Legislation news in France

[Soldat_Louis]

Months ago, I told you (http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?t=692) about Bernard Depierre (http://www.bernard-depierre.com/), a French representative from Côte-d'Or (East of France) who proposed an amendment in order to totally ban "very violent video games". This amendment was based on false allegations about Rule of the Rose, that Mr. Depierre believed to be "about raping a little girl in the most horrible conditions, then killing her with the worst pain"

Of course, many gamers wrote to Mr. Depierre to explain he was wrong and there was absolutely no rape in RoR. Fortunately, he listened to them, and he retired all the mentions about rape in this game. He also publicly recognized his mistake. By the way, his amendment was rejected.

It was last november. But today, I learnt, by going to Mr. Depierre's website, that he proposed other amendments on regulation of violent video games, and these amendments have been accepted.

I translated his press release for you (I found it on the section Les actions nationales (http://www.bernard-depierre.com/actions.asp)) :


16/02/2007
Very violent video games : 2 amendments passed

UMP (*) Representative from Côte-d'Or, Bernard Depierre, who, during 1st discussion about law on prevention of juvenile delinquency, had proposed an amendment to alert public policy on minors' too easy access to very violent video games and on the danger of these games on youth, has just passed 2 amendments on the same topic during second discussion of this law in Parliament.

In particular, Bernard Depierre obtained that "posting in any public place documents that are harmful to youth because of the depiction of crime, violence, incitation, use, possession or dealing of drugs, excessive use of alcohol, as well as discrimination or hate against one person or a group of people; is totally prohibited". Advertising these same documents is also prohibited. However, in order to respect individual freedom, this amendment precises that posting and advertising these documents is "possible" in any area whose access is forbidden to minors.

Waiting for the application decrees

"Decrees that will officialize application of this amendement will have to precise the ways to prevent minors to access very violent video games. It can consit in forcing retailers to keep very violent, adult-rated video games, in a restricted area inaccessible to minors (perhaps under locked windows). This solution is approved by main video games industry representatives in France, be it the SELL (**) or the AFJV (***)", says Representative from Côte-d'Or. He adds : "decrees will also have to precise mentions to add by game publishers or retailers on game boxes. In my opinion, and indeed game editors agree with me, I wish it could be clearly said "forbidden to people under" or "strictly reserved to adults".

Representative from Côte-d'Or precises that PEGI rating system shows some limits, as age classifications are sometimes mistaken by buyers with difficulty levels, and that small images informing on the description of the games are often misunderstood. By the way actual mentions +16 or +18 don't mean "forbidden for people under 16 or 18", but simply "recommended for people above 16 or 18". "Nowhere on the box, there is a clear mention 'forbidden to people under 16' or 'reserved to adults'. This is why it is necessary to precise things. I'll be especially vigilant on this point", says Bernard Depierre.

One regret

Bernard Depierre regrets that internet online shopping sites haven't been forced to put control procedures that would be efficient enough to verify the buyers' age.

"Video game is a society phenomenon and a prosperous economic market in which our country has a major place. It is an artistic creation that must be supported. Indeed, because of it, our government decided to give tax breaks in order to support video game creation, therefore giving them a cultural value. But a double statement must be made, by taking care of not assimilating too quickly all video games altogether : on one side, ultra violence becomes common, if not normalized in some video games; on the other side, it is very easy today for minors to get access to some very violent video games normally recommended for people above 16, whether it is in video game stores, in big stores or Internet. The legislator brought interesting first answers."


(*) The UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populaire -- "Union for a Popular Mouvement") is the main conservative party in France. It is also the party that governs France right now, although not all goverment members come from it. Anyway, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, the French culture minister, is UMP too.

(**) The SELL (Syndicat des Editeurs de Logiciels de Loisirs) is the French equivalent of the ESA. They were in charged of the classification of video games (a bit like the ESRB) until the PEGI ratings were adopted.

(***) The AFJV (Association Française du Jeu Vidéo, or French Video Game Association) is an association dedicated to the promotion of video games in France

[Vigi]

I'm afraid my knowledge of European law is as substantial as my experience with hostage negotiation; forgive my query.

Have Depierre's amendments been enacted as law, or is there still a few hoops to jump through?

I'm not sure if the press release lost something in translation, but banning the public distribution of any material that depicts crime, drug use, or violence in a way harmful to children seems unreasonably overreaching; are these amendments truly as totalitarian as they seem?

[Soldat_Louis]

In fact, the sentence in French is : "l’interdiction totale de présenter à la vue du public en quelque lieu que ce soit des documents présentant un danger pour la jeunesse en raison de la place faite au crime, à la violence(...)". It's the sentence I translated by : "posting in any public place documents that are harmful to youth because of the depiction of crime, violence (...); is totally prohibited". So I may have lost something in translation.

In fact, a better translation would be "(...)documents that represent a danger for youth because of the "place" made to crime, violence, (...)", which means that this amendment doesn't target "simple" depiction of violence, crime, etc..., but it targets such a depiction that represents a danger. It could be, for example, an apologetic or incitative depiction, or a game that is only about violence, crime, etc... and depicts them constantly with gruesome details.

To answer to your question, it is the second discussion of the whole law, where these amendments were voted. Maybe there will be more discussions, either to the Parliament or to the Senate. Maybe this law will also be examined on Constitutional Council if the representatives of the opposition have any objection. But I really doubt they'll have any one about this specific amendment.

Now, the last step before the amendment becomes official is an "application decree", that will give the exact rules for the application of this amendment.

One last note : this amendment is not so "totalitarian". In practice, if the decree is made "intelligently" by competent people, 16+ and 18+ games (equivalent of M-rated and AO-rated games) will remain in stores and people above 16 or 18 will still be able to buy them, but they will stay into specific places inaccessible to minors, and there may be an additional sticker to remind buyers that they are forbidden to underage people.

So right now, I'm waiting for the application decree.

[Vigi]

I see. The application degree will determine just how that phrase is interpreted in practicality.

There's that looming "if the decree is made "intelligently" by competent people" caveat though. Not to suggest that the relevant legislators fall short in either of those categories, though.

Still, forcing stores to move their games around so kids don't see the boxes is a little extraneous (to say nothing of the purchasing age restrictions). It's like when the Provincial government forced our local retailers to put tobbacco behind opaque boxes. [The cupboards do nothing! :D]

[Garbage Pail Kid]

This reminds me of the unjustified outrage over Bully. I really wish people would make sure their brains were fully loaded before they go shooting their mouths off.