The US Government regulating video games

[KaotikKreator]

I wrote this paper for my Information Literacy class, and I am intrigued to see what other gamers think of my representation of the topic. I'll go ahead and apologize for the length of it right here.

 

In the long, drawn-out history of the media industry, there have always been questions of how much regulation is necessary or required. Sometimes, it got to the point that one person (usually a “concerned parent”) stood up to make his distaste of the current regulatory system, and vouched to have it changed. Being the Americans we are, when someone waves a banner, some of us will immediately begin following it. This was the case with movies, music, television, and now, even video games’ regulation is coming under the gun. I am here today to discuss the differences and similarities between previous cases of regulatory changes, and to let my opinion be known as to what to do about video games.

 

Let’s begin with what we already know: movies come with a rating printed on the back. This rating is usually small and out of the way, found somewhere within the block of tiny-type credits. However, with television commercials printing the rating in very large, easy-to-read fonts at the end of each movie trailer, it’s hard to complain about the ratings system there. Music is regulated in much the same way: if there are vulgar messages or adult themes sung as part of the album, then there is found a “Parental Advisory” sticker, attached to the shrink-wrap on the jewel case. With such a simple addition, parents take a look at the titles of the songs, and in some cases, take the time to look them up on the internet and stream the song before giving a yea or nay response to their child.

 

As for television, nearly every show you watch nowadays comes with a rating that appears in the top left-hand corner of your screen with letters and numbers that pertain to different terms. Some of these terms are: “Language,” “Violence,” and “Nudity.” In some extreme cases, there is a disclaimer that appears before the television show is played, stating that “Viewer discretion is advised.” These ratings and disclaimers will often be shown at the end of each commercial break, allowing late-comers to see a breakdown of what the show entails. With cable or satellite television, you also have ratings shown to you in several other places. One of these is in the program guide, and the rating accompanies a short description of the show.

 

However, with video games, regulations are much tighter. In every video game trailer, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board’s (ESRB) rating is shown against a black background. You can also find this rating on the game’s website. This rating is a duplicate of the one found on the back, bottom right-hand corner of the box. On the video game’s case, there is a square at the bottom, left-hand corner of the front, showing the letter of the ESRB’s rating. On the back, there is a more in-depth rating, containing additional information, breaking down the game’s content further. These enhanced ratings show a prospective buyer an at-a-glance summary of the game’s more risqué parts. Possible ratings additions can include: “Sexual Themes,” “Strong Language,” “Cartoon Violence,” “Blood and Gore,” and many others. (ESRB, 2010) Even more so, upon opening the case, on the bottom of the front cover of your game’s manual, there is that same letter found on the front of the box. Also, on any game discs included, this letter is also displayed. With this ratings system covering all of the game’s separate sold pieces, you wouldn’t think any additional regulations were necessary. If you thought so, you’d be wrong.

 

If a 16-yr-old teenager walks into the game store today, and picks up a game that has been rated “M for Mature,” he will not be allowed to purchase said game. In my experience, as a 21-yr-old young man, I am carded for mature-rated games in the same way that I would be carded during purchase of alcohol or tobacco products. However, this high-level of regulation of interactive media is not enough, according to some California officials. (Nutt, 2010)

 

The bill proposed by these officials “demands that violent video games be marked with a two-inch square label on the front of the box.” And if these games are sold to minors, then the retailers are then made liable for “up to $1,000 per violation.” (Miller, 2010) At Gamestop, and many other stores that sell M-rated video games, they already card people during purchase to make sure that they are 17 years of age.(Chester, 2007) This is because of the flexibility of the term “Mature.” In fact, in the entire history of the ESRB, there has never been an AO rating given to a game. (Miller, 2010)

 

This small piece of information leads closer to the fence, however, I won’t ever touch it. Even though the “ratings system itself is flawed,” as stated by Adam Keigwin in an interview with Matt Miller of Game Informer magazine, it works. The California bill does not mention downloadable video games or other content at all. (Miller 2010) This could lead to video games being distributed in a digital-only format, which would then cause all sorts of new problems.

 

So as I come to a close, I would like to leave you with my opinions. I feel that games are currently regulated quite well however, parental knowledge of the ratings system is much too low for my tastes. I propose that a series of rectifications to this be done. First, a free, optional seminar that details the ESRB and what each of its ratings actually mean. Also, for parents who do not have enough time to spend at one of these seminars, create a video tutorial of the ESRB, explaining in detail each particular rating. These videos could (and probably should) be presented in an episodic format, so that parents can view just the information that pertains to them at that time. Include on websites of retailers that sell mature-rated games, a link to the videos. This video tutorial system may remove the need for the seminars, so money could be saved by ceasing. However, until the video tutorial is up in its entirety, it would be a good idea to continue to provide the free seminars.

