Congressman Matheson Defends Anti-Videogame Law
Time to wax political again!

Yesterday I received a snail-mail letter from Congressman Jim Matheson, who represents my state of Utah. I expect a lot of people from the state of Utah who have expressed concern about the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act received the same letter. I thought I'd share the bulk of it here, as well as my concerns which remain unaddressed by this letter. For the most part, it reiterates the same rhetoric being bandied about in defense of the laws that are being enacted (and, so far, universally shot down as being Unconstitutional) in states throughout the nation. It contains some major inaccuracies and rather offensive comparisons, but I'll include the text here for people to read on their own.

Bolded sections are my own emphasis.

-----------

"Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding video games. I appreciate your interest in the issues facing our country and state, and I am glad for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By contacting me on issues important to you, you help me better represent Utah in Congress.

"I understand your concerns about the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act. Parents should be the first line of defense when it comes to children, but parents simply cannot be with their children at all times and I believe there is a reasonable place for the government and the industry to work together to help families.

"Today, video games are by far the most popular activity for kids, and most games are probably fine for anyone to play. However, given that 190 million video game units were sold in 2005 in the U.S., there's ample room for concern as to what young kids can actually buy in the store. As you know, most video games are labeled with a rating determined by an industry panel called the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB). Ratings range from "EC" for Early Childhood to "T" for Teen, while games rated "M" for Mature are not intended for those under age 17 and the "AO" or Adult-Only rating, is for those 18 and over. Yet, young children are still widely able to gain access to video games without parental consent.

"A 2004 Federal Trade Commission report found that 69% of unaccompanied 13-16 year-olds in the study were able to purchase "M" rated video games from retailers. The nonprofit National Institute on Media and the Family recently published its tenth annual MediaWise Video Game Report Card. The report card included the results of a survey of more than 600 students ranging from 4th - 12th grade, conducted in classrooms. Almost half (45%) said they have bought M-rated games and 7 out of 10 children reported playing M-rated games.

"For my part, I have introduced bipartisan legislation with Congressman Rick Renzi of Arizona called the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act. I think it presents a simple approach to ensuring that kids can no longer purchase adult-rated content. It also keeps th e government out of the business of assessing content by using the industry's own ratings system.

"The Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, HR 5345, would require all retailers to check identification of any children trying to buy or rent Mature-rated or Adults Only-rated games. It also required that ratings system explanations be posted in stores. However, the Video Games Ratings Enforcment Act does not prevent a parent or any adult from buying any available game nor does it legislate which games can or should be stocked in retail outlets. It simply helps to ensure that children may only purchase age appropriate content without parental permission. You may also want to read a copy of the actual bill, which you can find at http://thomas.loc.gov/.

"Most Americans are very comfortable insisting that retailers verify the age of people who want to purchase alcohol or cigarettes because we have decided as a society that those products are only appropriate for adults. I know that as a parent, I am glad that retailers help me by performing this service. I do not doubt that at one point in time, many retailers objected to point of sale restrictions for alcohol or tabacco, but I believe that retailers would now readily acknowledge the value of this important service."

"In the case of video games, the entertainment software industry has itself acknowledged that some games - many of which are best sellers - are really only for adults. Therefore, it seems reasonable to insist that retailers only sell adult-rated games to adults. The industry and retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to address some of these issues which is commendable, but I believe that Congress should do more to help families."

"Again, thank you for sharing your concerns with me. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact my office. "

-------

Okay. These bills have have been breeding like bunny-rabbits during this election year, because they are not yet considered politically damaging yet. After all, only kids play videogames (right?), and kids don't vote. Well, in the minds of our leaders, I suppose.

So I'm pretty much reiterating the same points I've brought up before, but here I go again:

"I believe that there is a reasonable place for the government and the industry to work together to help families"

There is, for the industry. And it's already there and doing it. As to the government coming in and mandating it - I'm sorry. I'd rather be allowed choose my own babysitters; the price the U.S. government charges is FAR too high.

"Most video games are labeled with a rating by... the Entertainment Software Ratings Board."

WRONG. Most video games are NOT SO LABELED. Most video game makers cannot afford it. The ESRB rates "over 1000 games per year." For one game, Neverwinter Nights, we exceeded that number in free, fan-created modules alone (some of which very well should have earned an AO rating, I might add!). There's at least an equal number of free FLASH videogames coming out in the United States alone. Even if you restrict it to just commercial games - I have no actual numbers, but Big Fish Games has been advertising a new game every day on their site, almost none of which are rated by the ESRB. Even modestly assuming that represents maybe a third of the non-retail-store games that are released each month (most of which are crap and will be lucky to sell a single copy), that would mean that half the games sold in the U.S. do not carry such a label, and many could not afford to do so. And that's not including the "free" video games that are being used for commercial or political advertisement.

