Slashdot Mirror
FTC Says More Regulation Needed For Games
simoniker writes "The FTC has testified in detail to Congress that, though the game industry has 'made progress' in regulating the marketing of violent video games, 'more needs to be done.' It also revealed that it's conducted undercover surveys into whether underage gamers can buy M-rated games. It also commented: that '...the Commission will continue to monitor closely developments in the area and will initiate actions, such as the case challenging the marketing of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, when appropriate.' Will we see the FTC stepping in more often in controversial cases regarding violent video games?"
What exactly was wrong with the ESRB ratings we had already? They gave an age category and described any potentially offensive content. It was perfect. What more could we need?
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
I mean, it's about time they did something about these horrible video games! I mean, they've already fixed all the other problems in the world like... the war in Iraq, FEMA handling the New Orleans relief, stopping Iran from producing nukes, world-hunger, huge corporate scandals, huge governmental scandals (that Rove guy was totally innocent, he was framed by the evil liberal media... even though the huge conservative corporations own almost all the media outlets). THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
"The ESRB is completely useless."
Government involvement probably isn't the answer, and this hopefully is just one step towards another independant system.
...because parents these days don't want to be responsible for their kids. We just need to off all of the stupid parents who let little 5 year old Timmy play GTA.*
*Hyperbole alert.
Seriously though, it is (and should) ultimately be up to the parent to decide what their kid (read: under 18 years old in the US) can play. Even thats a bit arbitrary, as I was sixteen when I was playing Counter Strike, a 'M' rated game. Its more of the fact that I knew it was a game, and knew that it was not real. Six year old Timmy is more than likely unable to properly make the distinction.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
When are they going to start regulating the sex in advertising, the violence in the news, and the evil thoughts that only the Shadow Knows...
Oh wait....
I would like to see more regulation by parents. I think it's good to have a rating system like this, but it only works if parents are involved. Parents need to monitor what their children are watching, playing, and doing on the Internet. Of course, this assumes that parents have an idea of what is appropriate.
shock and awe, my friend, shock and awe.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Slashdotter: > What exactly was wrong with the ESRB ratings we had already? They gave an age category and described any potentially offensive content. It was perfect. What more could we need?
Government: What do you mean "what more could we need"? These are regulations! You've got to legislate regulations!
Some factual information for you. Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it roll straight over that Constitution of yours?"
Slashdotter: "How much?"
Government: "None at all."
Save the CHILDREN.... Vote for me.
http://www.asti-usa.com
... oh wait ...
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Investigator speaking to bureaucrat: Does more need to be done?
Bureuacrat: Yes, more needs to be done. And I need more resources with which to do it.
The exact topic du jour matters not one bit.
The primary motivation of any bureaucracy is to extend its dominion and claim more needs to be done.
A surprising number of organizations, many of the quite large, are basically moving along with this motivation and nothing more. I don't care to get flamed so I won't name names, but there's a lot of 'em.
The FTC essentially says that game manufacturers need to actually tell the ESRB about the content in their games, and that retailers shouldn't sell "M" rated games to underage kids. Aside from this being Slashdot, is there anything truly unreasonable in those requests?
Yeah, I know I'm also choosing to believe that the FTC wouldn't step in with some wide ranging rules allowing the ATF to become the ATGF. Although visions of moderately trained ATGF agents conducting a SWAT style raid on a LAN party do make me smirk. "Damn, those are good speakers! That really sounded like a flash-bang!"
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Regulation is good, we need more. We certainly don't have enough. Without regulation, people learn responsibility, and the evil market forces have their way with the economy. Regulation helps us spend our excess tax money, and allows us to avoid tackling really hard issues that will make people all mad.
The UK's BBFC system works well Independant from the government and from studios, non profit organisation that receives it's funding from review fees. It ratings for individual titles aren't influenced by media or public pressure but for its overal guidelines it surveys the public to see what they think is acceptable. Bascially if someone goes "who thought XXXX was a film suitable for 12 and unders?!?!" the BBFC can essentially say "you did".
