Destructoid is a gaming discussion community updated nearly every 20 minutes by a tight-knit group of independent dirty uncles. Get involved by creating an avatar to post comments, upload videos, create your own blog, and meet new people that love gaming. Returning Dtoider? login!
A press release has been issued to announce the passing of new legislation regarding video game ratings, sales, and violence awareness in New York State.
Introduced four days ago by Senator Andrew Lanza, the bill enforces the use of visible rating labelling and makes the selling of a rated game to an innapropriate buyer an illegal offense. So far, nothing the film industry hasn't had to do for years.
Where the legislation differs from the standard for DVDs however, is in its formation of both an advisory council pertaining to youth violence, interactive media and the ESRB, and a parent-teacher violence awareness program.
The advisory council is set to include the likes of parents, teachers, psychologists, child welfare workers and games industry members, and will monitor the effectiveness of the ESRB as well as reviewing regulation and public education on the matter of violent games. The parent-teacher program will "will empower parents and teachers to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games", and will be funded by fines on retailers who break the rules.
This last part makes me rather ambivalent about the bill on the whole. Hit the jump for why, as well as the full press release.
While on the one hand, solidly enforced, standardised ratings can only be a positive step in making video games a "respectable" medium on a par with cinema, the advisory council and awareness initiatives are no doubt going to come under fire from some corners and have the bill accused of out of touch overkill and gamerphobia.
Lanza himself doesn't help this assumption when he cites amateur Flash game V-Tech Massacre as a reason the legislation is needed. Of course the bill covers gaming awareness, but using such an extreme and emotive example of gaming violence (and one created outside of the US at that) over any one of countless higher profile professional games isn't going to win him any moderation points.
However the outcome of this all depends on the tone of how things are executed. If we're being honest, there can be few separate to those involved who genuinely expect the bill to bring about any major changes outside of the ratings measures. With the ESRB already well-established and the games industry now of Hollywood-rivaling scale, the other initiatives feel like rather a token gesture.
If things are run well though, it could be a good piece of PR for the industry if nothing else. Let's face it, the best way to engage the hysterical Jack Thompsons of the world is to sidestep the engagement altogether. The more we argue against these people, the more our responses dignify their ravings, and to quietly and sanely lead by positive example instead will definitely help in painting us as the good guys we are.
Regardless of their actual effectiveness, at least being seen to be sympathetic to initiatives like these has got to do good work in drawing a favourable comparison between us and the jabbering publicity-hounds on the other side. As long as no-one gets stupid and tries to use this as a hitting stick, it shouldn't be a big deal.
And now the full release:
FOR RELEASE: Immediate, Monday, May 21, 2007 http://www.senate.state.ny.us
SENATE PASSES LEGISLATION TO CRACK DOWN ON VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE Bill Would Establish Advisory Council On Interactive Media and Youth Violence
The New York State Senate today passed legislation, sponsored by Senator Andrew Lanza (R-I, Staten Island), that would take steps to crack down on video game violence, and combat and reduce children's exposure to violent and inappropriate materials within these games.
The bill (S.5888) would establish the Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence to review the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rating system and its effectiveness, and recommend additional steps that can be taken to curb children's access and exposure to such "adult-only" material. The advisory council would consist of nine members and six ex-officio members.
The bill would also require New York State's retailers to place ratings labels on all video games, and establish a Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games and seek to increase awareness of the ratings system on games.
"The recent release of 'V-Tech Massacre,' a sick game which exploits the Virginia Tech University tragedy, is a painful reminder of the culture of violence which has severe consequences on our youth and society," said Senator Lanza, Chairman of the Senate Task Force on Youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry. "The emotions and behaviors of our children are far too often shaped by the virtual reality of violent movies and video games. It is imperative that we find a way to prevent these virtual realities from continuing to fuel and teach the violent behavior which is corrupting our youth. My bill will provide parents with important information about violent video games so they are better able to make informed decisions."
