Legally enforced ratings

[Yeargdribble]

Violent Video Game Supreme Court Case Raises Stakes In America, Sides Sound Off - Supreme Court - Kotaku

Everyone on Kotaku is raising commotion about the idea of ratings being legally enforced rather than voluntarily enforced. Why? I think this is a good idea honestly. While many stores do enforce it, not all do. This won't stop parents from being stupid and buying M rated games for their kids, but I don't see any reason why stores shouldn't be required to prohibit the sale of M rated games to minors any more than they prohibit tobacco and alcohol.

The content isn't for the kids. Please legally enforce it and maybe less of the elementary school children I'm around all day will stop talking about how awesome GTA and MW2 are.

[Depression Moon]

Well, that's great. This bill is utterly worthless.
If you'll notice, it says:

"(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

However, it's absurd to claim that games don't have those things. Let's look at the biggest offenders, the "Must-bans" of the past few years-

1. Dante's Inferno- This one isn't really worth commenting on. It's a re-interpretation of one of the most famous works of literature in human history. Obviously of literary value.
Can't be banned.

2. Grand Theft Auto- Complex social commentary on immigration, and gang violence.
Can't be banned.

3. God of War- Tale of the cost of vengeance and redemption, set in a classic Greek Mythology setting.
Can't be banned.

4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare- Anybody who can play through the atomic blast scene, and not call it art, is an idiot.
Can't be banned.

5. Mass Effect- Study of human interactions and diplomacy.
Can't be banned.

6. Fallout 3- Analysis of the ramifications of thermonuclear war, and humanity's reactions in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
Can't be banned.

And, I could go on and on like this. Under the definition of the bill itself, it can't ban anything. Unless, of course, they began to make subjective judgment calls as to what qualifies as literature or art. But, once you do that, what's the difference between banning games and banning books that you disagree with?

Once you set such a precedent, there is no such thing as freedom of speech and expression.

[Rad Bromance]

Well, that's great. This bill is utterly worthless.
If you'll notice, it says:

"(A) Comes within all of the following descriptions:
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

However, it's absurd to claim that games don't have those things. Let's look at the biggest offenders, the "Must-bans" of the past few years-

1. Dante's Inferno- This one isn't really worth commenting on. It's a re-interpretation of one of the most famous works of literature in human history. Obviously of literary value.
Can't be banned.

2. Grand Theft Auto- Complex social commentary on immigration, and gang violence.
Can't be banned.

3. God of War- Tale of the cost of vengeance and redemption, set in a classic Greek Mythology setting.
Can't be banned.

4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare- Anybody who can play through the atomic blast scene, and not call it art, is an idiot.
Can't be banned.

5. Mass Effect- Study of human interactions and diplomacy.
Can't be banned.

6. Fallout 3- Analysis of the ramifications of thermonuclear war, and humanity's reactions in a post-apocalyptic landscape.
Can't be banned.

And, I could go on and on like this. Under the definition of the bill itself, it can't ban anything. Unless, of course, they began to make subjective judgment calls as to what qualifies as literature or art. But, once you do that, what's the difference between banning games and banning books that you disagree with?

Once you set such a precedent, there is no such thing as freedom of speech and expression.

Someone didn't read the whole bill...

I agree, I think it should be legally enforced. Though honestly I don't see how it will keep kids from walking around talking about how cool said M rated games are as their parents will still buy them the games they ask for without actually thinking twice about why they needed to break out their drivers license to buy the game for their 11 year old.

[Slothy]

The way I see it, if you open the door for the government to legally enforce ratings (or even worse, run the ratings board) then you open the door for them to censor or outright ban whatever they deem inappropriate. You only need to look at the situation with games in Australia to see how bad things could get anywhere else where the government gets involved with handing out or enforcing ratings. I personally have absolutely no desire to have a government body of any kind tell me what I can and can't play.

[Lawr]

Let's focus on more important things like illegal immigration and cancer, not video games that hardly have an effect on kids in the first place. What's the difference between a violent video game and a violent movie or television show?

[Rad Bromance]

You only need to look at the situation with games in Australia to see how bad things could get anywhere else where the government gets involved with handing out or enforcing ratings. I personally have absolutely no desire to have a government body of any kind tell me what I can and can't play.

That's a valid point.

I've changed my position.

[VeloZer0]

There are movies/magazines that children legally can't rent/purchase, why should video games be any different? Regardless of where you fall on the issue of how restrictive the government should be, you should be able to appreciate that video games should be held to the same standards of any other media.

[Slothy]

There are movies/magazines that children legally can't rent/purchase, why should video games be any different? Regardless of where you fall on the issue of how restrictive the government should be, you should be able to appreciate that video games should be held to the same standards of any other media.