Games and policies do not exist in a vacuum. Minors of any sort can view "Mature" content (and worse) freely on the internet. Content blockers don't and can never work. Minors regularly see "Mature" content on standard TV. Minors regularly see "Mature" content in theatres, where the ratings system is a complete joke. Minors regularly hear "Mature" content in music which has stickers for explicit lyrics (which only drives sales to minors).
Lawmakers would be better off spending the time and money on education, or counseling for troubled minors, or law enforcement targetting physical/sexual abuse of minors... something that isn't a guaranteed failure.
Call me paranoid, but I think what is *really* wanted is censorship of games. Lets see: people want legislative action, the games are already rated, and parents don't review their child's video game purchases.
;)
of course, it's difficult to actually prohibit this from happening (preventing people from even making games like GTA and such), but, that's really what those who are complaining really want.
Reminds me of my grandmother, growing up. Seeing HBO for the first time, and being the good Southern Baptist she was, she and her friends wrote HBO and the local papers to protest what is being shown. From the looks of things, she wasn't successful.
How is this surprising?
It's not universal to all media.
It's not Constitutional.
So yes, it's unreasonable.
14 and under
15 and over
Games need a little postage paid form letter addressed to the White House, packaged in the game itself.
fewer female players and developers (free markets suck, so does consumer choice)
many of the folk fighting so hard for censorship view and use media as peer influence (and britany spears product lines) rather then entertainment.
a primary goal is to pressure stores like Walmart and it's code of ethics into not carrying 'triple XXX' products.
GTA was attacked for it's violence (against women) with the excuse of sexual content.
Adult men play games more then any other demographic (by double+).
Pre-school gamers are far less likely to develop attention dysfunction when compared to their tv counterparts (it's like 95% for).
Gamers who are parents (and males), spend 700% more time with their children
Games are more like tv and books then drugs, the similarities end at the same place food and good entertainment end.
Hell of a political partnership, feminists facists and abolitionists
really?
can't people just police their OWN behavior?
why is america becoming SUCH an nanny-state??
rock and roll was supposed to 'corrupt the youth' back in the 50's. didn't happen.
why do they think video games are any different?
(they also tried this with comic books. sigh. the morality police just never give up, do they?)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Flash-bang? All you'd really need to do is turn on the lights or open the blinds at a LAN party....argh...natural light!
Is saying that the devs should provide more info bad in itself? Nope. Is suggesting that maybe retailers shouldn't sell M games to minors bad in itself? Nope. Is making those things law bad? Yep. The second is most definitely censorship. The first, well, I'm not sure there's anything illegal going on there but it is setting games apart from books, movies, magazines, etc as if they are more dangerous somehow, which is bad and incorrect whatever the legality. Also, keep in mind that the FTC doesn't appear to actually comprehend how video games or digital content works, based on their decisions to force games to an M rating (which is highly questionable imo) based on content that, while coded somewhere in the game, was not coded to actually be shown or viewed and required a third party modification to do so. This is akin to me drawing boobs on the newspaper and then claiming it's pornographic because the woman had boobs under shirt and the newspaper did not remove them. Do you really want those people determining what is and isn't appropriate content?
Unless the game industry can produce games that turn children into flaming christian zealots the current pile of shit representing themselves as our government will fuck with the state of games. The same is true with prose, movies, and music.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Also, keep in mind that the FTC doesn't appear to actually comprehend how video games or digital content works, based on their decisions to force games to an M rating (which is highly questionable imo) based on content that, while coded somewhere in the game, was not coded to actually be shown or viewed and required a third party modification to do so
But as I understand it the FTC didn't force the rating to an M. Public outcry caused the ESRB to modify their rating. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic. I read the article more like a "You know, the industry is doing ok, but there's room for improvement" than a "We want to assume power over games!" I'm relatively sure movies had the same sorts of problems when they started getting more and more explicit, and the government managed to stay out of their way. Granted, actors donate a lot more to political campaigns than do game producers...
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
All over the ESRB website there is also a searchable database, as you suggested, which tells the rating and content type. Like I said, the problem isn't lack of tools or information, it's lack of making use of it. The only thing I might agree that the ESRB could do better is make it clearer that these things exist. Their new campaign with penny arcade is a step in the right direction in that matter.
