California Anti-Videogame Bill Author Interviewed

rsmith-mac writes "As an update to last week's story about a proposed California bill to bar minors from buying first-person shooters, HomeLANFed has an interview up with Leland Y. Yee, the assemblyperson responsible for creating the bill. While there are some good intentions with Yee's actions, I can't help but feel that this is a classic case where the road to Hell is being paved with those good intentions."

Comments

Not really..

[JavaLord]

. While there are some good intentions with Yee's actions, I can't help but feel that this is a classic case where the road to Hell is being paved with those good intentions."

Is this really any different from rating movies and not letting 18 and unders into R rated movies? Video games should be the same way, stores and parents should be monitoring what the kids are doing. If this does pass, I think we will see more games released both with and without blood included.

Re:Not really..

[andrew_dupont]

Is this really any different from rating movies and not letting 18 and unders into R rated movies?

Yes; it's completely different. The MPAA ratings are policed by the theaters themselves; there's no law that says a theater can't sell a 4-year-old a ticket to an R-rated movie. The ratings were put in place several decades ago under pressure from Congress, yes, but the movie industry got out of having this stuff legislated by agreeing to play ball.

The idea behind an industry rating system, as opposed to a government rating system, is that it puts the ratings in the hands of those most qualified to make them. The system in place with video games right now is most comparable to movie ratings. The problem, it seems, is that many game retailers aren't playing ball. According to Yee, a vast majority of underaged participants in an FCC undercover study were able to buy M-rated games without their parents.

What Yee is proposing is basically throwing out the ESRB rating system and using his more stringent guidelines to decide which games are unsuitable for children. He leaves the door wide open for "T"-rated games to be unavailable for purchase to those under 18.

Is this wrong? Yes. But so is being able to buy Vice City if you're 13 years old. It's not just stupid parents -- it's game retailers as well. Until they stop selling violent video games to unaccompanied children, we haven't got much ground to stand on.

Re:Not really..

[JavaLord]

The idea behind an industry rating system, as opposed to a government rating system, is that it puts the ratings in the hands of those most qualified to make them. The system in place with video games right now is most comparable to movie ratings. The problem, it seems, is that many game retailers aren't playing ball. According to Yee, a vast majority of underaged participants in an FCC undercover study were able to buy M-rated games without their parents.

Having managed a movie theater for a few years when I was in college I can tell you that plenty of underage kids end up getting into R rated movies simply by the incompetence of the ticket booth people, or by theater hopping.

I would have liked to have seen these same kids in this study try to buy DVD's that were rated R. Are the retailers like that with everything or only video games?

Can you imagine the increase in piracy when johnny 16 year old can't buy doom 3 in the store but he can get it over bit torrent?

What Yee is proposing is basically throwing out the ESRB rating system and using his more stringent guidelines to decide which games are unsuitable for children. He leaves the door wide open for "T"-rated games to be unavailable for purchase to those under 18.

I always though that video games should use the same ratings system as movies, that would make it easier on the parents and the retailers to figure out what the ratings mean.

Is this wrong? Yes. But so is being able to buy Vice City if you're 13 years old. It's not just stupid parents -- it's game retailers as well. Until they stop selling violent video games to unaccompanied children, we haven't got much ground to stand on.

What more can the video game industry do though? What happens to a retailer when they sell a DVD that is rated R to a 13 year old? When a 13 year old buys a tape that has the "Explicit lyrics label?". Does the MPAA or RIAA shun them and not send them any products? There doesn't seem to be any enforcment in other areas of the entertainment spectrum, so why should there be with video games?

Re:Not really..

[andrew_dupont]

Having managed a movie theater for a few years when I was in college I can tell you that plenty of underage kids end up getting into R rated movies simply by the incompetence of the ticket booth people, or by theater hopping.

I don't doubt it. The movie industry has never tried all that hard to go after kids who try to circumvent the rules. Of course, my guess is you're a lot closer to 15 or 16, as opposed to thirteen, if you're trying to get into an R-rated movie.

What more can the video game industry do though? What happens to a retailer when they sell a DVD that is rated R to a 13 year old? When a 13 year old buys a tape that has the "Explicit lyrics label?". Does the MPAA or RIAA shun them and not send them any products? There doesn't seem to be any enforcment in other areas of the entertainment spectrum, so why should there be with video games?

I agree -- video game makers shouldn't pay for the sins of video game retailers. Maybe I'm naive, but I imagine those underage kids in the FCC study were so successful not because cashiers were malicious (or even inept) -- but rather because a lot of stores have no cohesive policy for preventing minors from buying M-rated games. Either that or they don't bother to enforce it.

