RSSSenators Move to Restrict Game Sales
By Ed Oswald | Published November 30, 2005, 11:26 AM
Acting on a promise first made in July of this year to take action against violent and lewd video game sales, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday announced that she would introduce a bill to protect children from such games when congress reconvenes in two weeks. The bill is being co-sponsored by Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.
Clinton led the call in July to ask for a Federal Trade Commission investigation into the discovery of lewd content in the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas video game. The FTC began an investigation later that month. The game was then recalled and a version without the questionable scenes was released in September.
Restrictions on the sale of such video games to adults are not a part of the proposed legislation, Clinton stressed. She explained that her actions were about protecting children, and ensuring minors could not easily obtain these titles.
"There is a growing body of evidence that points to a link between violent videos and aggressive behavior in children," Senator Lieberman added. "We are not interested in censoring videos meant for adult entertainment but we do want to ensure that these videos are not purchased by minors."
Clinton's office also released details of a study performed by the National Institute on Media and the Family that showed retailers were becoming less strict about video game sales. Boys as young as nine years of age were allowed to purchase "mature" rated games four out of every ten times.
The bill, called the Family Entertainment Protection Act, would consist of five parts. The first would federally prohibit the sale of mature or adults-only rated games to those under the age of 17. It is unclear if this portion of the law would stand constitutional scrutiny, as similar laws have been found to violate the First Amendment rights of video game manufacturers.
Independent reviews of the ESRB rating system would also be implemented in order to ensure video games are rated appropriately. Furthermore, the bill would endow the FTC with the authority to investigate misleading ratings, and gives the commission the go ahead to take action if it sees a problem.
Also, the bill will aim to ensure that customers have an ability to directly register complaints with the FTC on such video games, and have the commission report on such complaints to Congress.
Finally, the FTC would be given the authority to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the new law.
But those ready to blame Hillary Clinton for the Capitol Hill investigations into video game sales should instead look to Congress at large; the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly 355 to 21 to investigate Grand Theft Auto in July, and a similar resolution was presented in the Senate.
The ESRB, however, rejected the need for Federal oversight when it comes to video games. In a statement, the group said it shares "Senator Clinton's commitment to effective enforcement of the ESRB ratings by retailers, and we appreciate the fact that she has sought to draft a more thoughtful proposal in this area than most others."
"However, we strongly oppose the bill," the statement continued. "We believe the combination of trustworthy ESRB ratings, parental education, voluntary retail enforcement of ESRB ratings, and, most recently, the major announcement that all next generation video game consoles will include parental control systems, makes Senator Clinton's bill unnecessary."
First of all, to those of you all proclaiming that parents have a responsibility to know what their kids are buying and watching/playing, I just want to say that not all kids are perfect angels and most aren't. Too many kids will tell their parents they're not doing it, but do it behind their back. So this kind of helps parents out.
As far as comparing this issue to the music downloads, that's ridiculous because kids aren't worth anything! You can't hold a kid financially responsible even if you wanted to!
Now, here's one question I have for everyone preaching against this bill: why haven't any of you criticized the prevention of the sale of rated-R movie tickets to minors? It's exactly the same thing. If you want to criticize this bill, then you also don't think kids should be prevented from buying rated-R movie tickets. And that may be, but I'd like to hear it.
Score: 0
|"Too many kids will tell their parents they're not doing it, but do it behind their back. So this kind of helps parents out."
Yes, it helps the parents reconcile their failures.
Parents who are responsible and attentive *can* raise children who will not *want* to go behind their parents back...because they will *know* better.
Saying the kids are in control is a cop out.
"why haven't any of you criticized the prevention of the sale of rated-R movie tickets to minors?"
To paraphrase one of my posts below:
*Any* government enforced age restriction (alcohol, cigarettes, movies, games, the list goes on and on...) only serves to reinforce the lax habits of many of today's parents. "Oh, the government will make sure they grow up allright....the schools will make my kids grow up right..."