How about actually play the games yourself and determine what is and isn't acceptable to you? That's what drives me up the wall is this assumption by some parents that they shouldn't have to investigate what their kids are doing. Ummm, yes you should, you are parents, that's part of the deal.
One of my coworkers has twin boys age 12 and a younger one age 7. All play videogames. They all have their own computers, they all have their own gameboays etc. None play any games that he hasn't first. He tries them, and decides if he finds them acceptable. He uses the ratings as a guideline, but the ultimate decision is what he feels is ok for his kids. After all, he understands their maturity level.
I don't see why that's such a big deal for some parents. Nobody is saying you need to be a gamer or spend all your time playing games, but you can spend 30-60 minutes playing a game to see if it's acceptable. Hell, for that matter you can start playing games, play them with your kids. No different than any other activity you might dow ith your kids. Never know, might even find it fun, games are actually designed with fun in mind.
I just do not see this as a big problem. As a parent you need to be highly invloved in your kids' lives. Yes, that means your social life will suffer, but that's kinda the deal. I think there needs to be more emphasis on good parenting, less on how society can try to Nerf-pad itself to make sure kids never encounter anything harmful.
the problem is retailers. You see, the MPAA and movie theaters (who have their own large collective organization, reached an agreement when it came to the ratings system we have in place. Not only is the ESRB pretty one-sided, it is only the game industry making an effort, the retail outlets are not organized like many theaters are. And the only reason most large retailers will not sell R-rated movies to minors is because they would have a slew of parents protesting or some other BS from some lobby group or something.
Smaller companies care a bit less. There are stores in this country that will sell a movie that is R-rated to a minor and won't give it a second thought. Just like there are stores who will sell alcohol or tobacco to minors. There a game stores that do the same thing with M-rated games. The problem IS NOT the ESRB, but the problem is the retailers, who care more about putting money in their pocket and will do it so long as they are getting away with it.
Now, I am not for laws that many states are proprosing, though these laws are going after retailers, who are the weak link in this chain. I believe the real solution is to have a meeting of the minds, where stores that sell these games come to the agreement with the ESRB that they will not sell these games to minors...through in some clause about the gaming industry pulling material, or some BS.
It may not be the perfect solution and sure it has work arounds, but so does any system. A kid who wants to drink or smoke just convinces the guy going into the store to buy it for him instead. Really, I do not want the FTC or any other federal agency involved in this.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Games have been around for a short while compared to movies. Movies in the beginning went through the whole "they are evil and will corrupt our children" phase already. Been there, done that. Games haven't finished with it and it looks like they still have a ways to go. In the public's (or maybe I should say politician's) eyes, games are still seen as primarily for children. This has made it easier to let children buy any game they want. People still think child+game=ok. The last point I want to make is that the people who work at stores that sell games are not told (usually) to match the ESRB rating to the customer. If they aren't somehow motivated to do this, then they probably don't give a shit. I know people who got in trouble when they had summer jobs at a BestBuy and sold R moves to 11 year olds. I doubt they would have had the same thing happen if it was a M rated game. These are my opinions. I am not an expert, so please don't treat it as if I were.
I do agree with the assertion that it is ultimately up to the parent in these matters. If they choose to not pay attention to their children's game playing habits, they shouldn't have the right to complain. Also how do kids get the money to buy games these days. I don't remember having $50 laying around when I was 9.
If the government forced everyone to have an RFID tag implanted, then you could be readily identified by scanners so everyone can tell what information has been deemed "good" or "appropriate" for you as determined by the government. Have the FCC/FTC take over "voluntary" ratings programs and voila!
Happy goldfish bowl to you.
Do I Play GTA: San Andreas?
Hell yes.
Would I let my child buy and play a game like GTA: San Andreas?
Hell no.
Who should be responsible if my child is able to purchase and play GTA: San Andreas?
Me (the parent).
Its too easy for parents to blame others for not raising or supervising their children properly. Let the school teach them Sex Education. Let the FTC to lobby to Congress to prevent the sales of violent video games to children. Too bad they don't do the same with religion, or else we might have a few more open-minded people running this place in the next few decades.
