Guys, the issue with the bill isn't limiting the child, it is holdingthe RETAILER responsible.
Video games are not a scientifically proven dangerous substance like alcohol or cigarettes. And any games containing pornographic material would fall under the same laws that ALREADY make it illegal to sell pornto minors.
Why should some clerk lose his job becausefolks don't want to bother being a parent?
If you think it's okay to let a kid play M rated games, that's retarded. Holding a retailer responsible is one more step in making sure kids shouldn't be playing games that were not made for them.
Now come on. I'm fine with saying eight year olds should avoid Grand Theft Auto, but do you really think there's any difference between a seventeen year old playing the game versus a sixteen year old?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
One bad thing I think this would cause is a false sense of security. If a law like this passes then Jane and John mom and dad think they don't have to give a fuck what their kid is playing because it's illegal to sell them anything right? Right! Well then they can be off doing other things and not watching what their kids are playing or raising them to know the difference between what one can do in a game and in real life. With this law not on the books, then parents have to be more cautious, they have to watch what their kids are playing, and they have to prepare their kids for the chance that they may play something violent, and instill some real life morals onto them.
Guys, the issue with the bill isn't limiting the child, it is holdingthe RETAILER responsible.
Video games are not a scientifically proven dangerous substance like alcohol or cigarettes. And any games containing pornographic material would fall under the same laws that ALREADY make it illegal to sell pornto minors.
Why should some clerk lose his job becausefolks don't want to bother being a parent?
If you think it's okay to let a kid play M rated games, that's retarded. Holding a retailer responsible is one more step in making sure kids shouldn't be playing games that were not made for them.
Now come on. I'm fine with saying eight year olds should avoid Grand Theft Auto, but do you really think there's any difference between a seventeen year old playing the game versus a sixteen year old?
Getting into that 1 year difference is a pretty gray area to begin with.
I mean, is there any difference between a 21 year old drinking alcohol versus a 20 year old?
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
In Canada you can get fined $250,000 if you're a retailer and sell games to minors without the parent making the purchase.
Also, Canada is only place where the plural of "Leaf" isn't "Leaves."
Back on topic: I fully endorse this proposed bill. What sorta skeeves me out is people saying "let them play it and let the parents raise them they should know better." That's all well and good if they somehow get a freind or someone else of age (brother, perhaps) to buy the game for them. At that point it's a parenting issue to either permit or deny them the ability to play it.
But you can't defend parents that buy the game for a minor. Even if they're okay with it, that sort of negates the whole "good parent/bad parent" argument. In my mind, at least.
Not to mention, my parents never bought me any good games when I was younger. So it's quite possible I'm just bitter.
DietarySupplement on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
Seems like the only people who would inherently be against a law like this would be people under 18, whose parents do not want them playing M rated games -- i.e., people who don't really have a say in anything anyway.
Also, hopefully this will help keep douchebag 12 year olds from playing GTAIV and COD4 on Live. Fuckin' A, enough of them already.
As much as I loathe those damn swearing, posturing, and rapping kids, this won't stop any of them. Seriously, they have their clueless and uninformed parents to get the games for them; that's why those kids are such annoying brats.
Let's think for a moment of all the kids out there who get Mature games when they shouldn't, and consider what percentages make up the following profiles:
"Dad, buy me this game! Buy it!"
"Whatever, video games are all toys anyway, now shutup already."
"Ma'am, just so you're aware, you're purchasing a game intended for."
"How dare yall try to tells me how t'raise my chillins! I'ma speak to yalls manager!"
"Kids, I'm running a bit late, I'll be in front of the school in ten minutes to pick you up, *don't* walk to the store and buy violent video games."
"Uhhh... Ok." *Click*
"Aw damn, dammit they're gonig to go buy a violent game anyway, hide it and play it the minute I step out of the house Saturday. Now I gotta rummage through their backpacks and take it back to the store without a receipt again. If only that store would check for ID more than 80% of the time, I wouldn't have the unmanagable problem of my kids buying violent video games whenever I'm not looking. I seriously could use that last line of defense."
It doesn't matter what the bil is trying to do or who it's trying to protect, it's that it's asking the feds to mandate something that doesn't warrant their control, and is already being self-regulated better than similar media.
Seems like the only people who would inherently be against a law like this would be people under 18
Or maybe people who kind of like the 1st Amendment or something?
Seriously, can we just drop this retarded-ass argument? It's brought up probably every page and it is totally irrelevant and useless.
If you want to make a serious argument that this law is constitutional, as many more intelligent people than you have, then go for it, otherwise, shut the hell up and go troll somewhere else.
I'm very sorry, normally I don't do this, but it seems like there's an awful lot of obnoxious posts in this thread, so I really don't want to read 15 pages of it.