"Everywhere we look, violence surrounds us and it is unfortunate that our children are exposed to this explicit material, whether found in video games, movies or on television," said Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno. "Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision, and we cannot sit back and allow them to be exposed to this senseless violence anymore. I applaud Senator Lanza for his leadership and we will continue to push the Assembly to take action against these issues."
"No child should be playing 'games' that involve mutilating people with chain saws, having sex with prostitutes, or dealing drugs," said Senator Martin J. Golden (R-C, Brooklyn), Chairman of the Senate Critical Choices Task Force. "This hyper-violent material is mind-boggling in its brutality, and our kids should simply not be exposed to it. These commonsense proposals will better inform and empower parents throughout our State, while also helping to prevent our kids from gaining access to these video games."
Currently, video games are rated "E" for everyone, "T" for teens, "M" for mature, and "AO" for adults only. A study by a group of Harvard University researchers published in 2004 reviewed a random sample of 81 "T" rated video games and found that 48 percent contained violence, sexual themes, substance use, gambling, or profanity that was not noted on the game box as it should have been. In addition, a recent study published in Applied Developmental Psychology found that only twenty-five percent of parents surveyed said that they "always" check the industry rating of computer and/or video games before renting or buying them.
This legislation would establish the following:
> Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence -- would establish a new Advisory Council on Media, Entertainment Software and Youth Violence, which will review and make recommendations on the effectiveness of the current Entertainment Software Ratings Boards (ESRB) ratings system in keeping violent video games out of the hands of youth. The panel, which will include parents, educators, experts in child psychology, child welfare advocates, concerned citizens and industry representatives, will also develop policies relating to public education and advocacy against youth violence, examine efforts being undertaken in other states, and develop recommendations for additional ways of regulating the exposure of youth to these games.
> Rating System Labeling Requirement -- under current State law, there is no requirement that retailers place labels on video games sold in New York. To address this shortcoming, would establish a new requirement that every video game sold in New York by a retailer or over the Internet, whether new or for resale, must have a clearly displayed rating indication on the game cover or elsewhere (such as on a website). Individuals who violate these provisions will face fines and penalties.
> Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program -- would also establish a new Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program, which will empower parents and teachers to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games. The program will also seek to increase awareness of the ratings system on games, and the importance of appropriate parental supervision. The Anti-Violence Program would be funded through fines on retailers who violate the new labeling law.
I guess I may have missed something, but aren't ESRB labels/ratings already visible? Isn't already a crime to sell M-rated games to little kids? Aren't parents already buying GTA for their little shitmachines, knowing full well the contents of the game?
Is there anything actually new about this legislation?
Actually, I believe you are wrong about the motion picture industry. Their ratings system is entirely voluntary, and not enforced by law. Theaters generally decide to prohibit those under 17 from seeing R-rated movies, but they certainly don't have to. Same goes for DVD sales. And that's the way it should be, the industry policing itself without government involvement, in accordance with the 1st Amendment.
What's new is now the politicians attached to this particular legislation can say "LOOK AT ME! I HELPED SAVE YOUR KIDDIES FROM THE EVIL VIDEO GAMES BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A FUCKTARD TO DO YOUR OWN PARENTING! DID I MENTION I'M UP FOR REELECTION SOON?"
Yeah, it's the legal enforcement of ratings that's the change, as well as the social initiatives.
fluc02: Is that true? I knew the American system was more relaxed than ours (We've had films banned for years over here), but I wasn't aware it was so optional.
That's it. We're through. Now we have to rate our games. Parents will now know that GTA is rated M. Game stores everywhere will start carding kids. Everything is going to be different from now on!!!!!!!!
I love it..They cant get drugs or guns out of NY. They cant create tougher laws who use media violence as a scapegoat..but we will limit and blame the game you place for the actions you take.
I love how these zealots cite examples that fall completely outside of the realm of their legislation. How exactly is forcing the ESRB to clearly label all games produced for sale in the united states, forcing retailers to comply, and forming a watch-dog nanny group going to prevent the free downloading of a game never intended for retail shelves?
Parenting is for suckers. The government and the V-chip are going to raise my kids.
How long do we give this before it gets struck down as unconstitutional? Anyone want to start a dead pool?