Tangent aside, the parents should ultimately be the ones responsible for what their child does. That's the way it is in other areas now. If my child goes out and buys a video game and plays it in my house without me knowing, there is a serious issue there. Maybe they can hide it for a day, but I care about my children to get involved with what they are doing. I care enough to want to protect them from violence until they are old enough to handle it. I play violent video games, but I never do it with or in front of my children. If they want to play something with me, I break out Sim City 4 or something like that.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a law against the sale of rated M games to minors. I think there should be restrictions on that the same way that a 15 year old cannot get into a rated R movie without a guardian, or into a NC-17 movie at all. What I am saying is that the parents need to stop relying on other people to decide what is best for their children. One day you might realize that all that stuff that they taught your child isn't the best for them, or you. Too late Mom and Dad, you already screwed it up by then.
And they said zombies weren't real!
While that does seem to be the case, I don't see why the FTC is involved at all or doing any monitoring of this sort of thing if they have no intention of intervening if they decide the ESRB isn't doing a good enough job. Maybe I'm just a little too paranoid and untrusting... I don't know.
As I've admitted, I may a little too optimistic on this front. Which is an unusual turn for me. My point of view is that video game censorship has become a neat political talking point. People on both sides of the aisle are all about "protecting our childrenz!!!111" as long as they don't have to do anything substantive. The FTC, like all other government agencies, needs truckloads of funding to keep things going. So they're piggy-backing onto the current "easy" hot-button issue of the day, getting some visability to various panels, and basically making it impossible for anybody to slash their funding. If you do, it's practically a vote for immorality and turning children into horrible, horrible beings.
Essentially, I view this as a dog and pony show for the FTC. They said what they wanted to say about how the First Ammendment makes it tough to regulate, and how the industry is currently doing a decent job. If anything else is going to happen, it's going to be through Congress and probably involve a Supreme Court fight. Which is probably a bit too far for the issue of today. Again, I imagine movies went through the same sort of thing at one point. And I remember watching Tipper Gore talk about the evils of music. Nothing too bad came from all that.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Such statements indicate that Rep Schakowsky is either totally clueless and incompetent or just fear mongering and will say anything to look "pro-family" and not at all concerned with real problems.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
A regulatory agency advocating more regulation. Shocking!
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
...Film at 11!
"It's not universal to all media."
CD's / DVD's / theatres...
"It's not Constitutional."
Prove it.
Comic Book Guy: "Oh a sarcasm detector...that's a REAL useful invention!"
*** Sarcasm beeps wildly and detector explodes ****
Ok so perhaps in this case a sarcasm detector would have been useful.
I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
A hammer was quoted as saying that the world needed more nails.
Another stupid IL politician. I had never heard of her before today. I guess I need to look into this further. I don't remember ever seeing her name on any ballot. I guess after a bit of research I have another letter to write.
I really, really hate politics, but with how screwed up things are getting I now have to get involved. I hate that. I have already looked to see what I qualify to run for and nothing is coming up this year in my area. I really don't want to become a politician, but I guess I will have to look into running for an office and see what I can do to enlighten some of these people.
Even just running for office might open the eyes of a few people. Gotta start with a few and see if it will spread.
Doesn't congress have some little Iraqi kids to maim and slaughter?
The dichotomy is sickening. These nanny-state loving goons can all go to hell, as far as I'm concerned, and they will.
It's been a long time.
I do generally agree with your post, not much to "worry about", but I wanted to expand upon a couple of points...
"My point of view is that video game censorship has become a neat political talking point."
Regulation does not equal censorship, I don't like that people, in general confuse the idea of true censorship with warning labels or even regulation. Look at past history...warning stickers on music, DVD's, the movie ratings system, etc. these are all there voluntarily to avoid true government regulation and don't constitute censorship in the least. The FTC doesn't really want to regulate the industry (they don't have the capacity to do so, they would rather be off doing other things), if that were the case, it would have done it a long time ago and would have done so to these other industries.
Take a look at the quote from one of the reps. "...it becomes even more incumbent upon industry to enforce and enhance its self-regulatory guidelines governing marketing". Notice the self-regulatory word.
The FTC stepped in because this became a "hot-button" issue:
1. Complaints that vendors were not co-operating with the voluntary system.
2. The whole GTA fiasco that really "tainted" the perception of the reliability of the ratings sytstem. (i.e. if publishers aren't honest about content, how are the ratings accurate?)
