Family Entertainment Protection Act
Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:10 pm
From Railbait.Com:
You may or may not be aware, but there is currently pending Congressional legislation that would place the rating and selling of video games under government regulation. If passed, this legislation would have a chilling effect on game developers, who would likely self-censor to avoid penalties, fines, and even jail. This is a level of supervision and regulation that exists is no other type of media in the United States. As Americans, we would consider government regulation of the content of books, movies or music to be a unforgivable violation of Free Speech. Video games should not be treated any differently.
The general provision of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, as proposed by Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, is as follows:
1 - Retailers will be held criminally liable if they sell Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending rated games to minors. This means, for example, that it will be a crime to sell the original Half-Life to a 17 year old, even with his or her parents' permission.
2 - The current voluntary video game rating system will be subject to government supervision. This means that the government will determine what gets rated Mature, and is therefore illegal to sell to minors.
3 - The FTC will be required to investigate ratings that the government believes are not being applied according to their standards. The FTC will also be given the authority to conduct annual, random audits of game vendors to ensure that they are complying with the rating system.
The justification that is being given for this legislation is the protection of children from inappropriate game content. This is a direct intrusion by the government into private life. The government wants to regulate what games we are allowed to play and they want take away our ability to decide for ourselves what games our children can play.
In addition, this will cause a massive chilling effect on the games industry. Game developers would be forced to remove content from their games to ensure that they would not be subject to government prosecution. Any game developer that risked putting more mature content into their games (again, remember that Half Life 1 is currently classified Mature) would likely risk having their game pulled from store shelves by retailers who are afraid of prosecution. This would stifle the creativity of the games industry and reduce the quality and variety of products available, even to adults.
Currently, all major retailers require their employees to ask for ID when selling an "M" rated game. Most sales associates would rather keep their job than sell an "M" rated game to someone who is underage. If a child gets their hands on an inappropriate game, usually the culprit is the parent. It is not the game manufacturer's fault nor the retailer's fault if someone does not do any research and simply buys Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for their 10 year old. If you want to protect children from harmful game content, the proper action is to make parents more aware of the rating system and what it means. Educate parents about the content of the games their kids want to play, don't use government intrusion. Computer games receive the same Constitutional protection that books, films and music do and the government is trying to violate it.
So, now that you've read all this, what can you do? You can join the Video Game Voters Network. This is a website set up by the Entertainment Software Association to educate the public and fight this legislation and similar acts being proposed in state legislature. Joining takes just a minute of your time and it will automatically send letters to your Senators expressing your disagreement with this act. Please take a few seconds out of your surfing right now to help keep video game content free from government regulation. Feel free to copy this and post it elsewhere; the more who know the better.
Let your Senators know that you do not support the Family Entertainment Protection Act.
http://www.videogamevoters.org/it/
You may or may not be aware, but there is currently pending Congressional legislation that would place the rating and selling of video games under government regulation. If passed, this legislation would have a chilling effect on game developers, who would likely self-censor to avoid penalties, fines, and even jail. This is a level of supervision and regulation that exists is no other type of media in the United States. As Americans, we would consider government regulation of the content of books, movies or music to be a unforgivable violation of Free Speech. Video games should not be treated any differently.
The general provision of the Family Entertainment Protection Act, as proposed by Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, is as follows:
1 - Retailers will be held criminally liable if they sell Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending rated games to minors. This means, for example, that it will be a crime to sell the original Half-Life to a 17 year old, even with his or her parents' permission.
2 - The current voluntary video game rating system will be subject to government supervision. This means that the government will determine what gets rated Mature, and is therefore illegal to sell to minors.
3 - The FTC will be required to investigate ratings that the government believes are not being applied according to their standards. The FTC will also be given the authority to conduct annual, random audits of game vendors to ensure that they are complying with the rating system.
The justification that is being given for this legislation is the protection of children from inappropriate game content. This is a direct intrusion by the government into private life. The government wants to regulate what games we are allowed to play and they want take away our ability to decide for ourselves what games our children can play.
In addition, this will cause a massive chilling effect on the games industry. Game developers would be forced to remove content from their games to ensure that they would not be subject to government prosecution. Any game developer that risked putting more mature content into their games (again, remember that Half Life 1 is currently classified Mature) would likely risk having their game pulled from store shelves by retailers who are afraid of prosecution. This would stifle the creativity of the games industry and reduce the quality and variety of products available, even to adults.
