Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Games

Congressman Introduces Video Game Warning Label Legislation 208

Posted by Soulskill
from the esrb-not-good-enough-for-you dept.
Gamasutra reports that Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA) has introduced legislation that would require video games with a rating of T or higher to have a warning label that alerts buyers to the dangers of simulated violence. The warning would read: "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), who introduced similar legislation in 2009, co-sponsored the bill, and said, "Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents — and children — about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games.”"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congressman Introduces Video Game Warning Label Legislation

Comments Filter:
  • Citation Needed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by drmacinyasha (1717962) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @04:25AM (#35005798) Homepage
    Can we get some citation on the whole "linked to aggressive behavior" bit? Last I heard... The opposite was shown.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by myurr (468709)

      Especially as this is going to be the thin end of the wedge. By putting a warning label on it and getting the population to accept that, it then legitimises their complaints and fears about computer games leading to restrictions and bans in the future.

    • Did you know that knives have been linked to murder? Next time you have a steak, you should perhaps just let your kids eat with their hands.

    • Re:Citation Needed (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kilrah_il (1692978) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @07:41AM (#35006830)

      A quick [google.com] search [nih.gov] shows many articles on the subject. While I didn't read all of the, a quick look showed that many are observational, prompting the famous "causation != correlation" argument, but some are intervetional and show a causative link between video games and aggressive behavior.
      On /. there have been a few articles on the subject, many [slashdot.org] showing [slashdot.org] positive [slashdot.org] correlation, but some [slashdot.org] didn't show a connection. As someone wrote [slashdot.org] before me, given so much evidence, can we still cry vehemently against the "weak science" regarding video games and violence? Aren't we better than other groups that do not let evidence stand in the way of a good argument?

      • by ThosLives (686517)

        What you'd need to show is that a "peaceful" population, when subject to "violent" video games, has a higher rate of people switching from "peaceful" to "violent" than a population that is not subject to "violent" video games.

        Any reasonable study would need to eliminate the fact that people with violent tendencies already would probably choose to play a "violent" video game.

        I personally fall into the camp that sees video games and other media not as a cause of violent behavior, but merely a catalyst: media

        • While I generally think the same as you (i.e. "...video games and other media not as a cause of violent behavior, but merely a catalyst"), some of the studies are not just correlational, but, like I mentioned in my OP, also experimental. For example [clark.edu]:

          Two studies have examined the effect of video game violence on aggressive cognition. Calvert and Tan (1994) randomly assigned male and female undergraduates to a condition in which they either played or observed a violent virtual-reality game or to a no-game control condition. Postgame aggressive thoughts were assessed with a thought-listing procedure. Aggressive thoughts were highest for violent game players. Although this supports our GAAM* view of video game effects, we hesitate to claim strong support because it is possible that this effect resulted from the greater excitement or arousal engendered by playing the game, rather than the violent content of the game. More recently, Kirsh (1998) showed that 3rd- and 4th-grade children assigned to play a violent video game gave more hostile interpretations for a subsequent ambiguous provocation story than did children assigned to play a nonviolent game. This also supports GAAM.

          * GAAM - General Affective Aggression Model
          As I said earlier, it's easy to just continue on saying "correlation != causation", and other great-sounding slogans, but isn't it time we took a more level-headed look at the issue?

          P.S.
          And no, I'm not part of the "thin

          • Experimental or not, it still doesn't explain why a large portion of video game players aren't actually violent. I mean, we're talking about correlation right now, correct? The group of people that become violent (or their violence is merely triggered) from playing a violent video game (or viewing violent media) appears to be abysmally small.

            Not to mention that even if people start thinking violent thoughts because they played/viewed violent media, merely having violent thoughts isn't a reason to ban/censor

            • In another post I wrote:

              Maybe if we took a random group of people, X percent will be violent. If we add video games, X+Y% will be violent. How large is this Y? I don't know, and I suspect it's not much (in comparison to X), but that doesn't mean Y is 0. Probably video games pushed those who have a borderline tendency towards violence, a bit over the border.

              That seems, to me, a good explanation why only a subset of violent video game players become aggressive.

