The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
New Bill Calls for Mandatory Video Game ID Checks
PuddingSenator
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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.
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
0
Posts
This. Seriously, even other year we get this kind of crap from one politician or another to pander to the "concerned yet too stupid to parent their own children" crowd.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
PS2
FF X replay
PS3
God of War 1&2 HD
Rachet and Clank Future
MGS 4
Prince of Persia
360
Bayonetta
Fable 3
DS
FF: 4 heroes of light
Well, basically that would mean parents wouldn't be able to control or tell their kids what they can or can't watch... Which I'm sure wasn't the intended use of the First Amendment. Either way, I don't see the big deal with it. There are mandatory age checks for R-rated movies in the theaters in my area. Maybe that differs on a state by state basis?
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
Well... There are those Hentai games...
No. No I haven't.
There's a game where your player character almost GETS raped..
Anyone remember which Phantasmagoria that was? The one about the couple that moves into the house haunted by the ghost of the loony magician.
Okay, two questions: Why? and Who is it hurting?
No, it wouldn't restrict parents. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech, it doesn't prevent anyone else, including parents, from doing so. Parents can prevent their kids from doing anything they want, except for eating I guess...
There are no government-enforced age checks for movies, movie theaters voluntarily check ID, just like many retailers do now for video games.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Just driving, smoking, drinking, buying pornographic material, voting, and signing contracts.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Supreme court disagrees with you:
Anyways I don't see how this applies to the rights of a minor - their speech isn't being restricted. It's the game that is being restricted, the sale of it at least. How is that not a form of artistic expression like film? There is a test that applies here:
How many copies of GTA sold so far? Do we really think a game that's made, what, $500 million in the first week after release is viewed as obscene by a reasonable person?
My Portfolio Site
Stop me if I'm wrong but the reason why a law is being considered is because the games industry has failed to regulate itself and instead concentrated on selling violent games clearly designed for children *cough* manhunt *cough*.
Seriously, I'm all for adult games and perhaps if adult games can only be sold to adults we'll start seeing adult violence as in Goodfellas in games rather than "adult" violence as in Itchy and Scratchy.
Think about it, all the bad press video games get is because this or that little kid is playing a game rated older than them. At least this way it's their parents' or older siblins' fault for buying them a game they shouldn't be playing. Get some of the heat off the industry and onto parents who should be taking care of their kids in the first place.
I see it the same as buying porn or cigarettes or R-rated movies (when the ticket person is paying attention) where you show your ID. I don't mind it, and I sometimes still get carded at movies despite being 26.
The only people who should be complaining about this are those who are under 18 and can't sneak a purchase of a M rated game from inattentive store clerks anymore.
Does it stink that the govt needs to regulate this? Yes. But apparently the retail game business can't regulate themselves, so it's up to the next person in line, the govt, to do it. If GameStop, WalMart, and all the other stores that sold games had policed themselves and put this into policy years ago, we wouldn't be seeing this today.
And yet not all of them do. Almost all movie theatres check ID, and are actually allowed to keep people out. The reason why the government hasn't stepped in there is because they don't have to.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think video games are the sole cause of kids becoming fuckwits. But I don't see the harm in them enforcing carding for games (seriously, most everyone on this board is old enough to get whatever the hell they want), and it'll also give us all a chance to see if the lobbyists are right in that games are being sold to the wrong people.
I saw these posts and thought one was a response to the other.
And didn't something dodgy happen in that Custer's Revenge game way back when?
Driving is restricted because children lack the maturity to make informed decisions on the road, and may pose a risk to others. Smoking and drinking are restricted because they post significant, proven health risks which children are not mature enough to make objective decisions about. Pornographic material has been made an exception for in the speech area because, IIRC, it is seen as "content-free" in that it has no intended message as such, and is intended only to titillate (if you've played GTA4 and think it's only purpose is to titillate, you're a moron). I'm not a constitutional scholar, but that's my recollection of the justification there. Voting is restricted because of the need for a mature voting populous.
I don't see how any of this applies to video games. There are no health risks, they are clearly pieces of art that do not fall under the pornography exception (though there are many that would contend they do), etc.
So when you buy GTA, do you buy it directly from Rockstar, or do you maybe go to a store like Target or Best Buy? And maybe the store, not the publisher, is at fault for not following ESRB guidelines?
And who the fuck thinks that Manhunt is designed for kids?
Edit - I myself am really uninformed of things, for the record.
Thank you for doing the research I was too lazy to do.
No, there are not. It's voluntary.
The government has no place regulating content that is protected under the First Amendment. At all.
No. There aren't.
edit: beat'd
That was the first one. And yes, she gets raped by her husband in one scene near the end.
I dont think anyone has consented to a good clean corpse hump. But thats necrophilia really.
Exactly, and that's why this is a terrible, terrible bill. Saying "oh, it's just like cigarettes and porn" is to classify video games as cigarettes or porn, and not a valid form of art and expression. At any rate, yes, this is just election year wankery and will be struck down by the courts, just like every single other version of this law.
Just on this issue: its a different ballpark. Yes, students(read:children in this case) have fundamental rights, but not constitutional rights.
Anyways, I seriously think the people who argue about this issue just want something to argue about. The government wants to enforce a non-governmental agency's ratings on video games. Are you really that concerned that people won't get to buy certain video games until 17/18? Honestly, while I agree some games are art, I have to same the majority aren't. But thats me.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I have to pay tax on my newspaper.
A bloo bloo bloo.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118