House bill would prohibit violent game sales to minors
Politicians are proposing bills that would impact the game industry: one that would impose a 1% tax on violent games, and another that would restrict their sale to minors.
As the political dialogue on video game violence continues in the wake of the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, state representatives are starting to propose and draft legislation that would place restrictions on the game industry. One proposal would tax violent video games, while a drafted House bill would ban the sale of Adults Only or Mature-rated games to minors.
The AP (via Joystiq) reports that Representative Diane Franklin (R-MO) is proposing a 1% sales tax on violent video games, the proceeds of which would then be put towards law enforcement. This is similar to an Oklahoma bill that was defeated in a state house subcommittee last year.
Meanwhile, a new bill from Jim Matheson (D-UT), HR-287 (PDF), would require ratings labels on games, and restrict retailers from selling AO or M-rated games below their respective age recommendations of 18 or 17. Failure to comply with any part of the law would result in a fine up to $5,000 per violation. While the ESRB already exists to voluntarily rates games as a bit of self-regulation for the industry, the bill would make it a legal requirement.
If this all sounds incredibly familiar, it's because the Supreme Court struck down a similar state law from California in 2011. The state law would have imposed its own standards for what qualified as a violent game, so HR-287 wouldn't have that problem. But the SCOTUS' ruling was couched in the First Amendment, stating outright that "the basic principles of freedom of speech do not vary" based on the medium. So if this bill passes into law, it would likely be challenged in court.
To some extent the game industry is battling public perception. A NBC/WSJ News Poll (PDF) released last night showed 62% of respondents claiming violent media like movies and video games hold at least "a good amount" of responsibility for shootings like the ones in Tuscon and Newtown. By comparison, availability of guns and other weapons in general was only believed to be responsible at 53%, and availability of assault firearms was at 59%. This echoes Vice President Biden's recent comments that public opinion may be against the game industry.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, House bill would prohibit violent game sales to minors.
Politicians are proposing bills that would impact the game industry: one that would impose a 1% tax on violent games, and another that would restrict their sale to minors.-
-
-
It wouldn't change how parents buy this shit now. I went in to Gamestop the other day, and a mother was buying a M rated game for her son who was probably around 12-14 years of age. The Gamestop employee said she needed to see an ID, the mom showed hers. Then the son tried to hand the cashier the money. The girl said she couldn't take it from him, since he was under age. The mom grabbed the money from the son, and threw it on the counter as she rolled her eyes. This is the type of person who probably then goes on to complain about the content OF THE FUCKING GAME SHE WAS WARNED ABOUT BUYING FOR HER UNDERAGE SON.
-
Or she probably knew exactly what she was buying her son. I don't agree with her being snappy towards the cashier for doing her job, but I believe it's a parent's right to deem whats appropriate for their children. I have three kids, and there are certain M Rated games that I don't mind them playing, but others I don't even let them see.
-
I agree with Mancide here, a huge number of purchases for video games are moms that have no clue what the game is about. They just want to stop hearing about it from their kids whining. I've seen this case occur so, so, so many times in Gamestop, toys'r'us and target...its ridiculous.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Much like in every other entertainment industry, it's not an actual law.
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
I don't think that really makes sense. The government is supposed to be representative of the people and its members are elected by the people. It makes laws governing a variety of things all the time--thereby executing the will of the people. Why would this be any different? (I'm not arguing whether this specific instance is right or wrong, just taking issue with the logic.)
-
Because it's a first amendment issue. The same reason the government doesn't control our access to movies or books or music.
-
But it seems to me that if the MPAA, for example, declined to enforce its voluntary code, the government would step in and do it--and in fact doesn't do so only because the industry voluntarily agrees to do it. But the MPAA is clearly enforcing societal norms, which is the same thing governments do. I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes who enforces the norms after the point at which it's accepted that X and Y are in fact the norms.
-
First, undercover "stings" for the last few years have found that the videogame industry does a better job of enforcing ratings than the film industry does. http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/04/violentkidsent.shtm
Second, films are not required to be rated which if proved by the endless "unrated" editions of films that come out on dvds.
Third, there is a great deal of debate over the norms that the MPAA is enforcing. Watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated." The ratings process is unclear, vague, and largely in the hands of a few anonymous people rather than any even remotely objective standard.
Finally, regarding whether or not the government would regulate film content if the MPAA didn't, that would be a huge first amendment issue and would never happen unless there was a mountain of evidence that there was a compelling reasons to do so -- and no such mountain has been discovered.-
Second, films are not required to be rated which if proved by the endless "unrated" editions of films that come out on dvds.
But if you want to get into theaters and make money, you do have to rate.
Third, there is a great deal of debate over the norms that the MPAA is enforcing. Watch "This Film is Not Yet Rated." The ratings process is unclear, vague, and largely in the hands of a few anonymous people rather than any even remotely objective standard.
