Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
New Bill Calls for Mandatory Video Game ID Checks
PuddingSenator
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I originally posted this in G&T but someone asked me to replicate it here:
Original Thread
From Gamasutra:
I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:
You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.
Original Thread
From Gamasutra:
Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson have introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives which would require all video game retailers to make identification checks on those buying video games intended for adults.
According to a Variety report, the proposed Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would require ID checks for any game rated M for mature or AO (adults only) and would also require stores to prominently display explanations of the existing ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system. Failure to comply in either case would result in a $5,000 fine.
Terry is optimistic that the act will not fall foul of first amendment concerns because it does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings. The bill has already gained support from the Parents Television Council.
“The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games, high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape,” said Terry.
“Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children,” he added.
I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.
PuddingSenator on
Posts
But this really isn't something that the government should be in charge of.
Steam PSN: DerWaffleMous Origin: DerWaffleMous Bnet: WaffleMous#1483
Precedent for what? Mandatory ID-checks? Because every time I've seen it come up it fails, and the film, television and music industries have set the precedent that this sort of thing is to be left to industry self-regulation.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
But anyway, I don't see how that is a precedent. That exception (which also applies to speech inciting violence, which is why you can't just be in a crowd and say "KILL THAT GUY!") is related to an immediate risk of physical violence to people in the surrounding area.
Fail.
The only precedent for that is porn though which is classified as "indecent". Unless said game is indecent there isn't any other correlation.
This is not even close to the same thing, one ensures that people don't die and this just ensures that children don't get games a 3rd party deems inappropriate but not indecent.
It is a big deal because restricting sales of games to minors with a law (in addition to just retailer discretion) discourages their manufacture even further which impacts people of all age groups.
That's pretty much it. I don't want GTA4 in the hand of a 12-year-old who scrounges up $60 of paper-boy earnings. But the government has absolutely no business governing that, the ESRB and retailers do. What makes video games any different than movies? There's no federal law that states movie theatres have to refuse admittance to an R-rated movie for minors--that's the MPAA's restriction.
Also:
Slander and Libel,
Reasonable time and place restrictions in schools,
Religious speech by teachers,
Obscene materials,
Classified information,
Fighting Words,
Rudeness among Senators.
That's off the top of my head. To reiterate: fail.
...Why do I care?
The main issues these bills have is they act like self enforcement doesn't exist.
If something shows sex, you can block it as pornography. We have no such statute for violence. Should we? Maybe. But TV and Movie companies would kill any attempt to do so.
That said, there's already a legal punishment for selling sex games to minors, so this is a bit o_O on that angle. It's just lobbing sex in there to get people riled up who wouldn't be pissy about violence.
This all said, companies need to get on enforcement at the checkout counter for ID checks. It won't keep the games out of kid's hands (hello parents, family, etc), but it will stop legislation in it's tracks if it can simply be shown that enforcement of these rules IS functional, the issue is people buying the games for the kids. Carding at the checkout line is just one layer of enforcement needed.
Not illegal just something you can be sued over. Try again. They can't throw you in jail.
Public property.
Only in Public forums. Different rules apply.
That's the only precedent and this may not be smut. That is the issue.
That's a breach of contract.
Not sure about that.
These are poor examples. Please stop being a fascist. Thank you.
1) It is unconstitutional.
2) The ESRB doesn't have any official (i.e. federal/legal) authority to judge the "appropriateness" of media, which is rather nebulous anyway. I mean, I can grab 20 or 50 or 100 friends and start the WTYWONYSPTBOYA (We Tell You Whether Or Not You Should Play This Based On Your Age) group and aside from the fact that the ESRB have been doing it for a long time and have settled into a faux position of authority, we'd have just as much right to judge the appropriateness of media as the ESRB or anyone else really. So, no. The ESRB should forever be an independant organization that provides their opinion on the appropriateness of media. If advertisers, retailers, developers, publishers, and console producers want to actively and even collectively agree with their ratings system, that's fine, because a company is under absolutely no legal or moral obligation not to discriminate based on age; they can sell or not sell pretty much to whomever they do or don't please. But the ESRB has no legal authority, never SHOULD have any legal authority, and while it DOESN'T have any legal authority, I think it is completely crazy to even attempt to legislate anything using their ratings.