              In your reply you shifted the argument from "do violent games promote aggressive behavior" to "why do they cause aggressive behavior and what is the magnitude of the phenomenon?". Those are important questions, and I agree with you that if the effect is small, there might not be a need for such drastic actions as TFA suggests. However, most people on this thread are still debating

              • No, actually it was YOU who shifted the argument from "violent behavior", to "violent thoughts". In this context, a correlation between violent video games and thoughts of aggression is pretty damned irrelevant. As the other poster pointed out, thoughts do not directly translate into action.

                It is not valid to assume that just because violent games are correlated to certain thoughts, then they are necessarily correlated to violent actions as well. That's a pretty big leap.
          • by RockoTDF (1042780)
            What they should have done was taken a violent game and compared it to a nonviolent game that still 'gets your adrenaline flowing' so to speak (sports, racing, etc) and performed the post-gaming test after several sessions of gaming, not just one. I applaud attempting to assess this experimentally, but the experiment here is a bit sloppy. It is a bit like comparing drug A to no drug, when you should do drug A to a placebo or drug A to drug B.
          • And no, I'm not part of the "think of the children" group. I think parents should take care of their children, not the government. That doesn't mean parents shouldn't have all the relevant information at their disposal.

            Why do you think that? I'm not illiberal but it seems to me that we need to enforce basic standards of parenting, and in fact we do, which is why there are laws against child neglect and abuse. So what I'm getting at is this; if these games are harmful to children, then parents who let their children play them clearly aren't doing their job.

            • Then you would have to make the same argument against parent who allowed their children to play "cowboys and indians", or "cops and robbers", or just about any other conflict-simulation games.

              Good luck trying to enforce that.
        • by nomadic (141991)
          What you'd need to show is that a "peaceful" population, when subject to "violent" video games, has a higher rate of people switching from "peaceful" to "violent" than a population that is not subject to "violent" video games.

          Why so abstract? Real life is messier than that, the video games are not being sold just to "peaceful" populations. Why set up such an arbitrary definition?

          I personally fall into the camp that sees video games and other media not as a cause of violent behavior, but merely a cata
      • some are intervetional and show a causative link between video games and aggressive behavior.

        Let's accept that this is true, for sake of argument. Who is to say that the violence in the video games is the cause? I know that I personally can get aggressive shortly after playing a video game, but it's tied strongly to my sense of excitement or frustration. A violent video game where everything is a big joke (like Saints Row 2, for example), and almost nothing is terribly challenging or frustrating makes me feel far less aggressive than, say, a nonviolent game like Mario Kart. Competitive games in

    • Re:Citation Needed (Score:4, Informative)

      by dogmatixpsych (786818) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @10:33AM (#35008362) Homepage Journal
      There has not been an "opposite" shown. That would mean that video games decrease violent behavior. A recent meta-analysis of literature showed that there was not a link between video games and aggressive behavior (Ferguson. The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly (2007)) - that does not mean that video games lead to a decrease in aggression. I have to add though that this study has some questionable methodology - I'm not saying it is bad necessarily, there were just some corrections done by the researcher that are worth questioning; i.e., studies show a link between violent video games and aggression until "bias" is corrected for.

      If we go back a bit, there was one study that showed a decrease in aggression following viewing violent media (Feshbach, S., & Singer, R.D. (1971). Television and Aggression, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco) but I haven't seen any replications of that experiment and one study will not counteract the findings of so many other studies. If we have 50 studies that show a link and 1 that shows the opposite, I'd give more weight to the 50 than the 1 (although the 1 could be correct).

      If you want to look at some other studies we find there is a link between aggressive attitudes (but maybe not behaviors) and video games: Wei. Effects of playing violent videogames on Chinese adolescents' pro-violence attitudes, attitudes toward others, and aggressive behavior. CyberPsychology & Behavior (2007)

      However, this is the most important thing. It has been reliably demonstrated (e.g., Cantor. Media violence. Journal of adolescent health (2000)) for a lot of years that exposure to media violence is associated with increases in "antisocial behavior, ranging from the trivial (imitative violence directed against toys) to the serious (criminal violence), with many consequential outcomes in between (acceptance of violence as a solution to problems, increased feelings of hostility, and the apparent delivery of painful stimulation to another person)." (Cantor, 2000). This goes above and beyond what is explained by kids who are inherently more aggressive seeking out more aggressive entertainment ("there is strong evidence that the relationship between violence viewing and antisocial behavior is bidirectional"). This type of research has been going on for 40 years now (it really started with Albert Bandura's Bobo doll experiment). While none of these studies are perfect, there is much more evidence to suggest that exposure to violence via media (t.v., movies, and even games) can lead to an increase in aggressive thoughts and behaviors in children.