Politicians have to solve problems. When less than 1 in a million teenagers has a problem, and a lawyer screams to the media every day about it, it's a problem that a politician can use to make political points.
Because some parents can't supervise their kids, and because these kids can't understand reality, they make it tough for the rest of the people in this country. We can't possibly have a kid see something violent in a video game and be influenced by it. Never mind that they can buy books and watch movies and see just as much, if not MORE violence.
Video games are the problem, and politicians have the answer.
It's clear to politicians and Jack Thompson that we need to KEEP creating laws until this problem is stopped. Never mind "active parenting." Parents are not to blame. Never mind books, movies, or TV. Never mind commercial advertising of violence in every medium possible. Video games are the problem. Creating laws legislating video games is the ONLY way to solve this problem. Politicians (and Jack Thompson) are going to see this thing through.
I think I'd like to see Jack Thompson hang out with kids who have parents who are addicted to crack, crystal meth, or alcohol. Let's have Jack spend 40 hours a week with these kids. And maybe THEN he'll be able to tell that there are a LOT worse problems in this world than video games.
Jack Thompson is a 1 dimensional idiot.
"Government Says More Government Needed"
Simple evolution folks. Any government that didn't try to amass power would die out and be replaced with one which does.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
I love the concept of further ad reviews for GTA. Not once did I recall an ad for this game that started with:
"HEY KIDS! Now you can beat the snot out of hoes - right in your own living room!
Be the first on your block to collect all the pimps and drug dealers you can get in YOUR gang's territory!
Got catch-em ALL!"
To my knowledge it's not illegal to sell M rated games to underage children as the ESRB ratings are A FUCKING GUIDELINE NOT AN ALMIGHTY GOD TO BE OBEYED BY EVERYONE. (sorry, just had to vent there).
Anyway, this survey proves just about as much as one saying that minors are allowed into PG-13 rated movies without accompanying adults.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
See, part of the reason Slashdotters don't like the FTC and other "anti-gaming" legistlation isn't because of the legislation itself. It's the Walmart effect they're afraid of. See, most of the legislation out there isn't unreasonable. Mostly it just makes it a crime to sell M rated games to minors (give or take a provision). But the effect that will have is significant because of the trickle. If more games are rated M and AO, Walmart stops carrying them. If Walmart doesn't carry the game, that's a huge market missed out on by the developer. The developer doesn't want to miss out on huge markets, so high budget games will be Care-Bear'd down to a rating that will sell at Walmart. Gamers looking for mature content will ultimately end up with fewer choices because of the Walmart effect if legislation passes. And Walmart is a little too big and otherwise appealing to a lot of people for the free market of games to have any effect on what Walmart will carry.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
How are they getting these games, and keeping them hidden? Why are you not looking at their computer to see what's installed? Why do you not have some monitoring software on there?
Will they have more free time than you? Sure. Right now my aformentioned coworker's kids are at home, he and his wife are at work. So what? The kids don't have any games he doesn't consider are ok. He has their systems locked down so he can disallow games if he wants (the gameboys he just takes with him if need be) there's a webcam watching what goes on, and he calls them periodicly to check in.
As I said, the raitings aren't worthless but you still need to check things out for yourself. It wouldn't take 60 minutes of GTA to figure out what it's about, 2 would be fine. 60 is enough to get a good feel for any game. As for things like mods yep, games are moddable. Deal with it. I can mod a stripper in to a childrens' game if I want to. Even if the devs don't provide the content, others can. Again, your responsability as a parent to monitor your kids. Depending on how trustworthy they are you either give them unrestircted access to teh net but check the logs, or you limit or remove their net access when you are not around.
Sorry but I don't buy in to this helpless "But I'm not around my kids" idea. Well, set limits for your kids and enforce them. Get them in after school activities. That was one big way my parents kept me out of trouble. When you are doing theatre tech, band, jazz band, mock trial, and speech and debate you tend to be busy until your parents are off work.
If you kids can't be responsable with games or the net when you aren't around, take it away from them. Lock the computers down so they can't access them without you around. Might help teach them responsability. Tell them "You have a choice. You can either choose to use the Internet in a responsible way, or you can choose to have no access to it unless I'm home."