The proposed bill states quite clearly:
"(a) Conduct Prohibited- It shall be unlawful for any person to ship or otherwise distribute in interstate commerce, or to sell or rent, a video game that does not contain a rating label, in a clear and conspicuous location on the outside packaging of the video game, containing an age-based content rating determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board."

In other words, anything that can be called a "Video Game" is ILLEGAL to be shared with another person in any way (well, across state boundaries, but the states are already trying to fix that loophole) unless it contains an ESRB rating, which costs a minimum of $5,000 (and you KNOW the price is going to go way up if this bill goes through, which I pray it does not).

This bill is obviously targeting what gets sold at Wal*Mart - but that represents only a slender fraction of what is becoming a MAJOR MEDIUM of not only expression and entertainment, but for communication of ideas, marketing, and yes - political commentary and campaigning. The bill is more than a chilling effect on an entertainment medium - it is the out-and-out destruction of a Constitutionally protected, increasingly popular and powerful medium of expression. Only those who can gain a significant buck out of it will be allowed to participate, thankyouverymuch.

Shall we apply these same standards to other media? How about we start with a written word?

"Video Games Ratings Enforcment Act does not prevent a parent or any adult from buying any available game nor does it legislate which games can or should be stocked in retail outlets. "

Directly? No. Indirectly? Big time! It's called "The Chilling Effect." Look it up.

"Yet, young children are still widely able to gain access to video games ... 69% of unaccompanied 13-16 year-olds in the study were able to purchase "M" rated video games from retailers. "

Okay, I guess we're dealing with semantics here. When I think "young children," I'm not thinking of of those in the upper 25% of the age bracket that constitutes a "minor." I have trouble calling a 16-year-old a "child" unless I'm feeling particularly snarky, but whatever.

"Almost half (45%) said that they have bought M-rated games and 7 out of 10 children reported playing M-rated games."

In other words, nearly half (2.5 out of the 5.5, or about 45%) who didn't buy the games themselves still ended up playing them? So how did they get access to them? Borrowed from a friend? Wouldn't that make the friend a distributor, and subject that friend's family to a potential $5000 fine per violation under this bill? Well, okay, not unless the friend's family lives in another state, and maybe not if no money changed hands.

But still, this has so MANY levels of wrong. But there's more that's not being said...

The other thing these studies are also showing (and there have been SEVERAL of them) is that the industry is improving in its voluntary efforts at enforcement. So is the movie industry, which for many years allowed anyone who wasn't obviously a ten-year-old access to rated "R" movies. This is all VOLUNTARY - the movie industry is policing itself. And depending on who you believe, game sales are doing MUCH of a lot better than, say, DVD sales of inappropriately-rated material.

But that's why the polticians are striking now. The iron is hot but cooling rapidly, and they are most likely well-aware of the fact that the issue won't be nearly as full of political capital in 4 years.

"Most americans are very comfortable insisting that retailers verify the age of people who want to purchase alcohol or cigarettes because we have decided as a society that those products are only appropriate for adults."

HELLO!!!!! We're talking SUBSTANCES here which have been proven to be physically addictive AND can can cause damage to one's health, and judgement, which can cause death! And you are trying to compare these to Pac-Man?

We're not talking substances here. And we do not require that everyone who serves someone else a glass of water submit reams of paperwork and pay a $5000 fee to have that water labeled to prove it's okay to serve it to a minor when the neighborhood kids come to play with your children.

We're comparing apples to power-drills here. And I'm a little dismayed to see this hyperbolic comparison get made.

"The entertainment software industry has itself acknowledged that some games ... are really only for adults."

Right. And many writers will acknowledged that their books are only intended for adults, too. For that matter, this blog is not intended for young children, either, even though I do keep it relatively clean. This is NOT an invitation to have the government step in and regulate things at the expense of writers and publishers everywhere!

I am frankly astonished at this attempt at legislation, but I'm getting used to being astonished these days. I will attribute this more to ignorance than malice in many cases, but it is the job of our leaders to adequately research these issues AND to understand possible unintended consequences before drafting potential law that will shape our future. And it clearly hasn't been done with these instances of knee-jerk legislation.


(Many thanks to GamePolitics.com for the useful links!)

Labels: Politics

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:41 PM (Permalink)