Sadly, none of this will stop some clueless moron of a parent from going to the store and legally buying Violent Rapist: The Video Game and then giving it to their six year old for Christmas.
I believe fluc02 is correct. Films don't even have to submit themselves to the ratings board, the problem is most theater chains will often pass on the movie if they go unrated. But yeah, it's not actually enforced by law. The theater owners won't go to jail if little Billy sneaks into Grindhouse.
I wouldn't be surprised if this gets struck down as unconstitutional sooner or later, like similar laws have been in the past.
Unbelievable. Just a few quotes that I thought were interesting:
"Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision..."
Well maybe if parents did their job and supervised we wouldn't need you assholes to waste time making useless, bullshit laws.
"A study by a group of Harvard University researchers published in 2004 reviewed a random sample of 81 "T" rated video games and found that 48 percent contained violence, sexual themes, substance use, gambling, or profanity that was not noted on the game box as it should have been."
I looked for the report on google and also found a similar report was done that year that talked about movie glamorizing drugs, alchohol, etc, but I don't see you passing laws or forming commitees to deal with that.
In addition, a recent study published in Applied Developmental Psychology found that only twenty-five percent of parents surveyed said that they "always" check the industry rating of computer and/or video games before renting or buying them.
"In addition, a recent study published in Applied Developmental Psychology found that only twenty-five percent of parents surveyed said that they "always" check the industry rating of computer and/or video games before renting or buying them."
Again, not the video game industires or ESRBs fault. It is amazing how all the evidence points towards simply increasing parental involvment in children's gaming habits, but somehow it becomes justification for passing idiotic laws
I think the real problem is, is that parents ARE looking at the ratings, but they simply do not care, they know what they are buying when they buy a GTA game, but as long as it will keep little Johnny busy and out of the parents way, they will buy it for them.
Parents will buy kids WHATEVER they want, without caring in the least, if they want it, they get it, simple as that. If parents genuinely cared about the welfare of their kids then we would not have millions of kids running around on Heeley's shoes in retail stores nationwide and sustaining head injuries and other injuries from use of the shoes. Parents would not allow the use of the shoes and they would be banned from retailers in the USA at least if parents actually cared. But no because the kid wants the shoes they get the shoes, regardless of how dangerous they can be if used improperly. No these shoes should not be banned, they should just be banned from being used improperly, they are a skateboard, you should not use them anywhere where you wouldn't use a skateboard, yet I see kids in all retail stores and skating in malls like they are at the skate park.
The most recent report that I read on another website said that a survey shows that something like 80-90% of parents know and are informed about ESRB ratings, but whether or not they take those ratings into consideration when they buy their kids something to keep them occupied is their choice ultimately. Thats an awful lot, and no matter how much the law tries they will not be able to get 100% of parents to agree with the ESRB and not buy their kid a violent video game just because the game has an extra rating sticker on it.
Violence is our world nowadays, if you do not expose your kids to it at some point in their lives, they become very sheltered. When sheltered kids leave home for college when they turn 18 they become the worst behaved out of all the college kids because they do not know what freedom tastes like and once they find out they get into all sorts of trouble. Kids need to know the real world, they shouldn't live in a "perfect" household where violence is non existent and everything is child proof because the real world is not like that. I know that parenting nowadays is judged by how much you shelter your kid, and the more "perfect" and sheltered of an environment your kids live in, the better the parent you are considered to be, but the kids that grow up in an environment like this are the ones that turn out to be the baddest simply because they do not know the real world.
No I do not think a 4-6 year old should be playing GTA or other violent games (and I would think that most people would agree with this statement), but older kids and teens should not be restricted to only non violent or very mild violent content until they turn 18... thats just absurd. They will start to experience more violent stuff when they hit the 6th grade like most kids have in the past, and most of the stuff your kid will be exposed to in ANY 6th grade class is way way worse than what is in any violent video game out on the market now.
Personally I'd like so see some sort of middle ground between the American and UK film rating systems applied all round.