To me it seems too much like parents want the technology to deal with their kids so they are free to spend time alone. Sorry, but that's really not what you are in for. Being a parent is hard and it is exceedingly time consuming to do right. I would hope you want to do it right because you love your kids. If not, well then I have to question the business you have being a parent.
CD's Nope. DVD's Nope. theatres And no. None of those are required by law to have their sale to minors be restricted. Voluntary enforcement != government regulation... So why should games be singled out for special treatment?
"It's not Constitutional." Prove it. 1st Amendment, can't restrict creative content without valid cause (and "I object to the content" doesn't count, except in the case of pornography), 14th Amendment (equality before the law, because movies and TV and music and other forms of media aren't subjected to the same regulations).
And before anyone says it, the FCC CAN regulate TV & radio, but ONLY because they are given the authority to regulate a public resource (the airwaves). This is why HBO can show the stuff it does, but NBC can't show a nipple.
CD's / DVD's / theatres...
Those aren't law. Where is the FTC ability to fine for Wal-Mart selling an R-rated movie to a minor?
Prove it.
There are already several precedents that shot down any attempt to regulate movies and books. This isn't any different.
Regulation does not equal censorship
Ever heard of the Chilling Effect? Regulation does indeed lead to censorship, though not directly.
Complaints that vendors were not co-operating with the voluntary system.
Actually, that's not quite why the FTC stepped in. The situation became an issue of honesty in advertising. The games had a certain claim on them (the ESRB rating), and the game itself did not adhere to that claim (because of the Hot Coffee content). Hence an issue of potential false advertising.
The FTC recognized that the ESRB did not have enforced policies in place at the time concerning "hidden" or disabled content, but they do now (million dollar fines, recall capabilities, clarity of what kind of content has to be disclosed, etc) hence why they just gave everyone a slap on the wrist, and a "don't do it again."
If Walmart decided to sell the Hot Coffee edition of GTA:San Andreas, properly rated AO, but ended up selling it to kids, then the FTC wouldn't be able to do anything, because the advertising would be correct (contains sexual content & nudity). Some local court might be able to argue obscenity, and get them fined for it, but the FTC would be powerless at that point.
What I don't get is why these people have power...as in my future kid couldn't go into a store and get the 'adult' game. I like the rating systems. I like TV14 and all that. I think it's good to categorize content but not to limit what people can access as in movie theatres doing that (R requires guardian to be WITH you) and games now. I've been playing Doom and all that for a decade and I'm 21. I just hope these ratings don't turn into more actual restrictions rather than recommendations. Recommendations are always fine.
Mad scientist invents talking hammer.
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
How about this.
Give us libertarian types, say, western Oregon, as in independent nation.
We'll let people do what they like as long as they don't hurt each other or the environment. I'm strongly tempted to outlaw religion in the government, just to simplify things. Hm, and make religious indoctrination of minors cause for divorcing parents, but ZING! let's let that lie. (Though I'd wonder what a nation running on the Golden Rule [masochists excepted] would develop into. Probably a nice place to live.) Cults NOT WELCOME. They who want to take freedom away don't get to play.
Hm. instead of taxes, how about lotteries with lots of winners? Stir things up economically, all the cash sloshing around. It's like paying voluntary taxes, with the possiblity of getting lucky and rich.
No laws against gambling, prostitution, drugs, or nudity. However, BIG laws against doing things to get money to gamble or doing idiot things under the influence. Punish the behavior of people, not what they do for fun. Get high? Fine. Drive a car? NOT fine. Yell on the street while intoxicated? Dump you in a cold bath, buddy. Bother other people, hurt other people, there's a problem. But do not punish people for acts prescribed by the book of Leviticus. 'Sides, I don't think I should die for sleeping with a menstruating woman, God.
People could write anything they like, make any game they like. Read anything they like. Run any network they like. No spying, except to keep an eye on the U.S. trying to sneak its way back in. Real free markets, no monopolies, by which I mean no secret or natural price manipulation. Like, doctors required to post fees in advance, so you could shop for the best price. (I've a feeling there'd be no doctors). No corporations -- personal responsiblity for actions! No Blue Laws. No religonists telling you what to look at, for the sake of (their) children. If you're naughty, you are kicked out into the U.S. No soup for you.