If retailers buckle to political pressure and start getting tougher on this stuff, then it'll be somewhat harder for kids to buy M-rated games. At that point it's less of a problem that there's no disciplinary mechanism in place.

Re:Not really..

[andrew_dupont]

And it's not the retailer's job to babysit kids when the parents don't care.

I agree in spirit. But if the video game industry doesn't make it the retailer's job, then government will make it the retailer's job.

Re:Not really..

[danila]

But so is being able to buy Vice City if you're 13 years old.
You have never been a 13 year old, right? Kids at this age are often much more cruel and violent than any video game character. Despite hundreds of millions of people playing tens of thousands of computer games there still have not been a single study that would clearly link games and violence. Notice how this Leland Y. Yee never gives us any references that would prove the link. Instead he cites 1000s of experiments that showed still images (you can have 1000000s of these experiments, but it says nothing about videogames) and one policy statement (not even a study, just someone's IMHO) that said "effects of [games] may be even more profound than... television". Mr. Yee has a Ph.D. in Child Psychology! If there was a single scientific study that supported his personal beliefs, he would surely cite it. The fact that he doesn't is a very strong indication that such a study doesn't exist, which in turn suggests that may be there is no evident link between games violence and real-life violent acts.

Some useful stats:
Number of pedastrians I run over in GTA:VC: 15000+
Number of cops I shot in GTA:VC: 1500+
Number of people I burned in GTA:VC: 40+
Number of pedastrians I run over in Real Life: 0 (zero)
Number of cops I shot in Real Life: 0 (zero)
Number of people I burned in Real Life: 0 (zero)

Speaking of Bill...

[GridPoint]

Perhaps they should be considering banning another violent game as well?

Only one objection here.

[a whoabot]

Mr. Lee didn't really convince me on his point of why the parental control isn't enough. He says "Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels." I don't see any basis for that. Video games are definitely as easy to indentify as violent as a movie. If the graphic content on the back of the package, the ESRB rating, and the hours of grisly sounds and images emanating from the living room aren't enough to allow determination then either is what's offered by movies for determination.

I think that's an important aspect because parents buy kids the games anyway. I bet that's the most common way kids get their games: from someone else buying them for them, but I could be wrong.

I guess it's not really a big deal in the grander scheme of things, just possibly a waste of money and time and effort.

Re:Only one objection here.

[PainKilleR-CE]

I found a few more objectionable things about Mr. Lee's statements, such as the following:

We can also point to the testimony of criminals as further proof. We know that the Columbine killers compared their intended crimes to the game Doom. Earlier this year, a group of Oakland teenagers went on crime spree, stealing cars and committing several murders. One of the perpetrators was quoted as saying, "We played the game by day and lived it by night." The scientific community has put it very simply -- the debate is over.

1) We don't know much at all about the Columbine killers because they are dead. They may have made comparisons to Doom in order to plan their crimes, but in the end, they killed themselves and no one knows any real reasons for their actions. Besides that, one of them was 18, and Doom existed before the current rating system was widely used (and was an old game by the time of Columbine).

2) 'We played the game by day and lived it by night', well, that's very nice, but if he's referring to GTA, you're looking at a game (GTA:VC) that has sold millions of copies, and yet only had a couple of people claim that they were copying it. We'd be living in hell if there was true causality at work here.

3)The scientific community is not united on this matter, and this is not some media conspiracy to prevent people from finding out that violent games may cause violence. If anything, the reverse is true, because before Columbine it was quite easy to find one study saying the reverse for every study saying what he's quoted, yet it's become harder to find even pre-existing studies every day. Not to mention that a scientific study should prove it's hypothesis, and not many psychologists have been starting with the hypothesis that violence does not beget violence these days.

4) As he is a politician, the final line may disturb me the most: '-- the debate is over'. Sorry Mr. Lee, the debate is never over, and you should know that. You don't try to pass laws and declare the debate over, because the debate will have to continue in order to make sure your laws are not only effective at doing what you intend, but also are not stopping people from getting Constitutionally-protected material.

Furthermore, he says on one hand that the law will not just cover Mature and Adult Only material, but also some Teen material, yet states that it will be easy for retailers to determine what should be seperated from the rest. The wording that he quotes is so vague that you could find some E material to be covered, yet retailers are supposed to be able to do this easily...

It Pains Me...