      Is it worth putting a warning label on games? No, but just because the whole video game violence and aggression thing isn't popular on Slashdot, doesn't make it untrue. Anyway, as a whole there is more evidence suggesting a link between increased aggression and viewing real or simulated violence than there is against it.
      • Actually, of the many studies I've seen, they've only succeeded at proving a correlation not causation (I've only read the video game ones.) The link that the evidence seems to prove is more than likely that violent and aggressive people both seek out and prefer violent media, and are excited enough by it to show it more directly after, than before.
      • by k8to (9046)

        Don't be a pedant. "there is a link" and "there is not a link" are considered opposites.

        The poster did not say "inverse" or "reverse" or "opposite outcome".

        Survey appreciated.

    • by Rutefoot (1338385)
      Most studies that have shown aggressive behavior have only looked at the immediate, short term effects. The flaw there is that people are very susceptible to just about any stimuli in the short term and this in no way shape or form relates to long term effects. If a person reads words related to the elderly they will walk and drive slower for a short period after. But this doesn't mean that speeding tickets are now a thing of the past for you or that you'll now start paying for things in pennies.

      The e
      • Wish I had mod points. This is my biggest problem with even the most compelling studies I've seen. My own personal experience suggests that yes, trivially, video games can contribute to aggressive feelings. I myself feel more aggressive after playing some games. But am I more aggressive 4 hours after playing those games? I really don't think so. I'm not the most reliable source of unbiased information about myself, but that personal experience makes me skeptical of the value of investigating the short
    • As I keep saying, if people just imitated what they see on the screen, then a chunk of those who grew up with PacMan would be popping pills in the dark to the sound of repetitive music... err... wait a minute ;)

    • by tgibbs (83782)

      "Linked" is a very vague term. It does not imply causality. Of course, "aggressive" does not equal "criminal." So basically it is a warning that "Use of this product may be associated with behavior that is legal, but that some people don't approve of."

      "The opposite" has not been shown in the kind of behavioral tests that this refers to. Of course, it is incontrovertible that as video games sales have increased, and as video game violence has become more realistic, the incidence of real-world violent crime h

  • Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrDoh! (71235) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @04:42AM (#35005892) Homepage Journal

    Huge unemployment, wars still raging in Iraq/Afghanistan, debt at crippling levels, and people losing their homes at huge levels, great to see the important stuff like video games is being addressed.

    But...

    Every time a politician brings this up, it just shows how out of touch (old?) they are. Hopefully this won't be too much of a problem in not too many years as people who grew up gaming end up in positions of power and see that it's just a pastime. Golfing/Tennis/few rounds at the bar. It's just so not worth spending any time over, and shows they probably shouldn't be holding any positions where their opinions matter if this is the best they can come up with on something todo.

    • Re:Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Supurcell (834022) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @05:05AM (#35006048)
      For real. It'll be a golden age once my generation takes power. At least until the generation after mine shows up with all the things I don't like.
    • by MoFoQ (584566)

      I definitely agree....with so many other things that are important....including economic/social issues...this should be the least of everyone's worries.

      wonder if this "joe" fella is influenced by /.'s most despised character...Jack Thompson.

      funny and ironic that his last name is phonetically similar to the Japanese word "" ("baka") which means stupid/idiot.....

      • I'm pretty sure in some native american dialect "Thompson" means "funny man in funny dress acts like a moron".

      • by nomadic (141991)
        I definitely agree....with so many other things that are important....including economic/social issues...this should be the least of everyone's worries.

        It probably is, but just like a 10,000 person police force does not assign all 10,000 officers to solving the current most heinous unsolved crime, Congress can multitask.
        • Congress can multitask.

          Guess you slept through all of December, huh? There were a large number of members of Congress that refused to do anything until their single priority was dealt with.

    • by Seumas (6865)

      Good luck with that.

