Truth in Video Game Ratings Act

[Garbage Pail Kid]

Reading one of Picho's posts got me thinking about this bill. If you haven't heard of it, it's this one: http://gamepolitics.com/2006/09/27/brownback-proposes-game-ratings-bill-in-senate/

So the question I have is, "Is the government allowed to do this?" I read through the comments on the GP article, and most people say no, but some say yes. Most of the ones who say no say that it violates the first and fourteenth amendments. How so?

[BearDogg-X]

Most of the ones who say no say that it violates the first and fourteenth amendments. How so?

First amendment = freedom of speech(the video game industry's freedom of speech would be violated by this bill)

Fourteenth amendment = due process(video games are the only entertainment medium targeted by the bill, not movies, books, music, or television)

[Yukimura]

First amendment = freedom of speech(the video game industry's freedom of speech would be violated by this bill)

Fourteenth amendment = due process(video games are the only entertainment medium targeted by the bill, not movies, books, music, or television)


I'm teasing Bear, but come on, this bill is just more fist shaking by an out of touch Coot.

Not a major threat

[MaskedPixelante]

From what I understand, people think they can get away with this bill because it rests on the theory that video games are murder simulators, not protected free speech, that it doesn't convey any artistic merit what so ever. As for the due process, I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that they think if they can squeak around the first ammendment problems, they dont have to worry about the 14th ammendment. I'm sorry I dont know more, but I'm not american.

[Beacon]

I'm pretty sure they don't have the right to force the ESRB to do anything. I mean, it's a voluntary system in the first place (just like the movies).

[MaskedPixelante]

yeah, but god forbid the MPAA get investigated for giving Super Murder Death Killer 4 a PG-13 rating, that would just be stupid. The ESRB gives Super Murder Death Killer 4 the game an M rating, they've got wrongful death lawsuits coming out the wazoo because they were too lenient on the rating.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

I need to bring this thread back too, because it's in the news again and I still haven't had some of my questions answered.

How would this violate the industry's freedom of speech? The bill isn't really stopping them from putting out anything or selling it. And I don't get how targeting one entertainment medium, but not others, violates due process. How would the industry argue this in court?

[Grahamr]

As for how it could damage them, it takes the ESRB lots of money for 5 people to watch a hour-long video of a video game's worst scenes....

So, having to go through a whole game would be devastating.

And as how their going to fight it?

Hal Halpin has a war on his hands.

[Yukimura]

I need to bring this thread back too, because it's in the news again and I still haven't had some of my questions answered.

How would this violate the industry's freedom of speech? The bill isn't really stopping them from putting out anything or selling it. And I don't get how targeting one entertainment medium, but not others, violates due process. How would the industry argue this in court?


I'll explain for ya.

1. The bills purpose is to place goverment control over industry practice, directly related to 1st amendment protected speach. As such, efforts of this type violate 1st amendment amendment rights through finacial means as opposed to legislation. It doesn't change the fact that it still violates 1st amendment rights, and therefore, still Unconstituional. Just cause your not restricting sales, doesn't change the fact that financial and political intimidation to stiffle speach is still a violation of the 1st amendment.

2. Equal protection, under law, states that all forms of media must be treated equally under the 1st amendment, governmetn mandates targeting only a single industry, say, the game industry, automaticly run afoul of this and violate the 14 amendment. Since this bill would taget the rating system of only Games, not tv, movies, cds, books and so forth, it violates that rule.

Hopefully that clears that up for you.

[kurisu7885]

Copypasta from my post on the main site.

“You can make some people happy of all the time, but you can’t make all of the people happy all of the time.” Especially for people who refuse to eb satisfied.

As for the facts. “Gets th facts, then you can distort them as you please?” Remember, the ESRB has a 40% failure rate and a 60% success rate. Whenever people like JT mention it, the 60% success magically vanishes, because it isn’t 100%, anything below is unacceptable.

As for this bill, it sounds to me liek a creative attempt to incite a chilling effect. A game comes in to be rated, it gets played, yet user created content makes it in, changing the rating entirely, or say the raters miss something, like others have said, that the developer didn’t disclose, and it happens multiple times. The ESRB can refuse to rate anymore games from them, thus stemming sales. Then it will no longer be profitable to make that game or even stay in business.

Of course, some can go to online distribution to satisfy all the five year olds who somehow have credit cards

[Thefremen]

Exactly, as stated before it's designed to have a chilling effect on the industry since games like Spore or Sims 2 would take approximately 4.5x10^90 years to finish.

[Garbage Pail Kid]

I'll explain for ya.

1. The bills purpose is to place goverment control over industry practice, directly related to 1st amendment protected speach. As such, efforts of this type violate 1st amendment amendment rights through finacial means as opposed to legislation. It doesn't change the fact that it still violates 1st amendment rights, and therefore, still Unconstituional. Just cause your not restricting sales, doesn't change the fact that financial and political intimidation to stiffle speach is still a violation of the 1st amendment.

2. Equal protection, under law, states that all forms of media must be treated equally under the 1st amendment, governmetn mandates targeting only a single industry, say, the game industry, automaticly run afoul of this and violate the 14 amendment. Since this bill would taget the rating system of only Games, not tv, movies, cds, books and so forth, it violates that rule.

Hopefully that clears that up for you.

It does. Thank you, Yuki.

[ZeRu]

Exactly, as stated before it's designed to have a chilling effect on the industry since games like Spore or Sims 2 would take approximately 4.5x10^90 years to finish.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, I doubt Brownback has such intentions, his proposal only shows how politicians like to put their fingers in stuff they know nothing about.

Also, take a look at this hypothetical scenario: some company releases a game, where, if you press "q" key 1000 times in a row, a picture of naked woman is displayed - and that's just on top of my head as combinations and scenarios are limitless. How would ESRB figure that out?

This is same as saying "we must visit the entire internet, then we can rate it" - total nonsense, and something technically absolutely impossible.

[Zanzer]

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, I doubt Brownback has such intentions, his proposal only shows how politicians like to put their fingers in stuff they know nothing about.
Like terrorism? :D

Jokes aside, I don't think Brownback realizes how much of an inconvenience it is; I don't think he's a jerk, and I believe he has the best intentions with this proposal. What would happen if movies were rated according to a brief trailer put together by the producers, rather than by the entire film? We cannot expect Brownback to understand how difficult of a task it is to view an entire game.

About the 1st and 14th amendments, the same argument was had concerning pornographic magazines and movies. We all know what happened with that. The government does have some precedented power to limit the sale of speech (1st) when it comes to minors.

The 14th Amendment, by the way, is the one that states that ALL who are born or naturalized in the U.S. are fully-pledged U.S. citizens, and it bans the States from creating any laws that place restrictions on privileges without due process. It also states that there must be equal protection of the law, not protection from it - in this case, video games can be singled out without violating the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment can be used to argue against any state laws that apply unequally to children and adults. However, that does not mean that the Federal Government cannot impose restrictions on children.

All I'm saying is, don't get too comfortable throwing around those two amendments. They've been shot down in the past.