How, exactly, is this impeding on someone's ability to express his or herself?
I'm very sorry, normally I don't do this, but it seems like there's an awful lot of obnoxious posts in this thread, so I really don't want to read 15 pages of it.
How, exactly, is this impeding on someone's ability to express his or herself?
It doesn't. Freedom died when George Micheal burned his jacket for a video.
Content purchased online requires a credit card. I've yet to see a lot of minors with one.
What about games/content that aren't purchased, but are free? What about mods that could insert M-rated content into a T-rated game?
What about games purchased from outside the US, which don't carry an ESRB rating? How is Play Asia going to get all their Japanese games an ESRB rating?
Seeing as this bill would only effect US retailers and Japanese games are sold through non US retailers it shouldn't really effect the import market.
Think so, huh?
HR 5990: Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.
Introduced by Mr. Matheson, May 7, 2008
It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
Not just retailers, but anyone.
Not just content purchased, but any video game distributed.
That doesn't include just Gamestop and Best Buy, it includes anyone who ships a game - even a seller on eBay, heck even giving the game away with no sale involved. And it sure as heck bans the distribution of unrated games like Dwarf Fortress.
BTW - I can currently go down the street to Little Tokyo (in Los Angeles) and buy games imported from Japan, which have no ESRB rating. If this bill passes, that shop will be fined $5000 for every imported copy they sell.
Seems like the only people who would inherently be against a law like this would be people under 18, whose parents do not want them playing M rated games -- i.e., people who don't really have a say in anything anyway.
Also, hopefully this will help keep douchebag 12 year olds from playing GTAIV and COD4 on Live. Fuckin' A, enough of them already.
As much as I loathe those damn swearing, posturing, and rapping kids, this won't stop any of them. Seriously, they have their clueless and uninformed parents to get the games for them; that's why those kids are such annoying brats.
Saying that we shouldn't give up our liberties would be fine if we were all intelligent and mature individuals. But we're not. The majority of people are absolute idiots who need control so that they don't affect the rest of us with their idiocy.
I'm English, and ignorant about rights in general, so excuse the ignorance, but I don't understand how video games come under free speech. Is "free speech" synonymous with "free expression"? Does anyone know if movies are legally regulated here in the UK? Or are they voluntarily checked just like in America?
People who are against this carding enforcement are saying that all children are perfectly capable of treating video games as just that. I'm not saying that children can't handle extremely violent media, but you can't know for sure. I suspect having age restrictions on graphic content is a good thing, if only because there could be a minority of children who aren't capable of handling such content.
It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
I'm pretty sure games that DON'T have an ESRB rating already don't fall under this rule. If no content rating is determined by the ESRB, then it can't be included and it's a moot point.
Edit 2: Also, it does say the word "commerce", and I don't think freely distributing a game falls under commerce. So Dwarf Fortress would be fine.
I'm English, and ignorant about rights in general, so excuse the ignorance, but I don't understand how video games come under free speech. Is "free speech" synonymous with "free expression"?
Yes, freedom of speech is the same thing as freedom of expression. In America anyway. No clue how it works in the UK or anywhere else.
It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
I'm pretty sure games that DON'T have an ESRB rating already don't fall under this rule. If no content rating is determined by the ESRB, then it can't be included and it's a moot point.
I linked to the entire text of the bill (it's not very long, only 3 sections plus a title). What you assume isn't anywhere in it.
Is a Ouendan a video game? I'd say yes.
Is Dwarf Fortress or Cave Story a video game? I'd say yes.
Do those video games feature a clear and conspicious ESRB rating on the outside of the packaging? I'd say no.
Then the bill says you can't ship or otherwise distribute them across state lines.
The bill would be pretty meaningless in placing so much emphasis on ESRB ratings and then allowing everyone to just bypass the ESRB system.
The only games I see getting a pass would be with some kind of grandfathering for pre-ESRB games.
Edit 2: Also, it does say the word "commerce", and I don't think freely distributing a game falls under commerce. So Dwarf Fortress would be fine.
An actual sales transaction is not required to invoke the Commerce Clause. The feds have the power to regulate mail, email, torrents, downloads, etc. They all rely on infastructure that is very enmeshed with interstate commerce. It's the same reason the feds can go after email spammers even though sending out mass emails doesn't necessarily include a sales transaction.
It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
I'm pretty sure games that DON'T have an ESRB rating already don't fall under this rule. If no content rating is determined by the ESRB, then it can't be included and it's a moot point.
I linked to the entire text of the bill (it's not very long, only 3 sections plus a title). What you assume isn't anywhere in it.
Is a Ouendan a video game? I'd say yes.
Is Dwarf Fortress or Cave Story a video game? I'd say yes.
