Truth in Ratings Act Reintroduced 302
dropgoal writes "Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate) has reintroduced the Truth in Ratings Act. Like the previous version that failed to pass last year, Sen. Brownback's bill would make the FTC responsible for overseeing the video game ratings system and possibly result in a unified ratings system for games, movies, and TV. The ESRB would also have to review all game footage before issuing a rating. Currently, the ESRB hands out ratings after viewing a reel with representative content prepared by the developers. Sen. Brownback thinks that's not enough. 'Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating. The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate', he said."
Speaking of rating... (Score:3, Insightful)
A bit off topic
Re:Date based or procedural content? (Score:5, Insightful)
The full content? (Score:2, Insightful)
How? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the main problem is that the company supplies the footage to be reviewed. How many marketing/PR guys do you think that goes through before it reaches the censors. Perhaps it would be better for a group of independent game players to generate a representative reel of footage. I will be the first volunteer to take that job. On second though - imagine all the crap you would need to play!
patches (Score:2, Insightful)
Aaaargh! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll bet that if you asked him after injecting him with Sodium Pentothal, the illustrious senator would admit that he doesn't expect that the bill will have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
Re:Date based or procedural content? (Score:3, Insightful)
Months of footage (Score:2, Insightful)
The full footage? Right... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that "objectionable content" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
And what of "patches" and "mods"?
Heck take some of the "dance moves" from WOW and line them up and you have simulated sex, at least within the limits within the minds of people who think that some of these other things were "objectionable".
The Nanny State cannot hope to get closure over this, and trying to is just more waste of my taxpayer dollar.
Note to you regulation-happy people out there: Your "precious bundle" is neither as fragile as you imagine, nor as important as you dream. Neither are you. If janet jackson's saggy boobie and the gyrations of a pair of 100 polygon figures are enough to undermine your sense of moral turpitude, then you are a mindless chode; and might I suggest that the world is much safer if you put an opaque polyethylene bag over your head. (But it only _really_ works if you cinch it snuggly. Assist your child before yourself.)
Now if you can get truth in ratings for suckage, then we can talk.
Re:Date based or procedural content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly, so is the Democratic Party.
At the end of the day, strident "liberals" and "conservatives" have exactly the same political philosophy: the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.
Re:Doesn't matter if it is not workable (Score:3, Insightful)
Rate video cards under a specific benchmark? result: the video cards are made to perform better under that benchmark, to the detriment of regular performance.
Give money to poor people with kids? result: poor people have more kids, even though it just makes them poorer.
Why is this an issue? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does the Slashdot crowd care if games are assigned ratings? People always say that parents should be the ones to monitor their children not the government, or the games company, etc. But, parents need tools to be able to make these decisions.
No, it won't be perfect. But, it will be accurate enough to allow people to make a purchasing decision.
This isn't a censorship issue. To me, there is nothing wrong with assigning a rating to content so that you can make an informed purchase.
Beautiful (Score:4, Insightful)
the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.
Nicely put.
Political parties are the problem. Hamilton was adamantly opposed to them, even when one was forming around him in opposition to the Jeffersonians. Perhaps he was on to something. Line up behind a party, and you have to do a lot less thinking for yourself. But of course, how are you going to stop people from organizing into political parties? It is human nature to form into groups, for better and for worse.
Re:All "footage" in a game? impossible (Score:2, Insightful)
The Comptroller General will conduct a study determining the "(1) the effectiveness of the ESRB video and computer game content ratings system, including content ratings for on-line or Internet-based games;" [...] and his report shall "contain recommendations regarding effective approaches to video and computer game content ratings that address the unique ratings challenges of on-line and Internet-based video games." And as far as I know, the ESRB in it's current form does not have such an online review process.
My cynicism tells me it's just another election year. My moderation tells me that this same legislation has been supported or introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC), and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT); the latter two representatives with the initial framework under FEPA (Family Entertainment Protection Act). So, before anyone starts casting stones at the other, I think most would agree it's a bipartisan effort.
I do agree that reviewing all game content would be impractical, but not impossible. The TVGRA defines all "content" as "all of the visual images and sounds that are included as part of the recorded data of the video or computer game". Which could be as simple as parsing through all the texture and wav files; no need to play the game through it's countless variations. Currently, the ESRB just accepts something like a movie trailer from a game developer for it's review process.
I find the GAO study in the TVGRA (section 3) interesting, "(3) whether an independent ratings system would offer better accuracy and effectiveness in content ratings for video and computer games;" I thought the ESRB was an independent non profit entity (established by the Video Game industry) in partnership with retailers. I think the current system works, as shown by the ESRB fines levied against Rockstar Entertainment for GTA (and any reasonable attempt at non disclosure). This bill will cycle around every two to four years (as expected), but like most here, I doubt it will ever materialize. For the most part, commercial enterprises police their own better than any bureaucrat, as the GTA case and precedent proved.