Retail, government, or schools, shouldn't have to be responsible for raising children...*parents* should. Fine *the parents*, not the stores.
Score: 0
|Hi there, you make some good points. However, I made comparison with MP3 downloads because there is a double standard, or at least an inconsistency, over who is responsible or culpable when it comes to what our children get up to. On one hand we have the responsibility of the seller, whether it be sale of cigarettes, movies, games, beer or whatever, and on the other hand we have the responsibility of the parent to ensure that the child is not trying to do these things in the first place.
I agree with you entirely, that it is wrong to sell R-rated movie tickets to minors, or to sell whatever to someone who is not supposed to have it. But the seller is not the only adult in this equation.
On the basis of your point and mine, it seems to me that one way out of this mire is to set into law what parents are responsible for, rather than legally battering everyone else with whom their children come into contact.
If parents are NOT responsible for what their children spend their pocket money on (which is in effect funding the child's activities), maybe putting that into law would settle it once and for all. But then I expect we'd have parents claiming they ARE responsible for what their children do with the money they give them. There are arguments on both sides, and parents must choose one or the other.
The fact that a parent is not always standing beside their child to oversee what it does, does not by default abdicate them from responsibility for the child's actions, or pass it on to someone else. If they think that, then they are really into three wise monkey territory.
Either way, parents need to make some hard choices about what their role really is these days: Master of the child only while within direct line of sight, or master at all times. Parents cannot simply rely on the rest of the world to do the right thing. Unfortunately the world just isn't like that, and no amount of legislation will change it.
Score: 0
|It's still a simple equation -- if you can't buy M-rated games as a minor, you also should not be legally allowed to buy R-rated movies, either. They both come on a disc, and are often sold at the same stores. There's nothing more appropriate than getting Hillary and the Congressional Morality Highgrounders to get this all done in one swoop.
Hillary never was one to pass on a Cash Cow.
Score: 0
|Parental responsibility over Retail responsibility. The stores didn't have kids, the parents did. So who should be respopnsible for them?
Should it be the retailers responsibility at all?
When did we make them responsible for what our children purchase? Did I miss that part of our constitution? That all retailers should be held responsible for the purchasing habits of minors?
I understand many parents don't seem to give a sh1t...and there needs to be something in place to protect the children of those parents. But why punish the retailers? Why not punish the careless, irresponsible parents...ya know...the ones who are actually *responsible* for the kids?
Government enforced age restrictions only cater to lax parenting by giving the parents an excuse to not shoulder that part of their responsibility to their children..."Oh, the government will do it for me."
I'd really like to know how they figure the government is responsible for raising their children? I'd like to ask them why they think my tax-dollars should go to enforcing restrictions placed by the government because they are to irresponsible and careless to watch over their own children.
Then I'd like to kick them. Just once. I'm sure that's all they need...a good Red Foreman-style swift kick in the ass.
Score: 0
|Let's take a look at what this bill would do, shall we?
"The first would federally prohibit the sale of mature or adults-only rated games to those under the age of 17."
Nothing wrong about this, in my opinion. Of course, kids could easily get their parents to buy the games for them without thinking. But that's beside the issue, because it's never the parent's falut.
"Independent reviews of the ESRB rating system would also be implemented in order to ensure video games are rated appropriately."
Yeah, this is a good idea. Let's start telling the ESRB how to rate games, and make sure that they are "rated appropriately." Give me a break.
"Furthermore, the bill would endow the FTC with the authority to investigate misleading ratings, and gives the commission the go ahead to take action if it sees a problem."
Define "misleading." I don't see anything about a big black "M" and the words "Not suitable for children under the age of 17" under it.
"Also, the bill will aim to ensure that customers have an ability to directly register complaints with the FTC on such video games, and have the commission report on such complaints to Congress."
So instead of parents actually watching what their children play, they wait until somebody gets hurt after years of letting videogames raise their kids. Then they get to whine about it.