Do those video games feature a clear and conspicious ESRB rating on the outside of the packaging? I'd say no.
Then the bill says you can't ship or otherwise distribute them across state lines.
The bill would be pretty meaningless in placing so much emphasis on ESRB ratings and then allowing everyone to just bypass the ESRB system.
The only games I see getting a pass would be with some kind of grandfathering for pre-ESRB games.
Edit 2: Also, it does say the word "commerce", and I don't think freely distributing a game falls under commerce. So Dwarf Fortress would be fine.
An actual sales transaction is not required to invoke the Commerce Clause. The feds have the power to regulate mail, email, torrents, downloads, etc. They all rely on infastructure that is very enmeshed with interstate commerce. It's the same reason the feds can go after email spammers even though sending out mass emails doesn't necessarily include a sales transaction.
Ah, OK. That clears it up. My bad! Pretty retarded bill then :-S
Centipeed on
0
Options
UtsanomikoBros before DoesRollin' in the thlayRegistered Userregular
People who are against this carding enforcement are saying that all children are perfectly capable of treating video games as just that. I'm not saying that children can't handle extremely violent media, but you can't know for sure. I suspect having age restrictions on graphic content is a good thing, if only because there could be a minority of children who aren't capable of handling such content.
That's why it is currently the parents' jobs to regulate their children's purchases, and the retailer's to pick carding policies that their consumers find acceptable (meaning if the majority of Americans thought it was dumb and inconvenient, they could go shop somewhere different. It is not the federal government's job nor their one of their outlined powers.
If studies could actually show that depictions of violence cause trauma that would warrant regulation comparable to alcohol or pornography, then it would be a different story. If video games were demonstrated as being more harmful than movies, than it would make sense for them to restrict games on a nation-wide level and not other media, but they haven't.
It's only being proposed for the same reason Jack Thompson harps on Take Two all the time these days and not Dungeons and Dragons or the jazz music or tomatoes; it's a hot topic. It'll go away in a few years and then those sorts of limpdicks will be crying over new disco or pogs or some shit.
EDIT: Aw hell no this is a terrible top of the page.
Guys, the issue with the bill isn't limiting the child, it is holdingthe RETAILER responsible.
Video games are not a scientifically proven dangerous substance like alcohol or cigarettes. And any games containing pornographic material would fall under the same laws that ALREADY make it illegal to sell pornto minors.
Why should some clerk lose his job becausefolks don't want to bother being a parent?
If you think it's okay to let a kid play M rated games, that's retarded. Holding a retailer responsible is one more step in making sure kids shouldn't be playing games that were not made for them.
It depends on the kid and the game.
Are you saying that protecting children from an invisible spectre is important enough to pervert the free market?
Parents should be controlling their children's purchases, as well as their children's TV time and video game time. Should we REALLY be fining retailers five grand because a parent wants to seem like the "good guy" and let their kid have obscene ammounts of pocket money and a TV in their own room behind closed doors?
Posts
Now come on. I'm fine with saying eight year olds should avoid Grand Theft Auto, but do you really think there's any difference between a seventeen year old playing the game versus a sixteen year old?
Getting into that 1 year difference is a pretty gray area to begin with.
I mean, is there any difference between a 21 year old drinking alcohol versus a 20 year old?
Also, Canada is only place where the plural of "Leaf" isn't "Leaves."
Back on topic: I fully endorse this proposed bill. What sorta skeeves me out is people saying "let them play it and let the parents raise them they should know better." That's all well and good if they somehow get a freind or someone else of age (brother, perhaps) to buy the game for them. At that point it's a parenting issue to either permit or deny them the ability to play it.
But you can't defend parents that buy the game for a minor. Even if they're okay with it, that sort of negates the whole "good parent/bad parent" argument. In my mind, at least.
Not to mention, my parents never bought me any good games when I was younger. So it's quite possible I'm just bitter.
As much as I loathe those damn swearing, posturing, and rapping kids, this won't stop any of them. Seriously, they have their clueless and uninformed parents to get the games for them; that's why those kids are such annoying brats.
Let's think for a moment of all the kids out there who get Mature games when they shouldn't, and consider what percentages make up the following profiles:
"Dad, buy me this game! Buy it!"
"Whatever, video games are all toys anyway, now shutup already."
"Ma'am, just so you're aware, you're purchasing a game intended for."
"How dare yall try to tells me how t'raise my chillins! I'ma speak to yalls manager!"
"Kids, I'm running a bit late, I'll be in front of the school in ten minutes to pick you up, *don't* walk to the store and buy violent video games."