Currently, all major retailers require their employees to ask for ID when selling an "M" rated game. Most sales associates would rather keep their job than sell an "M" rated game to someone who is underage. If a child gets their hands on an inappropriate game, usually the culprit is the parent. It is not the game manufacturer's fault nor the retailer's fault if someone does not do any research and simply buys Grand Theft Auto: Vice City for their 10 year old. If you want to protect children from harmful game content, the proper action is to make parents more aware of the rating system and what it means. Educate parents about the content of the games their kids want to play, don't use government intrusion. Computer games receive the same Constitutional protection that books, films and music do and the government is trying to violate it.
So, now that you've read all this, what can you do? You can join the Video Game Voters Network. This is a website set up by the Entertainment Software Association to educate the public and fight this legislation and similar acts being proposed in state legislature. Joining takes just a minute of your time and it will automatically send letters to your Senators expressing your disagreement with this act. Please take a few seconds out of your surfing right now to help keep video game content free from government regulation. Feel free to copy this and post it elsewhere; the more who know the better.
Let your Senators know that you do not support the Family Entertainment Protection Act.
http://www.videogamevoters.org/it/
Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:49 pm
I. Prohibition on Selling Mature and Adults Only video games to minors: The centerpiece of this bill is a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen. This provision is not aimed at punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system, according to Clinton. That’s why retailers would have an affirmative defense if they were shown an identification they believed to be valid or have a system in place to display and enforce the ESRB system.
Provision one allows a defense for a retailer to sell a M rated game to an adult who then turns around and gives it to a kid.
To me this is like cigarette or beer sales to minors. Retailers are required to ask for proper ID. If given that, they can sell the product. If you as a proper parent are completely ok with your kid drinking, smoking and playing GTA:San Andreas...have at 'er!
No where could I find that this law gives the government the ability to rate games. It simply puts into place a stronger enforcement of the ESRB (there's relatively none today) and audits the ESRB to ensure games are properly rated.
I'm not sure what the ESA (formally the IDSA) is so up in arms about. Its their rating system the government wants enforced.
If I have an issue with this is that IMO you need to lump the MPAA and theater owners into this as well. What's the difference in a minor playing an M rated game and say going to 'SAW II'? Yet I don't hear anyone screaming about that.
Provision one allows a defense for a retailer to sell a M rated game to an adult who then turns around and gives it to a kid.
To me this is like cigarette or beer sales to minors. Retailers are required to ask for proper ID. If given that, they can sell the product. If you as a proper parent are completely ok with your kid drinking, smoking and playing GTA:San Andreas...have at 'er!
No where could I find that this law gives the government the ability to rate games. It simply puts into place a stronger enforcement of the ESRB (there's relatively none today) and audits the ESRB to ensure games are properly rated.
I'm not sure what the ESA (formally the IDSA) is so up in arms about. Its their rating system the government wants enforced.
If I have an issue with this is that IMO you need to lump the MPAA and theater owners into this as well. What's the difference in a minor playing an M rated game and say going to 'SAW II'? Yet I don't hear anyone screaming about that.
Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:33 pm
Originally posted by Rotoman
If I have an issue with this is that IMO you need to lump the MPAA and theater owners into this as well. What's the difference in a minor playing an M rated game and say going to 'SAW II'? Yet I don't hear anyone screaming about that.
My sentiments exactly. More important than simply signing a form, make your voices known by NOT voting for certain senators or would-be Presidential hopefuls. To think that Lieberman was THIS close to winning the Democratic vote in the primaries a few years ago... scary stuff.
Yeah, I know, I know... not supposed to trudge into political territory, but this thread by its very nature, is already there.
Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:41 pm
ender, this crap is not one sided at all, both sides jump on the bandwagon. Therefor it really isn't one side vs another, more like WTF are both sides thinking.
Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:12 pm
Anytime you want to go live in a free country, Canada is right across the border 
Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:45 pm
Originally posted by Rotoman
If I have an issue with this is that IMO you need to lump the MPAA and theater owners into this as well. What's the difference in a minor playing an M rated game and say going to 'SAW II'? Yet I don't hear anyone screaming about that.
Exactly.
Now its not like the parent isn't going to get the game for their kids anyway. Just stupid piece of legislation is you ask me.
can't say
Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:53 pm
Originally posted by Chacal
Anytime you want to go live in a free country, Canada is right across the border
You can't say c*nt in Canada
Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:41 am
Tango: good point. I didn't mean to imply one sidedness... just to educate oneself in who it is we vote for. Believe me, I don't vote "party line" but rather look at each individual running.
So, in effect, I agree with you.
So, in effect, I agree with you.
Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:09 am
Govt's approach is to never tackle the big difficult to solve problems. Instead, they create Strawman type solutions. Ignore the tough problems, set up some other issue that they can steamroll through, then kick ass on it and crow abouth their achievments. Typical stuff.
Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:59 am
...The proposed law seems to only enforce the ESRB.