Ratings: One-Size-Fits-All

TheGhola writes "There is a story in Yahoo which mentions a bill proposed on Tuesday by Sen. John McCain(R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman(D-Conn.) which calls for the banning of "video games, video programs, movies and music" unless those industries agreed to a uniform rating system for implementation. What's strange about this story is that a) it doesn't include "television" in the bill, and b)both a Republican and a Democrat are the sponsors on the bill [President Clinton is even in favor of it]. Think it's weird? Think it's stupid? Find out more here. "

Comments

Another good idea wasted

[Proteus]

Before the flaming starts, I want to state very clearly that I am -against- this bill. There.

That said, I hold that the basic idea behind uniform rating systems is solid - require makers of games, movies, TV shows, etc. to inform the public about the content of their product so that the consumer can make their own decision. Think of it as an "ingredients" label for entertainment products.

The problem is that there has yet to be a truly accurate rating system. Why? Because the folks that are responsible for rating things have very subjective outlooks when designing the criteria for a system. If -- and that's a big if -- a purely objective method for rating such products could be designed (and ideally subjected to consumer and peer review), I would likely support legislation requiring labeling including the rating.

However, I would not support a rating system based on "intended age" or "maturity level." Companies/Organisations/Goverments have no right to tell the public that someone must be a certain age to view some type of entertainment. That is a decision best left to parents or guardians. Simple rating systems for amounts of violence, vulgarity (I deprecate the term "mature language" as many find such language immature :), sexual content, nudity, etc. would be the only beneficial method.

In this way, consumers are not told that something is "bad" or "for mature audiences" or any such related message. They are simply told "this product depicts a lot of violence and sex" and leaves the decision wether this is morally acceptable in the individual's hands.

In short: requiring rating-related information is good, so long as it doesn't imply any subjective opinion. i.e. "This game contains violence" is ok, but "This game is too violent for anyone under 16" is not.

Comments? Does this make sense? Any improvements? Lets start an Open Rating System! :P

--

Re:Another good idea wasted

[technos]

A completely objective ratings system would leave much to be desired. If you were labelling for sexual content, violence, and illegal drugs my copy of Elton John's 'Goodbye, Yellowbrick Road' and The Beatles' 'White Album' would earn the same label as Kid Rock's 'Devil Without a Cause'. 'All Quiet on the Western Front' would earn the same label as 'Starship Troopers' or 'Saving Private Ryan'. 'Rogue' would rate as badly as 'Diablo'. No six year old should be listening to the (unbleeped) Kid Rock album nor watching Starship Troopers, but I would have no problem with my kid sitting through either Elton John or The Beatles.

Re:Another good idea wasted

[ChristTrekker]

Makes perfect sense. Sounds alot like PICS actually. I actually rate with SafeSurf.

The problem I see with doing rating this way in meatspace is this: how does the movie theater (or whoever) know what rating level the kid may see? With a web browser surfing cyberspace, the parent sets the levels that may be viewed, and it's automatically regulated. How do you do that IRL? Tattoo the kid's forehead "cannot view sexual content more explicit than innuendo"?

In the ideal world, the parent would accompany the kid to the movies. In the real world, the kid is going to have lots of time not under the direct supervision of the parents. That's the whole reason for ratings in the first place. You can't always monitor what your kids surf. You can't always take off from work when the kids go to the movies after school.

This, I'm pretty sure, is the rationale for the current age-based rating scheme. Parents feelings for what a kid of a certain age may see follows a standard distribution. Stuff that most parents feel a sub-13-yo should not view gets rated PG-13. Etc. It's easy to check someone's age. And if I feel my 10-yo is as mature as a typical 13-yo, I'll OK him to see a PG-13 flick.

Personally, I think we should come up with a GeekCode-like PICS rating system for the web. How nerdy is your site? Do you provide Unix man pages or sendmail docs online? Are you Rob Malda or Illiad? High score for you! I actually have seen a PICS scheme for something other than "nastiness" - VWP rated "Canadianness" I think.

Re:Another good idea wasted

[Proteus]

To suggest that objective ratings systems wouldn't work based on the fact that sexual content, violence and illegal drugs are discussed in both an Elton John album and a Kid Rock Album is flawed.

Granted, just saying "this has sexual content" is not enough. There would need to be a -rating- system, as I have said: "this has VERY GRAPHIC sexual content" down to "this has euphemistic sexual references."

Besides, the rating system shouldn't be the ONLY thing ever considered - just as checking the ingredients and nutrition facts on food products isn't the only qualification for determining if it is "healthy." If, for instance, all you ever bought was Milk, because it is so healthy (based on the labeling), you would not have a healthy diet - more information is thus needed.

Does that make more sense?

--

Re:Another good idea wasted

[radja]

>Tattoo the kid's forehead "cannot view sexual content more explicit than innuendo"?

innuendo can be a bloody lot worse...especially if you train for it. It's pretty fun to be able to give any conversation sexual connotations that are too ugly/sick to depict graphically.

//rdj

Violence, Sex, Vulgarity, and... Advertising.

[RobotSlave]

If we're going to rate separately for Sex, Violence, and Bad Words, then we definitely need to add ratings for Advertising.

Something like:

1 (G). No commercial consideration of any kind recieved by producers of the work.
2 (PG-13). Some product placement
3 (R). Heavy product placement or investment from commercial interests.
4 (NC-17). Program paid for entirely by a company that stands to benefit from the work.

I find this funny...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Velenti opposes the bill, saying that it's an infringement of First Amendment rights.

But banning distribution of a program *isn't*? Trying to obtain an injuction against *linking* to such a program *isn't* an infringement of the rights granted by the First Amendment?

Does anyone even use the V-chip?

[trust_no_one]

"However, television programming is specifically exempted from the new labeling requirements proposed by the bill. If TV had been included in the proposal, it would have rendered obsolete millions of V-chips already in homes. The V-chip is specifically programmed to work with the current TV code, and reprogramming existing sets would be extraordinarily expensive."

Would anyone even notice? I just bought a new television and of course it is V-chip equipped. I looked through the instruction manual to see how to use it (just out of curiosity, personally I want to filter out the shows with too little sex and violence) and it looked way too complicated for the average TV viewer. Anyone know how much more I paid for my set for this useless piece of technology?