A good idea, to a point: Fines for selling M-rated games to minors
Sorry, Nico, you won't be going to 13-year-olds in Utah.
(Credit: Rockstar Games)Jack Thompson, the former lawyer who made a name for himself by speaking out against video game violence, is at it again.
Thompson co-authored a bill in the Utah legislature with Rep. Mike Morley that would fine video game retailers a whopping $2,000 each time they sold an M-rated game to a minor. The bill hasn't passed just yet, but the state's Business and Labor Committee voted 10-3 to keep it alive and it's quickly making its rounds in the Legislature.
To clarify some of the finer points in Thompson's bill, Joystiq recently sat down with him for an interview and, as expected, Thompson was unapologetic at what some gamers are calling an outlandish plan.
"The concept is this," Thompson told the video game blog. "If you, the retailer, say that you don't sell mature rated games to someone under 17 then you're in effect engaging in communications with the public and assurances to the public which is definitely advertising, then you have to adhere to that policy.
"The issue becomes the truthfulness of the corporate representations. We're addressing the fraud of deceptive trade practices issue rather than the nature of the product itself. It's an across the board attempt to hold to their word the retailers of music, movies and video games [in any format]."
As much as I can't believe I'm saying this, given my history discussing Jack Thompson, for once, I can't help but agree with him.
Before I get into exactly why I believe this bill should pass, I should first note that a $2,000 fine is absolutely ridiculous. There are "mom and pop" stores all over Utah that are trying to make an honest buck and to charge them $2,000 for a mishap is ridiculous. If anything, maybe the state should make a graduated system where huge retailers like Wal-Mart are charged more than "Bill's Video Game Store." I think that's only fair.
But I also believe that this bill is necessary on many levels. Look, Thompson is right: the Entertainment Software Rating Board created these ratings to put the parent's mind at ease and attempt to make it easier for them to find out which games would be suitable for their children and which games would not. That's why parents should have confidence knowing that this self-imposed rule the video game industry has created will be upheld. After all, what good is a ratings system if every kid in the world can buy "Grand Theft Auto IV" in a matter of seconds?
I also like this bill because it doesn't attack the video game itself. There's nothing written in it that suggests a video game should be kept off store shelves, but it simply says that if advertised warnings about games (in this case, ESRB ratings) are made public, they must be upheld. What's so bad about that?
Kids will be kids and they will want to buy the latest and greatest gory games. In some cases, parents don't want that to happen, so when they go to the games store with their kids and tell them they can't have an M-rated game, they've made the decision that their children are not ready for those games. But when they leave that store and let their kids go to their friend's house, they should feel confident that just in case little Johnny goes back to the same store, he won't be able to walk out with a game his mother said he couldn't have.
Ratings systems on music, movies, and video games are not in place to "protect" children, they're in place to empower parents and give them the opportunity to decide what their children can consume and what they cannot. If video game retailers keep selling M-rated games to 13-year-old kids, parents have lost that power and effectively have no chance to decide what's best for their children.
Say what you will about Jack Thompson and his stances on video game violence, but on this one, I'm with him: ESRB ratings should be upheld.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
What is not needed is more morons jumping on the bandwagon to destroy our country in the name of our children.
What is so bad about this?
It is not the governments job to parent.
I don't have any words to describe how astoundingly poor and idiotic your arguments are.
I say the less moronic kids I have to listen to online the better.
Hey, you get in trouble for selling tobacco to a minor, selling liquor to a minor, selling a handgun to a minor, selling R/X-rated movies to a minor, and selling Explicit Lyrics-theme albums to a minor. So why not get in trouble for selling Mature-themed video games to a minor? It makes total sense!
Ultimately this won't curtail those under 17 from getting their hands on the software as Amazon will still sell it to them, or older siblings or parents will still buy it for them.
As mentioned, I believe this will make vendors wary of stocking anything over an "E" so while Don says this doesn't attack games directly, I believe the intention of the bill is to get the "M" games off the shelves.
If you're going to fine a video game store from selling an M-rated game to someone under 17, how about movie theaters and video rental stores like Blockbuster? Do they get fined for letting someone under 17 watch an R-rated movie? Although I believe there are rules like that already in place, I don't think they're enforced too well.
But how about the next step, fining parents if they allow an under-17 child who is not theirs to play an M-rated video game or watch an R-rated movie without first getting a permission slip signed by the child's parents?