Sorta like Norway, I guess.
Let Americans decide which country they'd like to live in. The free one or the "moral", "safe" one with all the cameras and listeners.
And private prisons, with more being built every year. Many, many prisons. They do intend to put us in them, ya know. It's amazing how many crimes one finds when prisons make so much money. Why, you have to invent NEW crimes, just to keep the locals employed watching all those prisoners.
"Ever heard of the Chilling Effect? Regulation does indeed lead to censorship, though not directly."
Again, look up the definition of censorship; economics play NO ROLE. You have no economic right to make money off of speech; the fact that you won't make a profit or can't sell it to certain underage people has nothing to do with your ability to create said work in the first place.
Do you claim the US is under prohibition because alcohol is regulated? No.
Is the "adult" industry censored because it is regulated? No.
"Actually, that's not quite why the FTC stepped in."
Actually, yes, it is PART of why they are involved now and have been for years; read the article, specifically the parts about the survey that has been going on for years to see how many vendors sell to underage kids.
"Some local court might be able to argue obscenity, and get them fined for it, but the FTC would be powerless at that point...."
No, the FTC would try to REGULATE the industry at that point just like they did with the "adult" industry; that's why you don't see the major outlets offer AO games -- they don't want the risk.
The FTC isn't powerless, but the FTC would rather the industry regulate itself.
"CD's Nope. DVD's Nope. theatres And no. None of those are required by law to have their sale to minors be restricted. Voluntary enforcement != government regulation... So why should games be singled out for special treatment?"
Yes, voluntary enforcement doesn't equal regulation, these industries rely on that; guess what happens when the voluntary enforcement doesn't work?
No one is being singled out, the voluntary system that let those other industries operate is broken in this case.
"It's not Constitutional." Prove it. 1st Amendment, can't restrict creative content without valid cause (and "I object to the content" doesn't count, except in the case of pornography), 14th Amendment (equality before the law, because movies and TV and music and other forms of media aren't subjected to the same regulations)."
Regulation by the FTC !- Limitation of Free Speech.
No one is prevented from producing the material.
Don't confuse free speech with profit; this isn't art for art's sake.
No one is being jailed or fined for CREATING the material.
"...except in the case of pornography"
And, of course, a large segment of the public would argue that some M games are pornographic in nature, which no one is talking about censoring...
"the FCC CAN regulate TV"
And the FCC != FTC.
Exactly what is the legal/Constitutional basis for this?
If someone could spell this out with a straight face I'd be surprised.
Libertas in infinitum
Bloody heck. GTA isn't a violent video game. As with all games, it depends on what the player does. And anyway, I pity the fool who gets the pictures on the TV confused with real life. Shootin' up hookers in a video game doesn't make anyone more likely to murder prostitutes in real life. Why? Because a video game isn't real. And that's the purpose of a video game. If it were real, there would be no point in playing it.
ARE YOU GAY? ARE YOU A NIGGER? ARE YOU A GAY NIGGER?
What the FTC somehow forgot (and they are the sort of people who should know) is that the actual market is a different industry. In other words, their undercover investigation to determine that many children can still buy M rated games is 100% unrelated to this. It is not up to the rating systems, nor to the game designers to step in and tell the child to put the game back on the shelf, it is up to the clerk sitting at the desk. I should add that the problem is largely solved simply by having a system such as what Walmart does where the machine specifically tells them to check the buyer's age (though they can still just enter 18 or whatever they want in there and the machien doesn't know the difference, at least it does ensure that they are at least aware it's a M-rated game not to be sold to minors rather than simply running the box across and then taking the money without even looking at the rating.)
I do think the rating systems need more work mind. For example, the recent Oblivion which managed to sneak through the stores with a below M rating (no, I'm not talking about the unlockable nudity, but, instead about the violence, blood, and etc that the game depicts so realistically.) Some games are rated far too harshly -- usually on a minor technicality -- while many such as Oblivion get away with murder (literally since there's nothing to stop you from just walking up and bloodily murdering someone then dragging the body around to watch their limbs move around like a dead person's.)