      The group of people that think video games are not just for children or that geeks are cool is a very limited one and the impression that it is a generally accepted feeling is an inaccuracy merely reinforced by our own ranks. Kind of like if you spend all your time swinging, you might start to think that swinging is something far more accepted by society than it really is, because -- of course -- you're around a subset that is into it all the time.

      I remember a very specific incident with

      • by MrDoh! (71235)

        Hmm, good points.
        But even so, even if not gamers now, it's still been experienced far more than it used to be? People who used to play games when younger and then got bored, moved onto other stuff, didn't kill/maim anyone, isn't that also a valid argument that his type of stuff is pure bunk?

        But I'd even argue that the amount of 'gamers' is bigger than people think. Maybe even themselves. Ok, they may not sit around and play WoW/CoD for 16 hours straight, but they might have a few sessions of Angry Birds

      • by Carewolf (581105)

        The Wii and iPhone games has already changed this. It is a matter of statistical fact that there are more female gamers now than male, and both sexes more games over 30 than under. It is only because the industri is so slow at adapting that you still see most games marketed at the old stereotypes.

      • by vlueboy (1799360)

        Thank you!

        This judgemental attitude is also specially true of anime, because our parents grew up on western cartoons, clearly aimed at juveniles, and they just do not know that there are more mature issues, lots of blood, killing, sex and all in today's anime because we wouldn't normally show it to them, and they ain't gonna see that on primetime TV. Anime is becoming a hit with kids in the US thanks to US networks' cementing it this past decade, and it will take very long before those kids realize that the

      • The group of people that think video games are not just for children or that geeks are cool is a very limited one and the impression that it is a generally accepted feeling is an inaccuracy merely reinforced by our own ranks. Kind of like if you spend all your time swinging, you might start to think that swinging is something far more accepted by society than it really is, because -- of course -- you're around a subset that is into it all the time.

        On what are you basing this? Surely not personal experience.

        I remember a very specific incident with a girl who is a good friend of mine.

        Oh.

        While most gamers are adults and the average age of gamers is around 35 years old, most adults are not gamers.

        Could you be more specific? Are you counting all adults? When you say "most" do you mean greater than 50%? What's a gamer exactly? What if a person plays Wii tennis? Do they not count?

        If you're an adult - especially once you're out of your 20s, you are bordering on being a pathetic curiosity to the rest of the grown-ups around you, who see you as less responsible and less mature merely for what you spend your recreational time doing.

        Maybe to the grownups around *you*. My boss perked up with interest when I talked about getting a Kinect, and he had been interested in a Wii a few years back. And I discover all the time that coworkers and clients are interested in games.

        Imagine if you spent your childhood reading a lot of great books or maybe hiking and you said "I'll probably stop reading books and going on hikes when I'm 23".

        And yet I can't he

    • Hopefully this won't be too much of a problem in not too many years as people who grew up gaming end up in positions of power and see that it's just a pastime.

      We used to say this about pot in the '70's.

      Good luck.
    • So a new scare will come by.

      See, the original scare of something that's turning children into delinquents was... comic books. Nowadays we'd probably laugh and say it causes at most keeping one's virginity, but in 1954 Fredric Wertham made a whole book out of and massaging dubious anecdotes and flawed logic into "proof" that kids imitate every all those antisocial acts from comic books. Some not even as much actually having anecdotes to show any link, but just reproducing gruesome comic-book panels out of co

  • We have one those already on video games, ITS CALLED E.S.R.B. RATING!
    • by arbiter1 (1204146)
      Just another waste of time for congress and tax payer $$$$$
  • by Totenglocke (1291680) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @04:47AM (#35005930)
    I propose we put a warning before every comment on the news (print, online, or televised)by a politician that says "Warning: Being a politician has been linked to severe defects in reasoning ability and to rampant paranoia of all things invented after 1950. All statements should be assumed false until verified by independent sources".
  • Shares? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Stooshie (993666) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @05:05AM (#35006046) Journal
    Does he have shares in a games company? Having warning labels will only increase sales.
    • by The Moof (859402)

      Does he have shares in a games company

      Actually, I have a political friend who has theorized the reason they keep going after video games is because there's not a strong video game lobby yet, and they want a piece of the industry's pie from lobbying. Sort of like a "You want us to stop going after video games? Lobby for it (with cash)" type of situation. I'd say that a dirty and corrupt motive, but given that we're talking about politicians... well, you know.