 

Finally, I would like to mention the upcoming Supreme Court hearing in November of this year. This is the case that concerns the Californian bill that I mentioned above. There is a petition that is being put together by the Entertainment Consumer’s Association (ECA) to be sent to the Supreme Court as an attachment to an amicus brief. The full details of their documents can be found on their website. I have signed this petition, will you?

 

Works Cited:

Chester, Nick. “Gamestop: Sell an M-rated game to a minor, enjoy your unemployment.” Destructoid. N.p., 7 Feb. 2007. Web. 19 Sept. 2010.

EMA. http://www.entmerch.org/schwarzenneger.html. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2010.

ECA. http://theeca.com/schwarzeneggervema. N.p., n.d.. Web. 14 Sept. 2010.

Miller, Matt. “Enemy of The State.” Game Informer, 210 Oct. 2010: 19-20. Print.

Nutt, Christian. “Senator Leland Yee: Games May Be 'Artful', But Children Are Too Vulnerable.” Gamasutra. N.p., 4 May 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2010

 

Anything that you'd care to add or debate will be welcomed with open arms. Thank you for your time, and thank you for reading this insanely long post.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Censorship is a cancer on the freedom of speech. Regulation is censorship; the tighter the regulations the more difficult it is to expose one's views and works to the public. As that difficulty increases, fewer people and companies will even bother to put the time, money, and effort into unraveling the red tape- stifling their speech as surely as an outright law against it.

 

My opinion on this matter is, and has always been, that if a parent is careless and exposes their child to something that causes that child trauma, then they should bear the consequences- therapy, fines, bail money, or whatever. We have no need of a government or any other organization that presumes to inform us what is and isn't "acceptable" for any given age group, or for any part of any society whatsoever. A free person's rights stop where they meet those of another free person- not after, and definitely not before.

 

Screw these feel-good nanny-state moral guardians. Screw them sideways with a rusty snow shovel. :wallbash:

[DeathWarrior]

Your paper looks pretty well written, and I don't see very many mistakes, but I'm myself still learning to write papers so my opinion may not be 100% accurate. After rereading the paper I see that it's not perfect, but I still think a final copy would get you at least a B.

 

As for the topic itself I think it's a controversial, yet pretty interesting one. I'm 19 (almost 20) now, but I still have the same opinion on this subject as I always have. The current regulation is censorship enough, and the games get too much blame. While there are parents who don't know how to parent and let their children get into a load of trouble, I don't think that ALL parents who buy their children these types of games are those kind of people. I use myself as an example: My parents have bought me M-rated games ever since I was around 10-12 years old, but they were responsible parents. To this day I've never even been in a physical fight before, EVER, let alone get into real trouble.

 

I'm not sure what my official political title would be, but I tend to lean to the lower-left of the political compass when it comes to politics so naturally I am a strong supporter of personal freedom and strongly against media censorship, especially laws based on "morals".

 

It's up to the parents if the child is under 17, and deciding to buy them the game does NOT make them bad if they raised their child correctly.

[evilneko]

It has a very conversational tone. Is this for an oral presentation? It sure reads like it is. If that's not your intent, you should consider rephrasing some things. As well, I noticed some errors in grammar and style, but I don't want to nitpick right now unless directly asked to.

 

Questions: Who is Adam Keigwin? You should consider mentioning that.

 

You mention a Supreme Court case concerning the "California bill" -- does the bill have a name?

If there's a court case about it, it sounds like it's already law in California.

 

Is this the Supreme Court of California, or the Federal one?

 

What was the impetus for the case? Who brought it?

 

Overall depending on the level of the course you are submitting this for (and the type of presentation it is to be), I might grade it anywhere from an A to a low C. Without knowing that and the grading rubric, I really can't narrow it down any more than that.

 

I will say though that it's better than some college-level papers I've seen. Yeah, seriously.

[TheCalliton]

kill me now then

[KaotikKreator]

It has a very conversational tone. Is this for an oral presentation? It sure reads like it is. If that's not your intent, you should consider rephrasing some things. As well, I noticed some errors in grammar and style, but I don't want to nitpick right now unless directly asked to.

 

Questions: [1] Who is Adam Keigwin? You should consider mentioning that.

 

[2] You mention a Supreme Court case concerning the "California bill" -- does the bill have a name?