"Finally, the FTC would be given the authority to conduct audits to ensure compliance with the new law."
Big Brother at it's best.
Score: 0
|It is interesting that when it comes to children downloading MP3 files, the record industry has been known to go after the parents. Yet with games the parents are apparently blameless bystanders.
What children play or watch or do at home is the responsibility of the adults in whose care they live. Certainly shops should not been selling M-rated games to small kids, but surely the g**d***ed parents can see if their kid is playing a game that involves strippers and blowing people into giblets?
This ain't rocket science. Parents just for a change try being around your kids while they are playing games.
Score: 0
|Isn't there already some sort of trouble retailers can get into if they sell games to minors (and if this stuff goes int effect how will it be enforced? a "rating po-po" at every register? lol)? But seriously is the problem really that big (how many kids are actually playing m-rated games)? But they shouldn't be playing them, thats why they are m-rated. And i think a lot of it is the parents fault- i saw some broad with a kid (probably 8 or 10) in a target this summer buying an xbox and gta: san andreas. what the hell, woman (not blaming women, just this one), what were you thinking?
Score: 0
|welcome to Amerika, home of the free (NOT). Seriously people.. compare **per capita** amerika with the rest of the world... countries with lower ages of concent, laxer drinking ages, etc and more focus on parenting over government sanctioned babysitting have lower crime rates per capita than the United Snakes of Amerika. `nuff said.
government by the people for the people? not for a loooonnngg time, if ever
Score: 0
|We already have age limits on alcohol sales, rentals of R-rated (restricted!) movies & admittance into theaters.
There's everything RIGHT with pushing forward legislation to hold retailers responsible for distribution of content that is inappropriate to young children.
During Clinton's administration (Bill), The Gores and Clintons pushed forth the rating system seen on video games as well as the television rating system. Neither system has restricted or interfered in anyone's lives - they've just allowed parents to be better informed of the materials being purchased by their children.
It's not a political manuever - it's a continuation of policies that began in the early 90s - and it's congressmen following what they should really be doing.
So as far as 'whatever happened to taking care of your own g** d*** kids' -- well, this doesn't change that. It's like the label on a pack of cigarettes that warns of the potentially harmful consequences of smoking combined with an age ban. You can buy your children liquor, cigarettes and porn if you like. It's a free country, although if CPS finds out, they might find your parenting skills in need of intervention. Video Games are just now going to be handled in a responsible manner.
'It's about winning coservative or rather family oriented values' -- as noted above, the Clinton Administration did focus on these same values which are also pushed in many of Hilary's books.
horsecharles: Regardless of the fact that B. Clinton will not be remembered for political policy due to his extramarital policy, the administration did focus on such things and Hilary continues this.
bourgeoisdude: ... this article was a waste of time? Why post this thought and responses to other people's comments? You do ask one good question though -- is there a penalty to retailers? Is there for selling Lucy and Kimmie's Naughty Romp in the Woods to 13 year olds? I know my example is silly.
'Fine the parents, fine the caregivers' -- I'm sure that combined with abusive behavior, neglect, or any reason that the CPA would step in to intervene, the purchase and allowance of violent video games [and movies, etc.] in the lives of their children will be examined and used in decisions - as they should.
'If a 13 year old kid is playing an M rated game, it's really the parents fault' -- perhaps, however, if a 13 year old kid is smoking cigarettes and drinking beer, one also wonder who purchased the questionable items. It's certainly the parent's fault - but now those parents who are ignorant towards what they may be providing their kids can be informed a little better.
heat_fan1: Exactly. It's the same as movies and videos.
And you know ... you can buy a movie at Best Buy with some fantastic nudie scenes. Why not be able to buy a video game with the same adult content? The age of gamers is getting older - and with technology allowing more photo-realistic games, it's a natural progression. Sex sells and I think that GTA:SA, Larry 7(?), several Bikini Volleyball games, and other games are indications of this. Release an unrated version -- the game makers can then get away with selling more copies of the software by releasing that sort of thing later, including cursing or whatever they choose.