Movies aren't rated by a government agency in the States, nor are those ratings enforced by law as far as I know, yet stores do a fine job of not selling R or NC-17 rated stuff to minors. Why should games be any different? Keep in mind that by and large stores have gotten a lot better about not selling them to minors all over the place. I see under age kids get refused when trying to purchase M rated stuff all of the time, and store workers who are really good about making it clear to a parent before they buy their ten year old God of War that it's rated M and what that means.

And regardless of whether or not anyone thinks kids shouldn't be allowed to buy games not rated for them (and I agree they shouldn't), it shouldn't be up to the government. Hell, it bothers me that movie ratings in Canada are the domain of the provincial governments, but since I can't think of a case where they abused that power I'd say we've gotten lucky. We could easily get royally screwed by a government out to make a statement on a hot topic like violent games though. Since the movie ratings in the States have proven that industries are entirely capable of self regulating, we have nothing to gain by handing over ratings power for games to the government.

[Depression Moon]

Someone didn't read the whole bill...

I read it. Where does it contradict it.

[VeloZer0]

I wasn't aware it wasn't legally enforced that movies must be IDed in the US. My point was only that video games should be held to the same standard, whatever that may be.

If the industry is going to be self regulating then they should be liable for civil damages as a result of negligence on the part of rater or retailers. There should be some sort of check and balance scheme to any system, and the civil litigation is one that generally applies to independent industry.

I realize how ludicrous it would be to actually sue over having your kid purchase a M rated game, I speak it from a purely legal perspective of having the consumer have some method of recourse. If you don't like the reviews Consumer Reports produces you can check another site. There is only one ESRB rating games, they are the only ones who can appear on a game box.

[Jessweeee♪]

I have always been asked for an ID when buying an M-rated game. When I was underage and wanted one I asked my mommy and daddy to buy it for me and if I wasn't a brat and they could afford it, they did. The latter was the case for nearly all of my brother's and my M-rated games, and for many of my friends' and cousins' as well. This bill isn't going to do anything except possibly put a small dent in the gaming industry.

[Yeargdribble]

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

[Slothy]

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

And what happens when someone new starts running the show and thinks the ratings are too lenient, the ESRB isn't doing an adequate job, or that some things should be denied ratings and banned outright unless they're changed? If you give the government the power to enforce ratings then you're still opening the door for them to take control of the whole shebang.

Frankly, even if the power wasn't abused and remained limited to simply enforcing an independent groups ratings, the potential for things to go so horribly wrong and the fact that it has happened elsewhere means that I can't see myself ever changing my mind on this.

[Madame Adequate]

If the ratings were defined by a third party rather than any government body, would this change your mind? I can see the potential slippery slope of a bill like this. However, if they simply said that the ESRB was doing a good job and that stores selling games inappropriate to their ESRB rating warranted a fine... I really don't have a problem with that.

No, that's exactly WHY it's a problem. If the government wants to legally enforce age ratings, well, I'm not going to blow anything up; I don't really agree with it but it's not exactly unprecedented, and most jurisdictions allow either de jure or de facto parental override, which I find satisfactory enough to tolerate*. The problem, and something which to my understanding has been at the core of every single court review of such a bill that has led to them all, every last one, being struck down, is that the government cannot make a third-party ratings system a legal guideline.

In purely practical terms I think this would be a waste of resources. Many stores already come down hard on employees who violate their rules, and contrariwise we can see given the continuing struggles of governments that they can't stop kids getting stuff like cigarettes and alcohol if the store doesn't care, which many don't, because they don't think they'll get caught. It's a waste of resources, and whilst I'm not going to suggest a government can't do two things at once, I think the gains are so marginal that it's really not worth enacting, and then enforcing and prosecuting etc.

Finally because these things are the thin end of the wedge. This sort of law isn't really a problem but they are always, always introduced by people who seek far stricter controls and indeed censorship and banning. Seeing as I have no problem with the existing system, I have no incentive to meet them halfway when I consider them to very probably be emboldened if they succeed and begin posing more and more of a threat to freedom of speech.

* Ultimately I am deeply wary of a government which decides what its citizens may see and listen to, and object to it on philosophical grounds, but as I say the practical reality means I'm not terrible bothered by the systems as they exist.

[Bolivar]

The ESRB has done a really good job of doing what it's supposed to do, and it seems like game stores are getting as good as movies are about checking ages (no matter how much it pissed me off as a kid).

So we really don't need government regulation. If they only enforced what the ESRB does I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Then again I haven't read the bill and don't intend to, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME, so I just thought I'd throw in my two (unsubstantiated) cents.

Let's focus on more important things like illegal immigration and cancer

But this is pretty much what it already comes down to.