Re:The full content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it. All this guy wants to do is to place a standardized rating system on video games so that the technically illiterate can understand it.
And it's not just the outcry over the Hot Coffee thing, but GTA in general. The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it. Ever play Postal 2? You piss on people, cut their heads off with shovels, douse them with gasoline and throw lit matches on them... and so on. How about Duke Nukem 3D ("Shake it, Baby!")? These games need a rating so that any 5 year-old off the street can't just walk into any GameStop and pick up GTA New Orleans-Mardis Gras.
It's not that I think all games should be Disney approved, but a rating system can actually free programmers to make whatever game they want. The can make "Sam and Max go the Red Light District" because the second a parent complains, all they have to say is, "Hey lady, you have to be 18 or over to buy this game. You saw the rating, why did you buy it for your kid? Do you buy them Playboy too? Then why did you buy them a game that says in plain letters that it is an X-rated game, right there on the label?" Right now, Sam and Max--Red Light will not be made because they'd get too much heat. Allow an X rating and it's on!
Re:The full content? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares...Most places do enforce ratings, and anybody old enough to get themselves to a game store and buy a game for $50 or so is probably old enough to play an M rated game. If they're not, then their parents should be paying more attention to them. It's not my problem if their parents don't care enough to filter what gets into their hands.
It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it.
Sounds fine to me. We don't need laws about *everything*...society can regulate certain matters all by itself.
The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it.
Myself, I don't particularly like GTA. But that's not because of the content. It's because, to me, it's not really that fun of a game. If you don't like the game (for whatever reason), don't play it. Nobody's forcing you to play GTA. Let those who like it play it, and stop bitching about it.
Why is the /. community so opposed to this? (Score:4, Insightful)
But it seems like every attempt at improving the accuracy or consistency of ESRB ratings is met with derision and anger. Any attempt at *enforcing* those ratings is clubbed down as fascism. Why? The ratings exist because kids shouldn't beat a virtual hookers' brains out with a bat. I'm ok with that. I know they'll see the violence elsewhere, but so what? Do you permit anything through your firewall the moment your manager makes you toss up a stupid rule?
I'm a social liberal, I live in West Hollywood, frequent the clubs, fall to the left on almost every issue, etc.. But this all or nothing approach is silly and stinks of NRA tactics. Yes, the NRA is effective, but I don't want to be like them. Reasonable adults compromise.
I would like to compromise some and get these politicos off our backs before they do something truly draconian, like ban red blood, or any blood for that matter.
- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine. No auditor comes in and says, "show me what you think I should see." That's just dumb.
- Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.
Re:Date based or procedural content? (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this as a way of adding complexity to the process and address the WSTOTC angle (Won't Somebody Think Of The Children!) without actually adressing any of the (already quite well addressed and managed IMHO) problems - classic politicking.
<offtopic> I love this quote from Sen. Brownback "I encourage everyone to visit our nation's capital, and please stop by my office on Thursdays for a visit and some hot coffee." [senate.gov]. Why Senator, I didn't know you had the patch installed! </offtopic>
Re:The full content? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should review the legal status of movie ratings in the US.
Re:Date based or procedural content? (Score:2, Insightful)
Parent is of course, completely correct. Last time the christ brigade rolled out in record numbers over gay marriage, sealing the 2004 election, and now the democrats are gearing up to do it all over again. Good f*ing job guys.
and for the record, I agree that this won't stand up in court, and the author probably knows this. It's politics, as they say. (ie. politics as in a ruse to get this idiot's name in the papers, proclaiming that he 'thought of the children', in hopes of winning some votes come election time.)
Re:Why is this an issue? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:won't survive (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that it wouldn't survive in court, but it is useful to remember that the original Communications Decency Act (a much stricter form of censorship) was passed by 84-16 in the Senate and the recent Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced by Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh. If you think that there will be any road bumps by Democratic or Republican Senators (or Representatives) you are being very naïve. The only protection citizens currently have from government censorship is our courts as neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branches seem to think that it is an important issue. Apparently our legislators think that an alternative reading to "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is that Congress can make *any* law on the same.
Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Since when can a kid get into a porno? Can a 12 year old buy Hustler? If the less extreme forms of these mediums are not enforced then that's a different issue. Actually, this entire point is a different issue, we're discussing games ratings here.
There is just as much evidence of harm to children caused by exposure to these other forms. What's special about games?