And how about the additional costs to afford all of this? You'll need "secret shoppers" playing under-17 kids to go into a store and "get the goods" so to speak.
All this, because parents can't take the initiative to manage and teach their kids. I think it's ridiculous.
Yea, that fining other parents isn't such a bad idea... though that would truly be hard to enforce. Better that parents know the other parents their kids are visiting.
As Don said, parents should be able to at least trust that stores can't sell inappropriately. Parents can't make agreements with every store. They can with every other parents their children stay with.
I agree parents need to be more responsible themselves... but this is a pretty low level safety-net IMO. They do the same for things like alcohol or porn... this shouldn't be all that different. Just have to check the ID at the check-out, just like their other items which fall into this category.
The Dark Knight as more violent then most M rated games and R rated movies. The rating system is a scam based on the myth that it is harmful to see some levels of violence and anything resembling nudity or sex.
Our country is so twisted.
This is, as others have pointed out, no substitute for parenting... but this minimal level of restriction should be in place.... just as while a parent could give their child alcohol, or they might sneak some somehow... at least the law is in place to support the parent's decision at the retail level.
I don't agree $2k is too much or on a graduated system. Why would it be a worse offense for Wall*Mart to break the law than a mom&pop shop?
Also, parents should know the parents when their kids go to other's homes to be sure the same restrictions are valued at that other house.
To the people saying this is unconstitutional or against freedom.... I don't think you understand freedom. Freedom (at least constitutional freedom) always has responsibility... it doesn't mean anyone just do whatever they want. That is called anarchy. Constitutional freedom means that certain rights are protected.... even no matter what the majority might want.
I'm not entirely sure how the theaters work, but I know you need to be accompanied by an adult to see an R-rated movie.
Time and time again, courts have ruled these sort of laws unconstitutional due to a number of issues. There's plenty of analysis on the Internet about such issues, and I'd urge you to take advantage of that before you right about this issue again.
(Of course, minors have no rights.)
I can certainly imagine movie theaters refusing to play "x-rated" movies (such as as Midnight Cowboy, A Clockwork Orange, and Last Tango in Paris), or libraries restricting access to certain books, or mayors of small towns in Alaska banning certain reading materials entirely. And it wouldn't be unlikely that a big-box store with a streak of fundamentalist morality might refuse to stock "M" rated titles entirely...simply to avoid the risk of a fine of course. That sort of censorship effects all of us.
Reisinger rightly states that ratings systems exist to empower parents--to decide what their children can and can't read, watch or play...yet in the very next breath he wants to take away this power and give it to the State? The solution to kids buying products that their parents don't want them to buy is to actually *be* parents and supervise their purchases.
Remember the "V-chip?" Has anybody actually used it???
Do it for the children.
Really? Care to point out that clause in the constitution or bill of rights?
And if the retailer makes no assurance that they don't sell M rated games to minors?
On the flip note if bobby is old enough to be out there in the work force then what he does with the money should be largely up to him. then if he wants to spend his 12 hours of work , which could be his entire work week, on a game why should the games stores stop him. situations 1 and 3 still apply from the parenting section above. He still needs your car keys to get there unless hes already made the massive purchase of a car and liability insurance payments. If he's doing that he's probably capable of telling reality from fantasy and you have nothing or very little to worry about.
Really in the end this law that they are talking about is changing a suggestion into a restriction. As far as all those who are talking about freedom you do have decide which type you are talking about. The freedom to do something or the freedom from something. In this case the freedom to sell and buy games vs the freedom from having to monitor your child.
Is it really necessary?
- by roachbrain February 27, 2009 7:15 AM PST
- My question is why is everyone so ready and willing to throw moral responsibilities out the window? Yes the parents are ultimately the ones responsible for there kids, but at what point do we take responsibly for the things we do around there kids. We live in a world were Paris Hilton gets famous off a sex tape, athletes juice up for the big win, and a good video game involves sleeping with hookers then running them over for your money back. I parent can only do so much so why not have some extra protection. I think it should be enforced and I also believe most of the people here against this either doesn?t have kids or is a kid himself.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by pentest February 28, 2009 12:15 PM PST
- I have two teenage daughters and am against this.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (43 Comments)This bill throws out responsibilities. It is the parents job not the retailers, not the game companies and not the government. Paris was famous before the sex tape.
Trying to shelter your kids is only going to make them more twisted then you are.
Try thinking for yourself and take responsibility for your kids. Just because you are too lazy to be a proper parent doesn't mean everyone is equally negligent.