legend
I'm sorry, but I still think this bill is stupid - it's the parent's responsability to monitor what their child sees/plays/listens to/watches/etc... not some dude making 5 bucks an hour who's mind is on asking the girl who works at Cinnabon out to a Star Trek convention. I mean - who are you gonna federally imprison when some 16 year old nose-picker sells GTA3 to some other 16 year old nose-picker at Gamestop? It's not the government's job to be parents to children. The more we allow the government to meddle, the more freedoms we are giving away.
01-21-03, 08:48 AM
#23
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Originally posted by Trigger
I'm sorry, but I still think this bill is stupid - it's the parent's responsability to monitor what their child sees/plays/listens to/watches/etc... not some dude making 5 bucks an hour who's mind is on asking the girl who works at Cinnabon out to a Star Trek convention. I mean - who are you gonna federally imprison when some 16 year old nose-picker sells GTA3 to some other 16 year old nose-picker at Gamestop? It's not the government's job to be parents to children. The more we allow the government to meddle, the more freedoms we are giving away.
I'm sorry, but I still think this bill is stupid - it's the parent's responsability to monitor what their child sees/plays/listens to/watches/etc... not some dude making 5 bucks an hour who's mind is on asking the girl who works at Cinnabon out to a Star Trek convention. I mean - who are you gonna federally imprison when some 16 year old nose-picker sells GTA3 to some other 16 year old nose-picker at Gamestop? It's not the government's job to be parents to children. The more we allow the government to meddle, the more freedoms we are giving away.
On another note, while I feel that making it a felony and arresting people would be ridiculous, I fail to see what "freedoms" we are giving away by not selling Mature rated games to little kids. I have no problem with this concept.
I also agree that most (90%) of the responsibility falls on the parents. I am also in the boat of having to talk dozens of parents out of buying Vice City for their 10 year old. Pay attention people! Show a little interest in what your kids are doing!
X
01-21-03, 11:04 AM
#24
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Willow Grove, PA
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Making it a federal felony is silly and it will not happen.
Why? Because buying/selling [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc] underage is not a federal crime.
State/local law bodies should develop and institute procedures/regulations for abiding by the ratings systems.
This would include punishment for violators. This is what was (is) done with [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc] -- it is not one, all encompassing federal law, but rather laws that are unique to the state/local area at hand.
Will I agree that a universal federal law would make it easier, which is not the way our democracy typically works for things of this nature.
The only problem I see is the problems that currently exist with the regulation of [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc]
1. No one will expend the time/manpower to see if stores are following established regulations.
2. Only items that have been placed in specialty stores (like alcohol and most porn in PA) are effectively kept “off limits” to minors.
3.
Until everyone sees urgency in protecting minors from M titles (or [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc]) the regulation will be very lax.
Urgency for the regulation of alcohol has existed for quite some time and can be seen. Urgency for the regulation of tobacco products is increasing every day. Urgency for “R” rate movies is much more prevalent then 10 years ago.
Why? Because buying/selling [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc] underage is not a federal crime.
State/local law bodies should develop and institute procedures/regulations for abiding by the ratings systems.
This would include punishment for violators. This is what was (is) done with [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc] -- it is not one, all encompassing federal law, but rather laws that are unique to the state/local area at hand.
Will I agree that a universal federal law would make it easier, which is not the way our democracy typically works for things of this nature.
The only problem I see is the problems that currently exist with the regulation of [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc]
1. No one will expend the time/manpower to see if stores are following established regulations.
2. Only items that have been placed in specialty stores (like alcohol and most porn in PA) are effectively kept “off limits” to minors.
3.
Until everyone sees urgency in protecting minors from M titles (or [porno, music, alcohol, cigarettes, etc]) the regulation will be very lax.
Urgency for the regulation of alcohol has existed for quite some time and can be seen. Urgency for the regulation of tobacco products is increasing every day. Urgency for “R” rate movies is much more prevalent then 10 years ago.
01-21-03, 04:12 PM
#25
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Xander
On behalf of all of us responsible married adults who are doing this as their second job, HEY!
On another note, while I feel that making it a felony and arresting people would be ridiculous, I fail to see what "freedoms" we are giving away by not selling Mature rated games to little kids. I have no problem with this concept.
I also agree that most (90%) of the responsibility falls on the parents. I am also in the boat of having to talk dozens of parents out of buying Vice City for their 10 year old. Pay attention people! Show a little interest in what your kids are doing!
X
On behalf of all of us responsible married adults who are doing this as their second job, HEY!
On another note, while I feel that making it a felony and arresting people would be ridiculous, I fail to see what "freedoms" we are giving away by not selling Mature rated games to little kids. I have no problem with this concept.
I also agree that most (90%) of the responsibility falls on the parents. I am also in the boat of having to talk dozens of parents out of buying Vice City for their 10 year old. Pay attention people! Show a little interest in what your kids are doing!
X
)If we're gonna give up that freedom and right (the right to parent our own kids) to the government, then I think we should allow the government to decide who gets to have kids and who doesn't. Cuz to me, these things are in the same neighborhood.