  • Could someone please supply this "growing" evidence.. From my understanding and following of this specific discussion there seems to be less and less evidence that Violent Games are in any way linked to aggressive behavior. Except that aggressive people play video games.. But then again, so do normal placid people.. This is like saying Murders driver cars, thus we need to put a warning labels on all cars informing people that driving a car might cause you to become a murdered.. The pre-disposition was alr
  • The link between violence and video games lies between the congressmen who don't know what video games are, and want to waste everybody's time and money so that they appear to be thinking of the children, and the people who have had enough of this.
  • Honestly, politicians can introduce legislation all they want, doesn't mean it'll go anywhere. This guy's just flamebait. I'd be more concerned if the bill had like 20 or more co-sponsors. I'm not sure of the hurdles one has to jump through to get legislation to the floor but I doubt it's that many.

  • A large majority of the population at large, even people who would usually be considered 'normal', must be aggressive, then. There's few people that don't view violent material. But, then again, they're not aggressive or violent. Most of them are just 'normal' people, with very few who aren't. The average persons' mind is likely not so fragile as to be altered by mere entertainment, violent or not. If the average mind truly was that weak, society would likely have destroyed itself by now (well, there would

    • Many aspects of society are built around violence and aggression - especially sports. Sports is basically the main outlet that most people had up until recently to get this natural aggression out of their system. Knute Rockne (who won "one for the gipper") recognized this in the 20's as the Notre Dame football coach when people wanted to crack down on football and violent sports. I saw the film Knute Rockne, All American recently and was struck by this point in the film and its similarity to today's attitud

  • This guy’s goin’ from country to country to try and make the warnings on the packs BIGGA!! He wants to make the whole front of the pack the warning. It doesn’t matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes CALLED warnings, we’d still buy ‘em. You could have a black pack with a skull and crossbones, called TUMORS and smokers would be lined up around the block to buy ‘em.

    Fine. Put a warning on the games. It lets me know which ones are the good shit.

    (Yeah, I kno

  • Warning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ensignyu (417022) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @05:32AM (#35006208)

    Excessive warning labels may lead to a distrust of warning labels.

  • Excessive exposure to violent video games labels and other violent media labels has been linked to aggressive behaviour like impulsive buying of violent video games and other media.

  • WARNING: Excessive exposure to life has been linked to death.

  • Fox News? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sockatume (732728) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @06:36AM (#35006494)

    I saw a study recently that showed Fox News viewers held significantly more incorrect beliefs about recent news than viewers of other channels, and that this effect scaled with the amount of viewing. Very neatly showed a causal effect. If it had been about a food additive and brain damage, we'd already have people screaming about a ban. Perhaps there should be a mandate that Fox carry a disclaimer at every ad break: "Studies show that watching Fox News results in you believing things that aren't true." The research is just as solid and incontrovertable as the research on violent video games.

  • I can see it now, you have the kids that are non-agressive and withdrawn suddenly being encouraged to play violent video games in the hopes their increased agression will be better than having them be withdrawn. Considering how poorly many children are raised, I can see this being done by parents who hear about this and want more outgoing children.

    • I think violent/aggressive games are an outlet for the natural violent/aggressive behavior that everyone has (some more than others of course). In other words, if you give a kid who is violent and aggressive toward others in real life violent video games, by taking out their aggression in the game perhaps they'll show less of it in real life. Kind of like how football players fit a certain stereotype - they're outgoing and aggressive both on and off the field.

      I don't have any studies to back it up, but it s

      • The study that backs this up, at least by correlation, is the fact that violent crimes and specifically violence between the ages of 18-24 has decreased significantly since the introduction of video games.
  • I'd agree that video games oftentimes are linked to agressive/violent behavior. I work with games, I play games, and indeed i see that happen. I don't agree games are alone in that situation, we live in a very violent society and there are dozens or hundreds of things leading to increased violence. Indeed reducing violence in society is one of the most noble activities, all kinds of specialties are concerned with it. So let's label everything that leads to violence, yes, I agree. Are military recruiter
  • Frankly, I see nothing wrong with rating systems for games like they have for movies and I would even support warning labels too... IF there is actually corroborating evidence of what the label claims. Show us multiple independent peer reviewed and verified studies and then, yeah, label to your heart's content.