Enforcing and taking a rating system seriously will allow for more mature titles to be properly distributed and allow video gaming to grow up a little bit, much like the movie industry.
Kudos to BIL, GimieGimieGimie
Score: 0
|"bourgeoisdude: ... this article was a waste of time? Why post this thought and responses to other people's comments? You do ask one good question though -- is there a penalty to retailers? Is there for selling Lucy and Kimmie's Naughty Romp in the Woods to 13 year olds? I know my example is silly."
The article IS a waste of time, I STILL haven't read it.
Score: 0
|What I find pretty cool here is that you responded to this and maintained your initial stance on the article :)
Score: 0
|Comments are not a waste of time, just the article :)
Score: 0
|Hil-larious.
Score: 0
|"a bill to protect children from such games"
Whatever happened to taking care of your own g** d*** kids?
I wonder, if I were to run for congressman, and I ran independant, could I win if I did the opposite of the s*** these politicians do?
Course I'd have to kill about 2 dozen people first.
Score: 0
|poor g** d*** kids...
Score: 0
|protecting kids? seriously this isn't about protecting kids, it's about winning coservative or rather "family oriented" votes...
Score: 0
|Yup.
Score: 0
|"taking care of your own g** d*** kids?"
That's what they are obviously asking each other when they are forced to pass bills like this.
Parents don't have to take any responsibility for the actions of their children, and that's what "happened to taking care of your own g** d*** kids"!
Score: 0
|"Whatever happened to taking care of your own g** d*** kids?"
LOL, I love it when people use profanity so habitually that they will literally ask God to send their kids to hell and not realize it...
Score: 0
|ROFL. That's what I was trying to say with my response. No one got it though. =/
Score: 0
|The moralistic American politicians bite again.
*sigh*.
Score: 0
|Go hilary. God forbid parent's should be held responsible.
Don't force enforcement on the retailers. They sell, it's why they exist. Force enforcement on the parents.
Fine the parents, fine the caregivers. THOSE are the people who are responsible (or should be) for the actions of their kids...not the retailers. They are *not* babysitters.
I'm gonna make me a new "Shoot Hilary, GTA Style" bumper sticker.
Seriously. This witch needs tpo shut the hell up.
Score: 0
|!!!
ROFL OMG, it took me like 2 minutes to get back up in my chair.
...so funny...
Please, when you finish that bumper sticker, send me one!
Score: 0
|Parents should be fined or face jailtime when their children get in trouble with the law.
That would fix the problem, quick fast and in a hurry.
Retailers should be forced to not sell M or AO games to children just as tobacco and alcohol can't be sold to children.
Don't like it, move and take your gang member waiting to happen children with you. (rant, not aimed at you PC_Tool)
Not a hillary fan WHAT SO EVER, but well something has to happen and since parents can't figure it out then TFB.
Score: 0
|Well i tell ya one thing, if this keeps up, the kids of the future might actually leave the house for a change :P
Score: 0
|Wouldn't that be nice?
Score: 0
|Maybe the problem is the parents - If a 13 year old kid is playing an M rated game, it's really the parents fault!
Score: 0
|Just as it is when they smoke, or drink alcohol.
Parents face jail time for giving their kids alcohol, they should face jail time for giving them a killing simulator.
Score: 0
|Actually I'm glad the senators are trying to do something. I hate loud vulgar music from other peoples cars around my family. I dislike the neighbor's using foul language in casual everyday coversations. Adult language, movies, games and etc. should be restricted to adults. If you are a minor you should not have access to this. I don't see any real problem with Best Buy and etc being made to sell only to adults. Most adult magazines are already restricted. Yes there are laws restricting this already, such as contributiing to the delinquency of a minor and etc. We just need to put decency above profit. Once you are an adult you can watch and listen to whatever you want as long as you don't trample on other people's rights to not be exposed to it.