I'd have no problem with legally enforced age ratings as long as the system disallowed the UK ban hammer and censorship baton. That way everything could be seen and played, and the anti-games brigade wouldn't have any excuses.
The terms are too vague and games already have mandatory, visible ratings on them. This will get shot down like all the others and New York taxpayers will be footin' the bill, just like in Louisiana.
It's not going to make one iota of difference. I used to work in Game (in the UK we're required by law to inform the customer of a BBFC rating - PEGI is voluntary but store policy for GAME) nine out of ten times I told a mother 'I need to tell you this game is rated a certificate 18 - there's some bad language and some really quite gratuitous violence. It's not suitable for anyone under that age' they'd just reply - 'oh, they'll be ok - it's nothing he hasn't seen on telly'.. then they promptly hand the thing to their 8 year old.
"A study by a group of Harvard University researchers published in 2004 reviewed a random sample of 81 "T" rated video games and found that 48 percent contained violence, sexual themes, substance use, gambling, or profanity that was not noted on the game box as it should have been."
Which is exactly why they're fucking rated T. The ESRB is doing its job. What's the problem?
I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but here in America I can't really see how legally enforced age rankings could be reconciled with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. There really isn't any room for wiggle room in there.
Then again the FCC manages to abridge the freedom of speech all it wants when it comes to broadcasting dirty words, so maybe they'll manage to squeeze things like this in as well.
As far as personal feelings, I believe very strongly in the ability of the free market to police itself, I don't want the government involved in it one bit. And it seems to be working great in terms of movies. It works so well that a lot of people in America that I've talked to even thing that there are laws which enforce it. I can't see why it couldn't work the same for games.
fluc02: I thoroughly agree with you on the freedom of speech issue. It's one of my favourite causes for championing and one of the things I hold most dear in life.
In an ideal world, I'd love a freely self-governed media industry, but I just feel that sometimes legal ratings are a necessary evil, purely in terms of not giving the film/game-hating zealots room to manoeuvre in criticising the industry. If there's a legal rating for something, they can shut up, and haven't got any grounds for accusing publishers doing anything illegitimate.
Though there's no way in hell I'd ever stand for any kind of censorship or banning. Everything should be passed, however high a rating it's deemed to require, and most importantly, those ratings should NEVER inhibit those who are deemed old enough from easily obtaining what they want.
The FCC gets away with it because once upon a time when there was a tiny handful of TV and radio stations, they enforced obscenity laws because customers didn't have enough choices if they were offended. Newspapers were exempt because every town had at least 10 to choose from. Good thing they changed with the times, huh?
The bill still has to go through the Assembly before Spitzer signs it into law, but it looks like some of my money will go right to the ESA in a few months. Ugh.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming industry's need of accountable enthusiast press Living the dream since March 16, 2006
-icon.gif){kind=icon}
21 comments + 95764 views
I guess I may have missed something, but aren't ESRB labels/ratings already visible? Isn't already a crime to sell M-rated games to little kids? Aren't parents already buying GTA for their little shitmachines, knowing full well the contents of the game?
Is there anything actually new about this legislation?
Yeah, the ESRB really shouldn't have rated that VT Massacre flash game "E for Everyone". WTF were they thinking?
Actually, I believe you are wrong about the motion picture industry. Their ratings system is entirely voluntary, and not enforced by law. Theaters generally decide to prohibit those under 17 from seeing R-rated movies, but they certainly don't have to. Same goes for DVD sales. And that's the way it should be, the industry policing itself without government involvement, in accordance with the 1st Amendment.
@ Orcist:
What's new is now the politicians attached to this particular legislation can say "LOOK AT ME! I HELPED SAVE YOUR KIDDIES FROM THE EVIL VIDEO GAMES BECAUSE YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A FUCKTARD TO DO YOUR OWN PARENTING! DID I MENTION I'M UP FOR REELECTION SOON?"
The anti-game lobby have no legs to stand on now, surely. Not with regulations like this to comply to.
Yeah, it's the legal enforcement of ratings that's the change, as well as the social initiatives.
fluc02: Is that true? I knew the American system was more relaxed than ours (We've had films banned for years over here), but I wasn't aware it was so optional.
