Puritan Politics? Again?

[Luris Blear]

First it was those damned comic books, then rock and roll. Our generation has video games. Get ready.

Rep. Baca Introduces Legislation to Make Violent Video Games Sold With Health Warning Label

Label Links Violent Games to Increased Aggression in Children and Teens

Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Joe Baca (D-Rialto) introduced legislation that mandates all video games with an Electronics Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rating of Teen (T) or higher be sold with a health warning label. The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 creates a new rule within the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which forces games with a T rating or higher to be sold with a simple warning label, reading: “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

“The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families, and to consumers – to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products,” said Rep. Baca. “They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility. Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people. American families deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous products.”

Rep. Baca has been a lead advocate in Congress on the issues of violence and sex in the media. In particular, he has been very active in ensuring the video game industry accurately details the content of its games to parents and consumers. Recent scientific studies from the Pediatrics Journal, University of Indiana, University of Missouri, and Michigan State University all point to a neurological link between playing violent video games and aggressive behavior in children and teenagers.

“We must hold the video game industry accountable and do everything in our power to ensure parents are aware of the detrimental effects that violent games can have before making decisions on which games are appropriate for their children to play,” concluded Rep. Baca. “I am proud to introduce the Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009, and am hopeful my legislation can work to stop the growing influence of violent media on America’s children and youth.” It worked for Hillary, Al, and Joe. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up hearing this guy's name a little more around 2012. :die:

[Elduardo]

I don't see a problem with a warning label.

[Luris Blear]

Video games are already rated by the ESRB, which is similar to the MPAA for movies. They chose to self-regulate in order to keep the government away.

Now the government is piggybacking on that to say that exposure to (satan-possessed media of the day) can make someone violent. This is the exact same -- and I mean exact -- argument as Comic books causing violent behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_of_the_Innocent) or Rock & Roll causing violent behavior, or Ninja Turtle cartoons or maybe just one of the ninja turtle's nunchacus (http://www.tv.com/ninja-turtles-the-next-mutation/show/7740/summary.html). Or maybe it's all just rock and roll's fault.

This is the same argument. The primary benefit is to score political points.

Some understanding has to come from the ESRB itself. The Teen rating is unrestricted. This is what warrants a Teen Rating
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Examples of "T" from my own library: Marvel Ultimate Alliance, Soul Calibur 3, Guitar Hero 3, The Sims, The Sims 2.

Does "The Sims" really need a warning sticker about violence?

Games rated M are restricted.
Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language. Grand Theft Auto 3, Resident Evil 4.

http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

It also looks as though last year's HR 5990 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5990) (Sponsor: Rep. Jim Matheson {D-UT}) has failed. This bill would have made it illegal to sell games rated M or above to minors. Again -- what's the problem? Almost every reputable store in the country is voluntarily doing this anyway. Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, and Gamestop ( Source (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/techtracks/2008/05/game_retailers_getting_better_at_carding_for_mrate.html ) )

Parents who care about violent media already know not to show it to their kids. They know why it would be wrong, too.

Parents who think that a six year old is perfectly capable of enjoying violent media (music/movies/games) are not going to be stunned by some warning label they can hardly read.

All that sticker will do, in all honesty, is be mocked to promote the violent video games of the future. Just the same, this is not the government's place.

[Elduardo]

I think what we all have to keep in mind is that not all parents are created equal and not all kids even have adequate parental supervision.

I don't see how this at all infringes on the rights of any adult to play games or for parents to provide games for their kids.

It's just information.

[WarBeast]

I suppose if this goes through, they should start putting the same label on any religious text... I think that it can be pretty conclusively shown that obsessive use of them can lead to violent behavior as well...

[Luris Blear]

It says all games rated "T" or above.

This means that the Sims and Guitar Hero will have warnings forced on to their covers about excessive violence.

That alone makes it a stupid law.

[Elduardo]

Stupid or not, it doesn't do anything to infringe on the behavior of adults so I can't really see the outrage.

[Grendel]

Would make more sense to me if it were actually connected to the content of the game, not just the "T" rating.

[Luris Blear]

Back in college I was the guy working the video game store.

Trust me. If some parent who does care about violent content sees it on the back of some Sims 3 attachment, they will be asking questions.

Putting that label on anything with a T or higher will hinder the abilities of adults to make an educated decision. It will cause confusion over games that have little to no violent content.

The next step after that will be to dilute the value of the label to any parents who had to get over their fear of Billy's Sim chopping people in half with a machete.

This is government intrusion and needless bureaucracy.

[Grendel]

Was buying my future father-in-law a game for his Wii and got to see the negotiations going on between a mom, her nine year old kid and the Gamestop clerk about what game she'd buy.

Laughed out loud when, after being adamant about not buying something that was rated "M" for violence and sexual situations, she had no problem ponying up for one whose rating--also"M"-- was only for violence.

[Tragicallyhip]

One of my main objections to this idea would be that it appears to promote the idea that it is an accepted fact that violence in computer games (or on TV, video, etc etc) leads to violent behaviour. It is not an accepted fact. It is a hotly-disputed theory. For every thesis this politician produces supporting a link, there is another one that denies it.

In short, by trying to get this farcical law into place, Mr Baca is attempting to get his belief widespread public acceptance- only without having to go through the messy (and quite possibly counter-productive) business of actually proving it. It will be printed on the cover of thousands of computer games- and no-one will have spent a cent investigating whether it's actually true or not.