Interview with 'Anti-Gamer' Senator Leland

strwrsxprt writes "Game Almighty recently had the chance to speak with Senator Leland Yee about his views on the validity of California Assembly Bill 1179, which was designed to criminalize the sale of Mature rated games to minors and require retailers to keep Mature games separated from other games. He also shares his thoughts on everything from the effectiveness of the ESRB and the place AO games have in the market, to the movie industry and their rating standards in relation to games. His answers might just surprise you."

Comments

Reasonable, Articulate, and Restrained

[Elemenope]

Clearly this Yee character is from an alternate universe, where politicians consider policy with a decent amount of reflection and don't feel the need to demonize the horreur de jour.

He makes an especially interesting point in that, unlike movies, it is unrealistic for parents to provide guidance for their children throughout the entire gameplaying experience because games are pretty damn long-playing compared to comparable media.

Government vs. Private regulation

[PlatyPaul]

The real issue at the heart of Senator Yee's efforts is whether or not it should be an act of government or private regulation which controls the ability of children to buy (and play) M-rated games. For those who don't know (i.e., have been living under a rock), the ESRB is the video game equivalent of the MPAA/NATO rating group. To get a quick idea of Leland's views, check out these two quotes from the TFA:

Time and time again, the ESRB has proven it can not be trusted and is not a very valuable tool for parents.

We need all retailers to prevent sales of M rated video games to minors. We need the ratings board to watch more than 30 minutes of footage before deciding on a rating. In fact, they should have to play the game and watch significantly more footage. There needs to be more transparency of the rating system and how they come up with various ratings.

Clearly, Sen. Yee (and the supporters of his proposed legislation) believes that the ESRB does not do an acceptable job in their role of regulating the availability of violent video games to minors, and that therefore the government should get involved. Take from that what you will: levels of government involvement in private life, comparative success of government and private enforcement, etc.

Personally, I'd have to say that the government is just as likely (if not more so) to do a lousy job simply due to inexperience and increased outside pressure (i.e., lobbyists). It's not that I don't think they could do it - I just don't think it's worth scrapping what we have and starting over. And, my own little pet peeve: Sen. Yee never mentioned why the ESRB "can not be trusted". And that's just not right.

Re:Surprise surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

How is illegalizing sale of materials rated for an adult, to a minor, anti-gamer?

Adult gamers should still be able to purchase these things just fine.

Re:Smarter replies than I expected

[Sciros]

Hey good for you, buddy. You make a clever point and I should tell my friends in the armed forces that only airport security guards carry guns so they shouldn't worry about running into any any time soon. People only die of old age, anyhow.

It's not about teaching life skills, it's simply that sheltering kids from violence is nonsensical, likely pointless, and possibly harmful in the long run because people (including kids) are violent and in certain parts of the world (and the US) very much so. Of course you don't deal with it *better* by having been exposed to violent games or whatever, but if parents shelter their children too much then they end up with some complexes down the road and I have personally witnessed this. Besides that, if we consider simply the playing of violent games on its own (and assume children are not sheltered in other needless ways in addition) then it is not harmful and it makes not a bit of difference whether a kid plays them or not.

Re:Smarter replies than I expected

[Sneftel]

Because this legislation CRIMINALIZES the sale of games to minors. *Criminalizes* is the key word, and you have to think about what that means. Your addition problem analogy is indeed appropriate here, because I simply cannot see jail time being a fitting penalty for selling a minor an M-rated game.

Heh. Looks like you didn't actually read the bill. Nobody's going to be sent to jail for violating this law.