If there's a court case about it, it sounds like it's already law in California.

 

[3] Is this the Supreme Court of California, or the Federal one?

 

[4] What was the impetus for the case? Who brought it?

 

[5] Overall depending on the level of the course you are submitting this for (and the type of presentation it is to be), I might grade it anywhere from an A to a low C. Without knowing that and the grading rubric, I really can't narrow it down any more than that.

 

I will say though that it's better than some college-level papers I've seen. Yeah, seriously.

[1] Adam Keigwin is California State Senator Leland Yee's chief of staff. Yes, you're right, I should have clarified that.

 

[2] Well, see, that's where the information gets fuzzy. The only information that I've been able to find on this has been on gaming websites, and there is no clear distinction. I believe that the EMA won the previous court case (making the law unconstitutional) and the Schwarzenegger side of it has requested (and been granted) the hearing. That's the gist of the whole situation, but since there isn't a single source that actually comes out and states it, I chose to leave my speculation out.

 

[3] This is the Federal Supreme Court, the hearing is on November 2nd of this year. (I didn't realize that each state had their own Supreme Court.. my only "law" and government course was Civics and Economics in high school)

 

[4] Could you detail this question a bit more, or a bit differently? [see above.]

 

[5] This is a first year college paper, submitted as a read-only document. If I can find my copy of the rubric, I'll tell you what I got counted off on so I can get some constructive criticism for future papers.

 

Thanks for the compliment!

[evilneko]

Ah, I see. To expand on questions 2 and 4: I see that it is actually answered in your first citation. If you are to write a second, more detailed paper on the subject though it would be a good starting point for filling in details.

 

From your link:

Chapter 638, California Statutes of 2005, was signed into law on October 7, 2005 and was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2006.

 

That answers 2, and to answer it in your paper you should refer to it as law.

 

Just a little further down it's explicitly shown that the Entertainment Merchants Association is the one who brought the suit, for 4.

 

EMA opposes the California video game law (and other similar laws) because:

1. They are unnecessary in light of the voluntary ratings education and enforcement programs of video game retailers and would conflict with these programs, leading to consumer confusion;

 

2. Federal courts have consistently ruled that these types of laws violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by placing legal restrictions on the sale or rental to minors under age 18 of certain video games based on depictions of violence in the games; and

 

3. They would provide no meaningful standards to know which materials are covered.

 

I don't know if there was a word-limit on your paper or not, but I'd be tempted to include all three if I were writing it, or at least summarize the reasons. That'd be the impetus: the reason. Word limits are such a pain. I prefer a minimum, much easier to pad out than to trim after all. ;)

 

Obviously, if this isn't an on-going thing where you'll need to produce more detailed papers later, then you don't have to worry about the specifics here, just keep the concepts in mind for your next paper. The best thing anyone can do to improve their writing is to read. It really does help.

 

 

No, my blog doesn't count! It is not written in a style you anyone should emulate for college papers. :teehee:

[KaotikKreator]

Ah, I see. To expand on questions 2 and 4: .... <snip>

Thanks for the detailed response! No, there was no word limit; I'm quite thankful for that. If the paper hadn't already been graded (I was awarded an A) I would include all that you suggested.

 

Thanks again for all the help! I'll be sure to make my future papers much better! :biggrin:

 

Also: checking your blog out right now. :tongue:

[JimboUK]

Fining retailers for selling mature content to minors does not work, we have that system here and when children are refused an adult title they just go and get their parents to buy it. Selling a BBFC rated 18 video game to a minor can get you a £5000 ($8,000) fine and six months in jail, there's not much you can do about parents buying them for their children as proving it was for the child and not the adult is damn near impossible.

[Vagrant0]

Fining retailers for selling mature content to minors does not work, we have that system here and when children are refused an adult title they just go and get their parents to buy it. Selling a BBFC rated 18 video game to a minor can get you a £5000 ($8,000) fine and six months in jail, there's not much you can do about parents buying them for their children as proving it was for the child and not the adult is damn near impossible.

If it gets the kid to shut up about it... it was bought for the sake of the adult...

 

This is just the same crap that music went through in the 80's with a different target. Anyone with a brain knows how it will end, and videogames might just be better for it once all is done and said. Just think... no more cheap thrill splatter-fests or sexy games which could only hold the interest of pre-pubescent teenagers, but having adult games which have both substance and content... Why if we have hard-core stuff out there, including full-frontal nudity on the cover, no parent in their right mind would buy it for their kid. And if these games had substance to them, no kid would probably want them.