Which I would think is the way the industry intentionally wants it so that they can try and get away with what they like should it suit them. Most voluntary codes in any industry are written that way. (Even when they're done by government, lobby groups are often successful in swiss cheesing them with loopholes.)
Finally, regarding whether or not the government would regulate film content if the MPAA didn't, that would be a huge first amendment issue and would never happen unless there was a mountain of evidence that there was a compelling reasons to do so -- and no such mountain has been discovered.
IIRC, the US government did use to have ratings boards. I think it might have been in the '50s or '60s that they were removed.
Again, none of this is to take a position on this games issue specifically--just the concept of who regulates, when and so on.-
-
Meanwhile, a new bill from Jim Matheson (D-UT), HR-287 (PDF), would require ratings labels on games, and restrict retailers from selling AO or M-rated games below their respective age recommendations of 18 or 17.
The D is for Da Republican!
The Republican drafting the 1% tax bill is just a State Representative in Missouri.-
Attica Blue seems to be talking about a governmental agency deciding what's acceptable and what's not. When you create such an agency, no matter who started it, eventually there will be a time when your political opponents have control of it.
I used Republicans as the example because their positions are most typically opposed to Attica Blue's, and because there is recent history of a Republican administration actively suppressing scientific information that conflicted with the party ideology.
-
-
As I say, I'm not arguing for or against it--just questioning the idea that government has no role or place, as an absolute, in defining the "boundaries" of cultural consumption.
-
-
But if you want to get into theaters and make money, you do have to rate.
That is true but my point about unrated dvds was in response to your comment that if the mpaa didn't enforce their code the government would. I was trying to point out that the movie industry already goes around their own ratings and actually uses "unrated" as a selling point for dvds.
Which I would think is the way the industry intentionally wants it so that they can try and get away with what they like should it suit them.
That might be true but only if the people making the film know that. Instead filmmakers submit a film for rating and get a rating with little explanation of why or what it would take to get a different rating.
What I was trying to point out is that the MPAA is not "clearly enforcing societal norms" but opaquely enforcing their own arbitrary rules which may or may not have anything to do with societal norms.
IIRC, the US government did use to have ratings boards.
There used to be the Hays code which was created by the film industry in response to local and state censorship boards which would routinely edit movies to take out "objectionable content." This was legal at the time because the Supreme Court had declared that films weren't entitled to first amendment protection. That case wasn't overturned until the 50s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
-
-
-
-
-
They don't have a say over movies, tv content, or book sales to minors. Why should they have a say over video games? As far as I'm concerned they're just another form or art or media and shouldn't be treated any differently.
-
-
the film and TV ratings systems are voluntary and effective. if a parent feels his child can handle adult-oriented material that should be their choice. after all, it's art and entertainment, not actual weaponry or poisons or such. wouldn't it be rather draconian and orwellian to fine or jail a parent for letting his 14-year old play an M-rated game or watch The Terminator?
-
-
The hilarious thing to me has been the game of hot potato between gun people and video game people, scrambling to *NOT* be the ones hit with the fallout from all of this boolsheet.
Then both sides get splattered with tail flung government hippo shit and now my sides hurt from the laughing.
<<<Laughing so he doesn't cry.-
-
You're really trying to depress me, aren't you?
<<<Gun owning gamer who directs movies for a living.-
-
BAAAAAAWW!!!
<<<Didn't like that movie much but still.
*Twitch*
-
-
-
-
-
-
And last I read about it they said played warcraft and starcraft. I wouldn't really consider either fo them especially violent.
If he had commited the murders by casting a spell or sending in some giant robots it would make more sense.-
Depends on how you define violent.
Almost everything you do in those games qualifies as "killing shit".
-
I swear there was a study done that suggested the most prominent (and still very temporary and minor) effect from game playing came from playing competitive games, violent or not.
-
Which of course makes sense because you are competing against another real person, who you can get mad at, if you are already prone to being a poor loser/winner.
I have had fits of rage at video games. I have smashed controllers. (This was when I was still young, of course) I have never, EVER taken my anger out at a game on another person. Ever.
Of course that is anecdotal but whatever, I'm not trying to prove a thesis, just shooting the shit.
-
-
well I understand the anti-game/film violence people ussually refer to desensitization. While there is similarity in a robot or spaceship exploding to shooting someone in the face, I think shooting someone in the face in a game is much more similar to actually shooting someone in the face. While I still don't agree with their arguments the parallels are much closer in the second scenario.
-
I'm just delineating the difference between violence and gore.
Starcraft is hundreds of dudes killing one another en masse.
It is not gory like a first person shooter with a shutgun to the face closeup. I get that.