Score: 0
|decency above profit as long as the indecency can be snuck under the radar, right? Otherwise, you would put most companys & govt. out of business in todays world. Or maybe that's not such a bad thing...
Score: 0
|gangster rap and hell the whole gangster image should be illegal IMHO.
I'm 100% anti-censorship, but advertising that you are a thug well you should get treated like one.
Score: 0
|She wants to "protect children from lewd behavior".... well, she should've moved poor Chelsea far, far away from Bill-- & she shouldn't've boffed Stenaphanapoulos in that same abode as well.
Score: 0
|"Acting on a promise first made in July of this year to take action against violent and lewd video game sales, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton..."
I stopped reading right there, not worth wasting my time.
Score: 0
|Amen.
Score: 0
|This is just stupid. Money is being waisted here. Is this bill actualy goignto do anything.
Score: 0
|It could. It would set into place consequences for retailers who sell Mature video games to minors. That means retailers would think twice about doing so in the future, because they could get fined.
Score: 0
|Maybe I'm just stupid...but are retailers responsible for selling R rated movies to minors? If so then it should be that way for 'M' video games too. Laws for vid games should be the same as movies, I say.
Score: 0
|"Money is being waisted here. "
No..that's at the strip-joint down the road...
Sheesh.
Score: 0
|hah!
Score: 0
|I think whatever regulation is in place for movies should be the same here. I don't know if the kids-can't-buy-rated-R-movie-tickets is a law or just a voluntary thing, but whatever is in place there should be in place for retail movie and game purchases. I'm not sure why that wouldn't pass constitutionality.
If someone under 17 can't buy a rated-R movie ticket, they shouldn't be able to buy rated-R movies or Mature/Adult-Only games. If they want it, have someone over 17 buy it for them.
Score: 0
|Agreed, but as asked before, can retailers get in trouble for selling/renting an R rated movie to a minor?
Score: 0
|I don't know how it is right now. I don't even know if movie theaters can get in trouble for letting minors in. But they all should get in trouble if they are.
Score: 0
|I pledge allegiance, to our nanny state...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!
Score: 0
|I pledge allegiance first and formost to my God, secondly to my country...never to polititans, whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or whatever. But here I ramble off topic again...
EDIT: Pledge your allegiance? Just like Anakin to Palpatine? What if she's a Sith Lord in disguise? LOLOLOLOL
Score: 0
|The same rules should be applied to movie/dvd sales. Let's see it pass then.
Score: 0
|GO HOME HILLARY. NO ONE WANTS YOU.
All she freaking wants is publicity. This has nothing to do with video games for her.
EDIT: Sorry guys. I just can't stand her.
Score: 0
|Me neither, see my post above :)
Score: 0
|Wow..I'm lost, I thought that's what the Game ratings was for? and any Rated "M" Material should be I.D. checked before a sale is made?
Score: 0
|Yes, but it's not. And there's no real enforcement if they don't follow the rating -- that's the whole problem.
Esentially, the bill would give the FTC oversight over video game sales and potentially fine retailers who don't following the ESRB ratings.
But the ESRB knows it could lessen sales (I'm sure a lot of GTA players are under 18), so it doesn't want that enforcement hanging over the head of retailers. Retailers may even decide not to stock Mature games because of the risk.
Score: 0
|Retailers not stocking Mature games because of the risk is like Best Buy not stocking "R" rated moves... they're not going to pull them from their shelves.
Now, that aside - I think Senator Clinton is full of crap and is wasting money. It's more the responsibility of the parents to enforce what their children do than the retail outlets.
Score: 0
|Where's the problem with that?
Score: 0
|Welp, hate to break the news to you but parents just don't do their jobs anymore so as much as I don't want to be I'm all for it.
Score: 0
|