This is something most of these legislators fail to understand. I've seen in the press releases for most of them that games should be legally restricted the same way R rated movies are.
Which they... are.
2) There is a massive amount of precedent for the restricting the sale of adult materials to children, and the only way to enforce this is with ID checks. The fact that some adults won't be able to purchase the game without an ID is immaterial, since we already require ID checks for purchasing of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and pornographic media.
There, that was easy.
Or you could show that self-enforcement of same wrt DVD and CD sales is no more effective than with videogames and question what makes videogames fundamentally different.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
To reiterate: fail.
I don't quite see how it's a free speech problem.
Also, it's only restricting the sale to minors...if it was illegal for a minor to be in possession of an M rated game...that'd be a little extreme.
Wrong wrong wrong. Do not compare "media" to alcohol, drugs and firearms. These are not the same.
The only remote comparison is Porn that's it. If it's not indecent there is no precedent.
Is it illegal to sell pornographic material to minors? And if so, what is the justification and could that be used here as well?
Except that it's already illegal to sell pornographic games to minors, and not already illegal to sell R-rated movies (which are frequently more intense than M-rated games) to minors. However retailers and theater ticket-stands will generally not allow minors to purchase an R-rated movie or a ticket to one without parental consent.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
However, the closest analogous material to video games are movies/TV. We do not legally require ID checks for purchasing violent movies or any movies falling short of Pornographic (nudity/sex doesn't matter, it has to have No Artistic Merit)
The supreme court already ruled that movies are protected under the 1st amendment in 1952 to shoot down a law banning minors from violent movies as unconstitutional.
It is illegal to sell pornographic material to minors. It falls outside of the 1st amendment due to being declared Obscene (having no artistic merit). Note this does not mean it's illegal to sell images of nude people to minors, just pornography, which is it's own classification.
Most people will not give minors nude images, however. But it allows for children to be allowed into art museums including nude statues/paintings.
One makes me say "ewww, that's gross." The other makes me listen to The Cure and dye my dog purple.
M rated games aren't pornographic. They're equivalent to R rated movies.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
It doesn't but comparing this to restrictions on sales of Alcohol or Guns or comparing it to civil suits regarding slander or speech in public school is fucking asinine.
There is no precedent for restricting the sale of violent media to minors in this country period. Passing a law like this breaks new ground on the limits of these things and it's fucking scary.
Ahh, ok, so not applicable here.
Unless they declare that video games have no artistic merit.
You missed the point by MILES.
Yeah, it comes down to participation. But the studies on it seem completely contrary to each other.
That said, Gamestop and Best Buy card my ass constantly, and I'm brushing up against 30 soon.
Was attempted in.. Utah? I think. Failed miserably.
Except that movies and television have long been claimed to inspire kids to do everything from abuse drugs to drive recklessly.
Edit: Rap music allegedly makes kids kill cops.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Slander and libel ARE restrictions on your first amendment rights, your right to say what you want about anyone, anywhere. Just because it's not criminal does not mean it's not a legal restriction of your right.
Yeah, I think I left something out. I intended to mention that while I really don't give a rat's ass if kids can buy mature games or not, I don't really think the government should be regulating it. Pressure the industry to regulate itself instead.
Anyway, my main point was that the whole "free speech" argument is bullshit because kids don't share the same rights as adults, that's all. I'll shut up now.
No I simply dismissed it and gave my reasoning for doing so. Notably different.
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
Uh what. They're not throwing the store owners in jail either, just assessing a fine.
Actually, the fact that it's public property has nothing to do with the restrictions on free speech. The rights of students in schools are not coextensive with those of adults in other settings.
The rules of debate in the senate and house prohibit impertinence, the impugning of motives, and offensive reference to states. Oh god, fascists!
They're great examples of why
is remarkably ignorant.
They tried this bullshit with music in the 80's but all they got was the self regulating explicit lyrics stickers on CD's which was a compromise. The lyrics sticker isn't enforced by law it's just something the music industry did. The ESRB does the exact same thing.
But that isn't good enough for these moralizing fuckwads they want to just make this shit illegal. Fuck them.
Because it's art. Which is protected under freedom of speech. Guns are not protected under freedom of speech.