But really, what would (If it were true, which it isn't) desensitize someone more? Portraying violence without the gore from a long way away, like an RTS, or The goriest screaming mess right in your face?
To distance you from and depersonalize the event is gonna make it have less impact.
Not that any of it matters because it's all bullshit.-
(Keeping in mind also that most real life killing that happens looks like this now) -
http://arlingtoncardinal.com/2008Articles/SanDiegoFLIR1.jpg
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As long as parents can still buy kids actual guns we're ok. Glad their taking on the real problem here.
-
[deleted]
-
nah, that would be silly.
-
-
-
Already more or less enforced by major retailers and impossible to enforce against online retailers.
This is another "feel good" legislation that will have zero effect on anything but sure makes the concerned feel good about it.
Let's put this into a little perspective. Vast majority of these violent attacks have been performed by non-minors (or youths near of age). -
-
lmao. yeah congress' approval rating is 18%. I think it's clear where the problem is.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159401/congress-approval-remains-during-fiscal-cliff-debate.aspx
you want it to be obama... but... it isn't.-
It's all government, and it all sucks.
-
-
The biggest problem with the Government is the majority of the House is made up of sore losers and religious fundies. The House that made this bill which will go nowhere. Obama is getting a study together to once and for all end this media blaming nonsense and at the meantime is doing something (not enough) about the gun problem.
I'm sorry you have a unjustified problem with the President. Learn to see all sides of an issue and find out where the blame truly lies.-
Incorrect. The biggest problem with the Government is that it is made entirely of politicians.
-
-
-
-
Errr...I can't kill someone with a game...unless I walk over and ram the DVD it came on down their throat. Get a grip, man...gun control is something totally different.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
All of this falls apart because it's difficult to write an infallible definition of what a violent game is. If the law is written based on a self imposed rating system, what makes it a requirement to be rated? Steam probably wouldn't care. Walmart would though. So, you don't tell CoD 22 or Quake 7 (see what I did there) at Walmart.
Seems like there are plenty of loopholes to work through - at least until we see real language.-
We could generate a list of arbitrary "features" that define what a violent video game.
Number of guns in inventory at the same time.
Whether or not there is blood in game.
Body count.
Whether you can kill children.
Bayonet lugs-
BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE LETTER A AND The Shoulder Thing That Goes Up.
-
-
-
I find it funny that they are trying to punish the game makers and the game sellers for parents that will buy or let there young kid games with an M rating. Growing up my folks never let me have an M rating game till i was old enough to understand the difference between game world and real world. I do have memory's of playing games like Max Payne and Manhunt growing up but, that wasn't till i was in my teens and I paid for the games myself. That being said I strongly believe that its up to the parent of said kids that want to go out and buy the games. Also there is more violence in the real world than in video games.
-
Aren't stores already doing a decent job doing this. I've even seen gamestop turn some dude away because he was the kids grandfather and not his father. And lol at the kid for trying to get grandpa to buy Saints Row 3 for him.
-
First it was jazz music.
Then it was Rock and Roll.
Then it was D&D.
Now it's video games.
I wonder what the cop out will be in 20 years?-
food.
-
You forgot Slayer, Satan (Satan & Slayer combined), Marilyn Manson, and Satan again.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Force Commander literally killed my childhood.
-
-
-
-
-
-
If they do this bullcrap then they cant just tax violent games they would need to ban children from going to rated R movies even with an adult. every game would have to be taxed and every violent tv show cancelled. you cant tax us for something thats not the cause. some countries dont allow war games doesnt stop them from killing people in real llife. violence is nature. It the government who causes people to kill people with tax increases and taking the poor mans hard earned money so we can go to war and steal everything from poorer countries. so dont pin some shooting on games when you know what the real problem is.
-
Some retailers you need an adult to buy any M game.. the ban will just enforce this with law instead of voluntarily doing so... Steam will need to add a filter and age gate with legalese and all that for minors.
all in all why not... underage children that want the games will still get them though parents or friends anyways... as for the TAX thats silly... game prices are already inflated and higher prices means more piracy, that's a bad idea... -
I only wish that a law restricting the sale of violent games to minors would work. But it wouldn't, because parents these days are far too STUPID and UNINFORMED to even care what they are allowing their kids to play. I work in a retail store where day in and day out I see parents buying games like Call of Duty for children who aren't in their tweens, and there's absolutely nothing I as a salesperson can do about it. Do I think these games cause children to become violent? Absolutely not, provided that those children are well-educated, well-cared for and properly raised, but if parents are allowing TV and videogames to babysit their kids and not monitoring what their kids play and are exposed to, is it any wonder that some kids end up with very skewed perceptions of reality?
There are rating systems in place for all forms of media, and the videogame industry's has been lauded as the best. Parents need to fucking wise up and start USING IT when buying games for their children.
-
