Video Game Voters Network - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lindalove · 03-20-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

I wanted to let you know about a great web site that allows gamers to take action to stop efforts to censor and regulate video games. The site is the Video Gamer Voters Network and can be found at http://www.videogamevoters.org/

I just sent a message to my Senators urging them to oppose the Clinton-Lieberman-Bayh Family Entertainment Protection Act, which would regulate video game sales at the federal level. If we are going to stop this bill, and other efforts at the state level, we need more people standing up and taking action.

Please go to http://www.videogamevoters.org today and make your voice heard.

Just thought I'd pass this along. I signed up and e-mailed my senators.

lindalove · 03-21-2006, 02:27 AM

Tycho sums up my position nicely:

Quote:

I think the threat to adult gamers is usually described as a "chilling effect" that will constrict the themes of even mature entertainment, the self-censorship of games to secure a more desirable (i.e., marketable) rating. The First Amendment is often hauled out in these instances, as though concessions to the marketplace amount to the tromp of the jackboot, but to the best of my knowledge the "Right To Be Sold In Wal-Mart" is not enumerated in the constitution.

hulk · 03-21-2006, 04:44 AM

Indeed. I'd be more worried about states passing bills that automatically classify 'violent' video games (with a very loose definition of what violence is) as obscene and bypass free speech laws. Clinton has about the sanest take on the issue - enforce the industry-applied ratings with legislation. Everyone who opposes this bill is missing the forest for the trees - if parents _have_ to be there when little Johnny buys the next GTA, who the hell are they going to blame when they don't like it? Eh? Eh?

lindalove · 03-21-2006, 06:44 PM

It's a completely bogus bill in my mind. If kids can get hold of pot, they sure as hell can get their hands on GTA. This isn't the realm of the federal government however and I would say this isn't even the realm of state government. The sentiment is noble but the bill overreaches. My children will not play those games until I feel they are mature enough to handle them. It's called parenting. The government shouldn't have to remind me to do it.

Lieberman has been a bane on the video game industry for years and I really don't want to give him a win and momentum to get more stringent restrictions on video game content and advertising.

xepherys · 03-21-2006, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hulk

if parents _have_ to be there when little Johnny buys the next GTA, who the hell are they going to blame when they don't like it? Eh? Eh?

QFT...

Parents need to step up and be parents for a while!

hulk · 03-22-2006, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

QFT...

Parents need to step up and be parents for a while!

And do stuff like go with their kids when they buy overly violent games! Which they would have to do under this legislation!

There's a system much like it here in Australia. We have G, PG, M, MA and R. The only restricted ones are MA - you have to be 15, and R - 18, and there's no classification for games at this level. Any game that would be rated R is refused classification and can't be sold in stores here. There is nothing at all stopping you from importing unclassified material. It means, however, that the young 'uns have it harder to get their mitts on it. There isn't much reason for kids to be playing stuff like Postal 2, Singles, or that crappy LSL game (the only titles of relative merit to be refused classification).

Of course, some kids would anyway. Most kids end up with porn of one form or another by 12 years of age. Doesn't mean it should be sold to them.

Da Munk · 03-23-2006, 01:56 AM

It's true that young children shouldn't be playing violent videogames unless their parents think that they're mature enough, but I don't think that the government should be playing a role in it. The rating system is already in place and most stores already follow its guidelines and don't sell M rated games to people under 17. All this bill amounts to is needless legislation that will do little to change the amount of violent games being played by children without parental permission.

hulk · 03-23-2006, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Da Munk

All this bill amounts to is needless legislation that will do little to change the amount of violent games being played by children without parental permission.

With you not being a child, how does it affect you? It's obvious parents aren't doing their job (and blaming parents alone is as hypocritical as parents blaming games, everything is a factor) as there's complaints coming. You make it illegal for the dumbarse kid to buy a game before he goes and crashes his car, then they have no cause to complain. Easy, no? As long as you still have the ESRB in place there's nothing to worry about.

Da Munk · 03-23-2006, 03:33 AM

It doesn't affect me directly, but I still think that it is useless. The idea behind this bill seems to be keeping violent games away from children, but it won't do any more than has already been done by the ESRB. It may shift blame away from the game industry, but I would like to think that we could find a way to do that without enacting more laws to further restrict the rights of minors. This wouldn't even place the burden of parenting back on the parents, it would simply place it with the retailers.

Not only would this not be effective in reaching the goal behind the bill, but it would be inconsistent with how other forms of media are handled in this country. It isn't illegal for minors to buy controversial books, violent movies, or music containing explicit lyrics. Some of these may follow voluntary rating systems like gaming does now, but none are legislated. The only other form of media that I know of to be treated this way is pornography, and I would hate to see gaming be lumped into the same category as wank material.

CSflim · 03-23-2006, 04:32 AM

Making it ilegal to sell alcohol to those under 21 does not prevent underage drinking. So should we scrap drinking laws?

Da Munk · 03-23-2006, 10:08 AM

That is a different situation than gaming. The ESRB is already in place and is adhered to by most major retailers, so I can't see that putting this into place would have any real impact on the ability of minors to get games that they shouldn't.