[LordYUK]

Everytime I hear someone try to pin violence onto video games. Whats more bloody, watching the nightly news or pretend killing nazi's in Wolfenstein?

As a parent, its your responsibility to watch what little Billy is doing, and if you cant, to teach little Billy that killing is wrong.

If little Billy goes out and gets a gun and shoots people, its either cause he's messed up in the head, or you failed as a parent, not because the guy in Doom did it.

Heck, if you arent intelligent enough to seperate reality from fantasy (reality, killing bad... fantasy, killing acceptable) than you have deeper issues anyway.

M rating OK, but who provides the rating?

[Slider451]

The idea of rating games M for mature, and denying access to those under 17 is acceptable. But who provides the ratings? If it's not an independent, objective group, the rating will mean little. Game makers will not willingly give up a large chunk of their customer base for violent games: teenage boys.

Movie ratings provide parents a consistent measuring stick to enable them to make informed decisions for their kids. Parents can accompany their kids to R-rated movies if they wish. Likewise, parents can buy M-rated games for their kids, nomatter what laws are enacted.

The challenge will be in making the rating consistent and trustworthy enough for parents to depend on without having to research each title extensively before buying.

Re:M rating OK, but who provides the rating?

[mausmalone]

They should use the movie rating system, so parents can quickly understand a games content.

They do...
eC = G
E = PG
T = PG-13
M = NC-17
AO = R
Maybe they can't use the same letters because MPAA has them copyrighted? (I don't know if they do, just hypothesizing) Besides... look at the back of the box, there's a breakdown of everything objectionable in the game. I am willing to believe that the parents who feign ignorance are really striving for it, or they just can't tell their kids "no" so checking for graphic content would be a futile pursuit

Re:M rating OK, but who provides the rating?

[PainKilleR-CE]

M = NC-17
AO = R

You've got those swapped ;)

Maybe they can't use the same letters because MPAA has them copyrighted? (I don't know if they do, just hypothesizing)

From the MPAA's ratings website:
The rating system trademarked all the category symbols, except the X. Under the plan, anyone not submitting his or her film for rating could self apply the X or any other symbol or description, except those trademarked by the rating program.

Note: at the time the rating system was G, M, R, and X, with M being Mature, but allowing all ages, the rough equivalent of PG. They later revised M to GP, then to PG, because people were confused by the M rating (thinking it was a step above R). In 1984 they added PG-13. In 1990 they added the NC-17 rating to specify movies that had been rated by the MPAA, but were not approved for anyone under 18 (X was never trademarked so that it could be used by people that did not want to submit to the ratings, but was basically taken over by the adult film industry, not exactly what the MPAA intended, so NC-17 is trademarked as well).

By law, you have to enforce trademarks to keep them, so using the movie industry's ratings would be inviting a lawsuit from the MPAA.

Besides... look at the back of the box, there's a breakdown of everything objectionable in the game. I am willing to believe that the parents who feign ignorance are really striving for it, or they just can't tell their kids "no" so checking for graphic content would be a futile pursuit

Exactly, and the MPAA did the same thing with the R rated films back in 1990, and has since added the descriptions to PG-13, PG, and NC-17 movies because, in their words, they 'believed it would be useful to parents to know a little more about that film's content before they allowed their children to accompany them [to R rated films]'. Even the R rating has always been about letting parents know what they're in for, and asking parents to attend with their children rather than just sending them off to the movies. The M rating for games should be viewed the same way, asking parents to play the game with their children, or at the very least pay attention to the game to know what their children are exposed to.

Same problem as gun control

[MobyDisk]

Firstly, I must say that some portions of what he says are good common sense.

• He proposes moving violent games to the top shelf, out of reach of small children. No objection there. (Adult midgets might get pissed though.)
• He points out that stores don't care about the rating system, and will sell anything to anybody. Maybe the "voluntary" system should pose recommendations on store behavior, or enforce them. Or maybe the efforts should be spent education partents to pay attention!
• But he has a serious flaw in his logic:

HomeLAN - The industry has had its voluntary game content rating system in place for some time. Why do you believe that an actual government law is needed as well?

Leland Y. Yee - The rating system is not working; it simply has no teeth to it. And the huge profits are too seductive. Our office witnessed a 13-year-old girl buy Grand Theft Auto, Vice City. The clerk sold her the game without asking her age then said, "classic game."

Summary: The existing regulation isn't good enough, so lets make more regulation. This never works.

Further on:

Wal-Mart covers Cosmopolitan magazine yet sells these violent video games where women are beaten and murdered without any consideration of how it affects children.