From my initial post: "Do you permit anything through your firewall the moment your manager makes you toss up a stupid rule?" You appear to have glossed entirely over that. This is not a binary solution.
Finally, what part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you and Sen. Brownback?
If you're going to make a point about free speech then make it. Don't allude to it and try to force me to make it for you as well as counter it. That's just lazy.
The government is not supposed to be in the business of rating video games, any more than it's supposed to be in the business of reviewing Sunday sermons.
This is a strange comparison, one you didn't bother to flesh out yet again, and a bold, opinionated statement. The government is supposed to be in the business of whatever the people tell it to be in the business of. That's a democracy. Keep pushing the all-or-nothing standpoint on this issue and we'll see a backlash that will gain sufficient political power to mop the floor with the
Neither of the options that you describe would have addressed the "Hot Coffee" mini-game in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. It's content that a play-reviewer wouldn't have seen without knowledge of how to get to the content.
Again, this is not a binary solution. Just because your defense is not impenetrable you don't give up and do nothing. Or I don't know, maybe you guys do, but I still play the game. You compromise and reach a middle ground somewhere, or eventually the other side gains the sympathy of the independents and trounces you. We just watched this happen in our recent elections, were people not awake for that?
Re:won't survive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't Brownback a Republican? (Score:3, Insightful)
And the spineless (and aparently mindless) Chief Executive signed. Clinton balanced the budget. He had to shut down the government multiple times to do it by not signing the first budget placed in front of him. Congress will always spend way too much if they know they can get away with it. Reagan signed it. He is responsible. If he didn't want responsibility, he shouldn't have signed. Well, at least that's better than signing everything and attaching signing statements saying "I didn't really mean it."
Re:Why is this an issue? (Score:1, Insightful)
Any ratings system enforced by the government amounts to prior restraint. It gives the government the ability to force someone not to publish. Prior restraint is very, very, very unconstitutional. So unconstitutional, in fact, that we don't even apply it in regulating unprotected speech products - to wit, porn.
Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Government-enforced ratings are inherently grossly unconstitutional. They are counter to everything free speech stands for in the United States. We don't even have a ratings system in place for pornography, which is classified as non-protected speech. If politicians sneak this law by now, when most people think of video games as non-speech, when the kids of today are adults, they WILL be able to broaden the law to pre-screen books, movies, and television - you DID know that there's no law enforcing ratings on those things, didn't you? The constitutional issue alone is enough reason to oppose it.
For the record, I support everything the ESRB, retailers, game makers, the PTA, your church, or your family does to improve on and enforce the games rating system. But when the government starts doing it, you can count me out. I like my free speech rights unsullied, thanks. Personally, I think the ESRB is doing a damn good job right now. Even the government wouldn't be able to avoid future Hot Coffees, unless they plan to employ hundreds of game code auditors.
But the truth is, no court in the nation would uphold one of these laws. You barely need a year of law school to be aware of how grossly illegal these things are. So mainly I want my representatives in Congress to stop wasting my tax money jockeying for illegal legislation, and wasting my courts' time overturning them.
What's in a name? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ESRB was the compromise. It was created the first time the government came after video games. This was meeting them half way. If you keep moving back the line in the sand eventually you won't have any ground to stand on.
- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine.
They already do that. They have a system in place that requites developers to provide a tape of every thing that falls under their categories. Leaving it to them to disclose the information voluntarily. After the game is released the ESRB is given a full copy of the game that they can review however they like.
This type of system should sound familiar. The tax system works like this. You Don't have tax auditors coming to everyone's house before they submit asking the tax payer to show them though their taxes and financial records. The taxes get submitted and the tax office decides after the fact weather or not more detail is needed (an audit)
- Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.
This creates an issue of prior restraint and chilling effect.
If the stores are under legal obligation to have extra scrutiny over M rated games then stores that carry these games are put under pressure to not carry them at all (why risk it). There are plenty of stores that do not carry the majority of M rated game at this point already (I'll give you a hint is starts with a W ands ends will almart), how do you think they will react when there is now the threat of financial reproductions in case an accident happens. That pressure inhibits the freedom of speech that dame developers have because now if they make an M rated game it is very possible that they can not release it to a substantial portion of the market.
Also if there is this extra importance put on the high ratings then games that are rated M or even high level T games would take longer to get their rating then games that are E and low T since they will have to go through games with a fine tooth comb due to the difference in legal status. How do you think publishers will react when it takes an extra few weeks to get their product on the market if it has a high rating?
Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Date based or procedural content? (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, they're two asses of the same horse. Except that Hillary might get her party's nomination, and Brownback doesn't have a chance in hell.
Re:won't survive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is the /. community so opposed to this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.
What law?