That's it. We're through. Now we have to rate our games. Parents will now know that GTA is rated M. Game stores everywhere will start carding kids. Everything is going to be different from now on!!!!!!!!
I love it..They cant get drugs or guns out of NY. They cant create tougher laws who use media violence as a scapegoat..but we will limit and blame the game you place for the actions you take.
I love how these zealots cite examples that fall completely outside of the realm of their legislation. How exactly is forcing the ESRB to clearly label all games produced for sale in the united states, forcing retailers to comply, and forming a watch-dog nanny group going to prevent the free downloading of a game never intended for retail shelves?
Parenting is for suckers. The government and the V-chip are going to raise my kids.
How long do we give this before it gets struck down as unconstitutional? Anyone want to start a dead pool?
Sadly, none of this will stop some clueless moron of a parent from going to the store and legally buying Violent Rapist: The Video Game and then giving it to their six year old for Christmas.
Also, who else thinks that Jack Thompson and his ilk will try to point to this as a victory for their side?
@ David Houghton:
I believe fluc02 is correct. Films don't even have to submit themselves to the ratings board, the problem is most theater chains will often pass on the movie if they go unrated. But yeah, it's not actually enforced by law. The theater owners won't go to jail if little Billy sneaks into Grindhouse.
I wouldn't be surprised if this gets struck down as unconstitutional sooner or later, like similar laws have been in the past.
JT will go on TV and say he helped write it. He likes to say some wacky stuff when the camera is on.
Unbelievable. Just a few quotes that I thought were interesting:
"Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision..."
Well maybe if parents did their job and supervised we wouldn't need you assholes to waste time making useless, bullshit laws.
"A study by a group of Harvard University researchers published in 2004 reviewed a random sample of 81 "T" rated video games and found that 48 percent contained violence, sexual themes, substance use, gambling, or profanity that was not noted on the game box as it should have been."
I looked for the report on google and also found a similar report was done that year that talked about movie glamorizing drugs, alchohol, etc, but I don't see you passing laws or forming commitees to deal with that.
In addition, a recent study published in Applied Developmental Psychology found that only twenty-five percent of parents surveyed said that they "always" check the industry rating of computer and/or video games before renting or buying them.
"In addition, a recent study published in Applied Developmental Psychology found that only twenty-five percent of parents surveyed said that they "always" check the industry rating of computer and/or video games before renting or buying them."
Again, not the video game industires or ESRBs fault. It is amazing how all the evidence points towards simply increasing parental involvment in children's gaming habits, but somehow it becomes justification for passing idiotic laws
I think the real problem is, is that parents ARE looking at the ratings, but they simply do not care, they know what they are buying when they buy a GTA game, but as long as it will keep little Johnny busy and out of the parents way, they will buy it for them.
Parents will buy kids WHATEVER they want, without caring in the least, if they want it, they get it, simple as that. If parents genuinely cared about the welfare of their kids then we would not have millions of kids running around on Heeley's shoes in retail stores nationwide and sustaining head injuries and other injuries from use of the shoes. Parents would not allow the use of the shoes and they would be banned from retailers in the USA at least if parents actually cared. But no because the kid wants the shoes they get the shoes, regardless of how dangerous they can be if used improperly. No these shoes should not be banned, they should just be banned from being used improperly, they are a skateboard, you should not use them anywhere where you wouldn't use a skateboard, yet I see kids in all retail stores and skating in malls like they are at the skate park.
The most recent report that I read on another website said that a survey shows that something like 80-90% of parents know and are informed about ESRB ratings, but whether or not they take those ratings into consideration when they buy their kids something to keep them occupied is their choice ultimately. Thats an awful lot, and no matter how much the law tries they will not be able to get 100% of parents to agree with the ESRB and not buy their kid a violent video game just because the game has an extra rating sticker on it.