    In the meantime, focus on your country's astronomical debt/deficit and maybe think about ending those useless wars of yours (drugs, terrorism, etc).

    • ESRB = rating system for games like they have in movies.

      It already exists and is in wide use. In fact, it's quite effective.

  • I'm a progressive liberal minded person but dumb shit like this makes Democrats look like fucking out of touch assholes.

    We dont need a label on a videogame. It's not cancer... get the fuck over it. GET TO WORK ON UNIVERSAL MEDICARE FOR ALL ASSHOLE.

  • He's a Californian Congressman, it seems lately that entire state has a hard on for video games.
  • Do any major game companies not support ESRB? ESRP ratings already list why they are rated whatever they are rated in fact its not just for teen and up titles. As for adding a warning that video games lead to aggression is absurd, participation in sports can "lead to aggression" should football helmets have the warning too. Driving on the highway has been shown to cause aggression in some people, perhaps we need the warning on cars as well. Hell politicians tend to piss me off more often than not...perh

  • Perhaps this law should also apply to books. Books containing violence, homosexual behavior, etc should have similar warning labels. For example, "The Catcher in the Rye" has been linked to two famous political assassins, so perhaps readers should be informed. And The Bible would be X-rated if there was a book rating system at all.

    Now that I think about it, perhaps ideas should be rated and labeled too. Ideas can be a poison, leading to violence. But how can we label ideas? Do we need to label people?

  • by bjorniac (836863) on Wednesday January 26, 2011 @12:02PM (#35009428)

    I'm totally OK with this. Just so long as they post the same notice on the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran/Insert religious script here. After all, so many wars/acts of terrorism have been done based on the words in these books (or their interpretations).

    Also all sports games. Fights break out, even at little league games. So we'd better put warnings there.

    Or we could grow up and stop using such cowardly words as 'linked' - anyone can 'link' any two random things without any evidence. For cigarettes there were causal studies and medical evidence of the effects before the warning labels went on. We should hold everything to the same standards - either anecdotal crap will suffice and we can 'link' any two things we choose, or we can have research done by psychologists/sociologist and actually prove things before we do this crap.

  • "Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior."

    Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to reduced passive behavior and a greater likelihood of standing up for yourself and the rights of yourself and others.

    E.g.: witnessing a terrorist act on an airplane has lead to a reduced likelihood of cowing to the demands of terrorists hijacking airplanes.

  • Wow, I read this, and it says nothing about actual content, only the rating that the ESRB gives a game. That means we're going to see violent video game warnings and labels on fucking GUITAR HERO and ROCK BAND games. What the fuck? Text of the bill:

    A BILL

    To require certain warning labels to be placed on video games that are given certain ratings due to violent content.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION REGULATION.

    (a) Regulation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate regulations to require the warning label described in subsection (b) to be placed on the packaging of any video game that is rated T (Teen) or higher by the Electronics Software Ratings Board.

    (b) Warning Label Content- The warning label required under a regulation issued under subsection (a) shall be placed in a clear and conspicuous location on the packaging of the applicable video game and shall state: `WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.'.

    (c) Video Game Defined- As used in this Act, the term `video game' means any product, whether distributed electronically or through a tangible device, consisting of data, programs, routines, instructions, applications, symbolic languages, or similar electronic information (collectively referred to as `software') that controls the operation of a computer or telecommunication device and that enables a user to interact with a computer controlled virtual environment for entertainment purposes.

    • by Korin43 (881732)

      Well, since the ESRB isn't a government organization, they could just remove the rating of "T" (or redefine it to be the highest rating) and make a new one to replace it..

  • So long as every alcoholic beverage comes with a clear indication of its effects as well. Including loss of inhibitions, self restraint (leading to violence including brutal fights), judgement, motor ability, visual acuity, etc. The list is impressively long, so perhaps a pamphlet should be distributed that requires that you read all the way to the end then click 'I Agree' before you can drink.

    Hilarious how something like Alcohol bears no warning to its effects but a video game must claim "warning: sim
  • by ildon (413912)

    Cars need giant warnings painted on the driver's side door about the dangers of driving. And there should be a huge penalty for painting over or removing the warning after you buy it. They kill a fuckload more people than "simulated violence" does.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...