Interesting - I see Cosmopolitan as equally damaging, or more damaging, than GTA: Vice City. It's okay to brainwash a 13 year-old into thinking she needs to be sexed-up, but being violent just isn't lady like! Maybe this guy needs to see a proposal for magazine ratings. He might reel from that and get a sense of balance.

Wait... say that again?

[Incoherent07]

From the article:

Leland Y. Yee - I certainly believe parents have a responsibility here. However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suitable for their child, many of these games must be mastered before the interaction begins at the most violent levels.

Back up a second. So... parents can't prevent their child playing a violent video game, but they CAN prevent them from watching a violent movie? Then he says that the violence doesn't show up immediately, but what do you think the game ratings are for? It's really no secret if a game is violent or not, much like movies. So he says that it's hard to tell if a game is violent if you ignore the rating, and usually the advertisements and reviews as well? All this means is that Yee doesn't understand how to be a parent.

D&D All Over Again

[BeProf]

This is just the D&D Panic of the mid-80's all over again.

When are people going to realize that if you go out and shoot up your school after playing some FPS, that there was probably somethine wrong with you to begin with?

The Comics Code

[SteevR]

Case and Point:

In Japan today, their comics (manga) are a multi-billion doallar industry. There are manga cookbooks, manga textbooks, all genres of entertainment and reference material; everything that in the US might be done as a movie or text (they have normal books etc. too).

In the US, comic books and graphic novels are marginalized in the mainstream. Many of the few profitable companies (those that make mainstream fare) left make all their money on merchandising, and have been run completely into the ground several times each. Why is this so?

In 1954, the Comics Code Authority was created as an "Industry Association" in response to congressional coercion. Check out their standards. This quashed much of the creativity present the in the mainstreaim industry, which was about 40 years old. Many of the true creative geniuses were forced underground for nearly a decade, and the mainstream companies that followed the code rotted from within.

In the mid-fifties, the manga industry essentially sprung from nowhere, blossoming into a huge industry over a decade. The average age for a consumer buying manga in Japan is just barely below the average age of the population there, whereas in the US the average age of the comic book consumer grows older by one year every year.

In Japan, their "industrial" complex for producing games is just as developed as that in the US. If creativity is stifled by lawmakers, it will cost the US Billions in lost revenue. If any country passes laws that restrict its entertainers or artists, it will cost that country a chance for the revenues or prestige generated by those creators.

I think the IGDA is more organized and is better capable (with benefit of hindsight) to combat these sons and daughters of those who created the Comic Code than the naive comic industry of the 1950s. I don't believe that there is any less general paranoia (Red Scare vs. Terrorist Scare, same thing) than then, and its got the populace running scared and not paying attention to their freedoms (why is it times like this that would-be censors always choose to strike?).

I encourage everyone to check out the link to the Comics Code. Its stipulations are eerily similar to many proposed restrictions on interactive software today, and as such its a very relevant piece of history.

A couple of things

[bigbigbison]

I know that someone here has already said, it but it bears repeating:
The reason this is different than ratings on films is that ratings on films, like ratings on videogmaes are volantary. There are no laws agains children seeing R rated films.

Secondly,

Leland Y. Yee - I have not personally played these games, however many of my staff members have. I have seen numerous footage pieces of these games, which clearly shows the need for such legislation.

I have said this many times, watching a clip of a videogame is like reading the script to a film. If you have not actually played the games, then you have very little idea what it is actually like to play them. If you have time to write a law, find a day to sit down and actually play the game. If you watch clips, surely you know that those are totally without context.

Well.......

[JGag21]

Guess kids will never get to see Pokemon Snap 2.

a few quotes from the article..

[JavaLord]

The logic must remain consist. That is, if one contends that children learn to read and do math through interactive video then one must also believe violent behavior is learned by playing these games. In fact, you don't even need to bring in behavior to see that these games are learning tools. For example, a child can learn how to create a kill zone by playing many of these games.

Math and Reading are not the same thing as killing. Math and Reading are things you can REALLY actually do in a game. Killing is not. This isn't the holodeck, you aren't physically breaking someones neck. While math and reading in a game are the same as math or reading in real life, fighting in real life is nothing like fighting in a video game. Driving a car in real life, isn't like driving a car in most games.

And what the hell is a kill zone? I've been playing FPS games online forever now and I'm not sure what the heck he's talking about.

In light of these facts, the government is compelled to act to protect children from the affects of violent video games. Similar to pornography, there must be a penalty imposed on stores who sell or rent these types of games to children.

