This afternoon, Clinton's office announced she has written a bill that would institute federal regulation of game sales. Coauthored by longtime game critic Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the Family Entertainment Protection Act will be jointly submitted by the two legislators when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.
If made law, the Family Entertainment Protection Act would be a "a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen." It would punish violators with unspecified fines, though it did not specify if the clerk who sold the game or the retailer where said clerk worked would be punished. "This provision is not aimed at punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system," read a statement from Clinton's office.
While the retail part of the bill is similar to laws recently passed in Michigan, Illinois, and California, the Family Entertainment Protection Act goes much farther. It would authorize "the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers to determine how easy it is for young people to purchase Mature and Adults Only video games and report the findings to Congress." These findings would be part of a larger annual analysis of ESRB game ratings. "This analysis will help ensure that the ESRB ratings system accurately reflects the content in each game and that the ratings system does not change significantly over time," read Clinton's statement.
The bill would also allow private citizens to file complaints with the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) "if they find content to be misleading or deceptive." The BCP would issue an annual report on said complaints to Congress as part of the aforementioned annual review.
You can't use unreasonable force. Like, for example, Tony Martin; the farmer who shot a 16 year old burglar in the back, as he was running away chased by Rottweilers and pleading for his life (oh, and the burgler was also a gypsy, a racial group for which Tony Martin had a vitriolic hatred).
This included the case of a man who laid in wait for a burglar at a commercial premises, before beating him up, throwing him in a pit and setting him on fire. Do you think that's reasonable self defence?
what is unconstitutional about restricting the sale of damaging products to minors?
Cigarettes, alcohol and explosives are not speech so they are not protected by the first amendment.
This isnt Clinton or Lieberman acting like Thompson and trying to get all religious and wanting all violent games banned. They jsut dont want them sold freely to minors.Oooh, that looks like one vote for Clinton/Lieberman already.
Serious question here cos I have no idea what's legal in the states:
Can you sell cigarettes to under 17 year olds? How about porn? Gay porn? Alcohol? Explosives?
Now those are in no way similar to video games but presumably there are SOME restrictions on what you can sell in the US, regardless of the Constitution.
Enforceable age limits on games are good for the majority of gamers who are over 18. If 13 year olds could buy alcohol people would be crying for alcohol to be banned outright. By controlling who can buy it you take the pressure of the majority.
I can't see how restricting sales to minors is anything but good. In fact not having restrictions on video games sales is an infringement of the rights of the responsible majority whose image in the media is being dragged down by the current system.
I like how in the UK self defense is ILLEGAL. You cannot kill someone who robs/threatens you in your own HOME.