I'm not opposed to restricting access of violent games to people mature enough to play them, but I don't think that it is the role of the government to do so, especially when the game industry has already put a voluntary rating system in place.

hulk · 03-24-2006, 01:54 AM

The industry doesn't want this because it means less kids buy their games. They're telling gamers that it will somehow destroy whatever they hold dear so they have the support to keep selling these games to kids.

Why do you trust the ESRB (an independant board) to do the job over the Government? The only penalty that the ESRB can impose is not allowing a game on the shelves of Walmart. That's not a deterrant to any other retailer.

Da Munk · 03-24-2006, 02:13 AM

I don't know or really care what the industry's reasons are for not wanting this to happen. I don't think this will destroy anything I hold dear; at 20 years old this law will have no effect on my personal ability to buy games. I'm against this because I see it as unecessary government involvement. This isn't really a matter of me trusting the ESRB over the government, but I don't see any reason to involve the government because I see no benefit that it would bring. Most retailers already adhere to the guidelines given by the ESRB, so there would be very little gained by forcing those few remaining retailers to follow this law. The movie industry in the US only has a voluntary rating system in place, and I don't see why that isn't good enough for the game industry as well.

03-21-2006, 04:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	Indeed. I'd be more worried about states passing bills that automatically classify 'violent' video games (with a very loose definition of what violence is) as obscene and bypass free speech laws. Clinton has about the sanest take on the issue - enforce the industry-applied ratings with legislation. Everyone who opposes this bill is missing the forest for the trees - if parents _have_ to be there when little Johnny buys the next GTA, who the hell are they going to blame when they don't like it? Eh? Eh? __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

03-23-2006, 04:32 AM	#10 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Making it ilegal to sell alcohol to those under 21 does not prevent underage drinking. So should we scrap drinking laws? __________________

03-24-2006, 01:54 AM	#12 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	The industry doesn't want this because it means less kids buy their games. They're telling gamers that it will somehow destroy whatever they hold dear so they have the support to keep selling these games to kids. Why do you trust the ESRB (an independant board) to do the job over the Government? The only penalty that the ESRB can impose is not allowing a game on the shelves of Walmart. That's not a deterrant to any other retailer. __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

03-21-2006, 06:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	It's a completely bogus bill in my mind. If kids can get hold of pot, they sure as hell can get their hands on GTA. This isn't the realm of the federal government however and I would say this isn't even the realm of state government. The sentiment is noble but the bill overreaches. My children will not play those games until I feel they are mature enough to handle them. It's called parenting. The government shouldn't have to remind me to do it. Lieberman has been a bane on the video game industry for years and I really don't want to give him a win and momentum to get more stringent restrictions on video game content and advertising.

03-23-2006, 01:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
Da Munk Crazy	It's true that young children shouldn't be playing violent videogames unless their parents think that they're mature enough, but I don't think that the government should be playing a role in it. The rating system is already in place and most stores already follow its guidelines and don't sell M rated games to people under 17. All this bill amounts to is needless legislation that will do little to change the amount of violent games being played by children without parental permission.

03-23-2006, 03:33 AM	#9 (permalink)
Da Munk Crazy	It doesn't affect me directly, but I still think that it is useless. The idea behind this bill seems to be keeping violent games away from children, but it won't do any more than has already been done by the ESRB. It may shift blame away from the game industry, but I would like to think that we could find a way to do that without enacting more laws to further restrict the rights of minors. This wouldn't even place the burden of parenting back on the parents, it would simply place it with the retailers. Not only would this not be effective in reaching the goal behind the bill, but it would be inconsistent with how other forms of media are handled in this country. It isn't illegal for minors to buy controversial books, violent movies, or music containing explicit lyrics. Some of these may follow voluntary rating systems like gaming does now, but none are legislated. The only other form of media that I know of to be treated this way is pornography, and I would hate to see gaming be lumped into the same category as wank material.

03-23-2006, 10:08 AM	#11 (permalink)
Da Munk Crazy	That is a different situation than gaming. The ESRB is already in place and is adhered to by most major retailers, so I can't see that putting this into place would have any real impact on the ability of minors to get games that they shouldn't. I'm not opposed to restricting access of violent games to people mature enough to play them, but I don't think that it is the role of the government to do so, especially when the game industry has already put a voluntary rating system in place.

03-24-2006, 02:13 AM	#13 (permalink)
Da Munk Crazy	I don't know or really care what the industry's reasons are for not wanting this to happen. I don't think this will destroy anything I hold dear; at 20 years old this law will have no effect on my personal ability to buy games. I'm against this because I see it as unecessary government involvement. This isn't really a matter of me trusting the ESRB over the government, but I don't see any reason to involve the government because I see no benefit that it would bring. Most retailers already adhere to the guidelines given by the ESRB, so there would be very little gained by forcing those few remaining retailers to follow this law. The movie industry in the US only has a voluntary rating system in place, and I don't see why that isn't good enough for the game industry as well.