What a joke, he is comparing video games to porn now. Most games have very little sexual content, nothing outside of what you would see on public (free) TV.

HomeLAN - Why do you also wish to make a separate section for restricted games and how would the retailer decide which games are supposed to be in that section? Leland Y. Yee - It is important that these games not be marketed towards our children. For instance, legislation has been passed that makes it illegal to place tobacco products next to the candy.

I missed the part where video games were found to give people cancer...

They shouldn't be next to the games teaching little kids how to read and count.

Why? In blockbuster they have 'R' rated movies next to 'G' rated ones in the new release section. Of course Mr. Yee won't compare video games to movies, because if he took these extremist views against movies the MPAA would make his political life hell.

(about what should happen to people who sell video games to children)....The same penalty that currently exists for selling other harmful material to children (he means porn) will be imposed....(snip)...punishable by fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If a person has multiple convictions they may be imprisoned in the state prison.

Someone needs to explain to him that video games aren't the same as porn. Also, this is the reason our prisons are so overcrowded, our taxes so high, and our legal system is so screwed up. He wants to sent a retailer to JAIL for selling kids GTA, Postal2, etc. Give me a break. Should a man or women really have their life ruined if they mistakenly sell a game to a minor? Should that really be a criminal offense?

he type of evidence that suggests a correlation between smoking and lung cancer is the same that suggests a correlation between violent media images and future aggressive behavior. If tobacco conglomerates controlled the message about smoking and lung cancer, it's likely that the public would be confused about that too.

Looks like video games are causing cancer again. If the problem is violent media, why doesn't this guy go after the MPAA? The TV networks? Oh right, because video games are the easy target....

Also, human nature is violent. People may want to deny it, but it's true. Did the first caveman hit the second one over the head with a rock because it reminded him of pong, or because he wanted the second cavemans resources?

However, many live very difficult and busy lives and can not possibly monitor their children at all times. Unlike movies, in which parents can easily determine whether it is suita

Banning Minors from buying games, pointless

[dalek_killer]

If they can't buy the games thay'll just download them.

My favorite part

[M3wThr33]

Is that SHE'S(Read the quotes, people, she's a mother) never actually played these games, only seen other people play it.

It's another hyper-sensitive person who is a ludite. People fear what they don't understand and with games being the latest medium, she'd like to see it stomped out, similar to bad movies, music, plays or books.

History has proven itself that there are always something the parents believe to be a negative influence, and eventually it passes.

Of course, I will say this, when you ring up an M-rated game at Target, it pauses the checkout and forces the sales clerk to check your ID. If violent games are a concern to her, just have her shop elsewhere. Oh wait, she can't give up her Wal-Mart.

I think he is right.

[SQLz]

Lets face it. It may not be true for all but I'm sure a small percentage of children are going to be affected by viewing violent media over and over again. Its only common sense. You pretty much don't need a study to figure that out.

Not every child would be affected of course. Most would probably ALREADY HAVE SOME TYPE OF MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL ISSUE. The question is, would that mental issue cause them to kill on their own or does repeated images of violence act as some type of catalyst? How would a store clerk know if the kid buying the game has issues or not?

Studies show that it does act as a catalyst. You might not agree but many people smarter than us have proven it. Different stimuli affect different poeple in different ways. Most people will not be affected. Most people don't have emotional/mental defects as well. Most people are not treated like those kids were at Columbine HS.

There are many factors that contribute to teenagers becoming violent. Bad home life, bad social life, mental/emotional problems, drugs, alcohol, etc. No need to throw violent media in what could already be a bad mixture.

This law pretty much has no effect on most people and it gets game companies off the hook. The blame is set squarely on the parents shoulders where it belongs. Isn't that what we want? If kids get ahold of a violent game and use it as an excuse for commiting violent acts then the parents should be blamed for buying them the violent game and being bad parents, not the game company who made the game for adults.

I don't have kids but I know that when I do I won't want them playing games that I dont think are appropriate for their age. I can't follow them around everywhere they go so I won't know what they are spending their money on. Its nice to know they can't buy smokes, porno, beer, and video games I don't want them to play until they are older. I will make the decision if they are mature enough or not after I play it myself. This law gives the parents more of that control Right now the control is in the hands of the piply face youth working at Best Buy.

Even if the kid goes through another avenue to get the game, its still the parents fault because as a parent you should be aware of what your children are up to on the computer. Knowing what I know about the Internet, I don't even know if I want my kids using the it.