"Uhhh... Ok." *Click*
"Aw damn, dammit they're gonig to go buy a violent game anyway, hide it and play it the minute I step out of the house Saturday. Now I gotta rummage through their backpacks and take it back to the store without a receipt again. If only that store would check for ID more than 80% of the time, I wouldn't have the unmanagable problem of my kids buying violent video games whenever I'm not looking. I seriously could use that last line of defense."
It doesn't matter what the bil is trying to do or who it's trying to protect, it's that it's asking the feds to mandate something that doesn't warrant their control, and is already being self-regulated better than similar media.
Or maybe people who kind of like the 1st Amendment or something?
Seriously, can we just drop this retarded-ass argument? It's brought up probably every page and it is totally irrelevant and useless.
If you want to make a serious argument that this law is constitutional, as many more intelligent people than you have, then go for it, otherwise, shut the hell up and go troll somewhere else.
How, exactly, is this impeding on someone's ability to express his or herself?
http://www.audioentropy.com/
It doesn't. Freedom died when George Micheal burned his jacket for a video.
Think so, huh?
HR 5990: Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act.
Introduced by Mr. Matheson, May 7, 2008
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h5990ih.txt
Not just retailers, but anyone.
Not just content purchased, but any video game distributed.
That doesn't include just Gamestop and Best Buy, it includes anyone who ships a game - even a seller on eBay, heck even giving the game away with no sale involved. And it sure as heck bans the distribution of unrated games like Dwarf Fortress.
BTW - I can currently go down the street to Little Tokyo (in Los Angeles) and buy games imported from Japan, which have no ESRB rating. If this bill passes, that shop will be fined $5000 for every imported copy they sell.
I fucking hate those kids.
Hey, I have a blog! (Actually being updated again!)
3DS: 0860-3240-2604
I'm English, and ignorant about rights in general, so excuse the ignorance, but I don't understand how video games come under free speech. Is "free speech" synonymous with "free expression"? Does anyone know if movies are legally regulated here in the UK? Or are they voluntarily checked just like in America?
People who are against this carding enforcement are saying that all children are perfectly capable of treating video games as just that. I'm not saying that children can't handle extremely violent media, but you can't know for sure. I suspect having age restrictions on graphic content is a good thing, if only because there could be a minority of children who aren't capable of handling such content.
Edit:
I'm pretty sure games that DON'T have an ESRB rating already don't fall under this rule. If no content rating is determined by the ESRB, then it can't be included and it's a moot point.
Edit 2: Also, it does say the word "commerce", and I don't think freely distributing a game falls under commerce. So Dwarf Fortress would be fine.
Yes, freedom of speech is the same thing as freedom of expression. In America anyway. No clue how it works in the UK or anywhere else.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I linked to the entire text of the bill (it's not very long, only 3 sections plus a title). What you assume isn't anywhere in it.
Is a Ouendan a video game? I'd say yes.
Is Dwarf Fortress or Cave Story a video game? I'd say yes.
Do those video games feature a clear and conspicious ESRB rating on the outside of the packaging? I'd say no.
Then the bill says you can't ship or otherwise distribute them across state lines.
The bill would be pretty meaningless in placing so much emphasis on ESRB ratings and then allowing everyone to just bypass the ESRB system.
The only games I see getting a pass would be with some kind of grandfathering for pre-ESRB games.
edit:
An actual sales transaction is not required to invoke the Commerce Clause. The feds have the power to regulate mail, email, torrents, downloads, etc. They all rely on infastructure that is very enmeshed with interstate commerce. It's the same reason the feds can go after email spammers even though sending out mass emails doesn't necessarily include a sales transaction.
Ah, OK. That clears it up. My bad! Pretty retarded bill then :-S
That's why it is currently the parents' jobs to regulate their children's purchases, and the retailer's to pick carding policies that their consumers find acceptable (meaning if the majority of Americans thought it was dumb and inconvenient, they could go shop somewhere different. It is not the federal government's job nor their one of their outlined powers.
If studies could actually show that depictions of violence cause trauma that would warrant regulation comparable to alcohol or pornography, then it would be a different story. If video games were demonstrated as being more harmful than movies, than it would make sense for them to restrict games on a nation-wide level and not other media, but they haven't.
It's only being proposed for the same reason Jack Thompson harps on Take Two all the time these days and not Dungeons and Dragons or the jazz music or tomatoes; it's a hot topic. It'll go away in a few years and then those sorts of limpdicks will be crying over new disco or pogs or some shit.
EDIT: Aw hell no this is a terrible top of the page.
It depends on the kid and the game.
Are you saying that protecting children from an invisible spectre is important enough to pervert the free market?
Parents should be controlling their children's purchases, as well as their children's TV time and video game time. Should we REALLY be fining retailers five grand because a parent wants to seem like the "good guy" and let their kid have obscene ammounts of pocket money and a TV in their own room behind closed doors?