Violence is our world nowadays, if you do not expose your kids to it at some point in their lives, they become very sheltered. When sheltered kids leave home for college when they turn 18 they become the worst behaved out of all the college kids because they do not know what freedom tastes like and once they find out they get into all sorts of trouble. Kids need to know the real world, they shouldn't live in a "perfect" household where violence is non existent and everything is child proof because the real world is not like that. I know that parenting nowadays is judged by how much you shelter your kid, and the more "perfect" and sheltered of an environment your kids live in, the better the parent you are considered to be, but the kids that grow up in an environment like this are the ones that turn out to be the baddest simply because they do not know the real world.
No I do not think a 4-6 year old should be playing GTA or other violent games (and I would think that most people would agree with this statement), but older kids and teens should not be restricted to only non violent or very mild violent content until they turn 18... thats just absurd. They will start to experience more violent stuff when they hit the 6th grade like most kids have in the past, and most of the stuff your kid will be exposed to in ANY 6th grade class is way way worse than what is in any violent video game out on the market now.
JT FTW.................lol JK
Personally I'd like so see some sort of middle ground between the American and UK film rating systems applied all round.
I'd have no problem with legally enforced age ratings as long as the system disallowed the UK ban hammer and censorship baton. That way everything could be seen and played, and the anti-games brigade wouldn't have any excuses.
The terms are too vague and games already have mandatory, visible ratings on them. This will get shot down like all the others and New York taxpayers will be footin' the bill, just like in Louisiana.
It's not going to make one iota of difference. I used to work in Game (in the UK we're required by law to inform the customer of a BBFC rating - PEGI is voluntary but store policy for GAME) nine out of ten times I told a mother 'I need to tell you this game is rated a certificate 18 - there's some bad language and some really quite gratuitous violence. It's not suitable for anyone under that age' they'd just reply - 'oh, they'll be ok - it's nothing he hasn't seen on telly'.. then they promptly hand the thing to their 8 year old.
"A study by a group of Harvard University researchers published in 2004 reviewed a random sample of 81 "T" rated video games and found that 48 percent contained violence, sexual themes, substance use, gambling, or profanity that was not noted on the game box as it should have been."
Which is exactly why they're fucking rated T. The ESRB is doing its job. What's the problem?
*shakes head angrily*
@David:
I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but here in America I can't really see how legally enforced age rankings could be reconciled with the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. There really isn't any room for wiggle room in there.
Then again the FCC manages to abridge the freedom of speech all it wants when it comes to broadcasting dirty words, so maybe they'll manage to squeeze things like this in as well.
As far as personal feelings, I believe very strongly in the ability of the free market to police itself, I don't want the government involved in it one bit. And it seems to be working great in terms of movies. It works so well that a lot of people in America that I've talked to even thing that there are laws which enforce it. I can't see why it couldn't work the same for games.
fluc02: I thoroughly agree with you on the freedom of speech issue. It's one of my favourite causes for championing and one of the things I hold most dear in life.
In an ideal world, I'd love a freely self-governed media industry, but I just feel that sometimes legal ratings are a necessary evil, purely in terms of not giving the film/game-hating zealots room to manoeuvre in criticising the industry. If there's a legal rating for something, they can shut up, and haven't got any grounds for accusing publishers doing anything illegitimate.
Though there's no way in hell I'd ever stand for any kind of censorship or banning. Everything should be passed, however high a rating it's deemed to require, and most importantly, those ratings should NEVER inhibit those who are deemed old enough from easily obtaining what they want.
The FCC gets away with it because once upon a time when there was a tiny handful of TV and radio stations, they enforced obscenity laws because customers didn't have enough choices if they were offended. Newspapers were exempt because every town had at least 10 to choose from. Good thing they changed with the times, huh?
The bill still has to go through the Assembly before Spitzer signs it into law, but it looks like some of my money will go right to the ESA in a few months. Ugh.
first trip to the supreme court will knock this one down because there is a double standard for other media.
Returning Dtoiders: login now to post a comment
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just Create an avatar now - it's fast and free: PLUS you also get your own gaming blog and begin posting stories and uploading videos in our open community area that may also appear on our home page. Sign up and we'll guide you through it, it's easy and 100% anonymous.