Federal Video Game Bill

Variety reports on the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, a new Federal bill aimed at penalizing stores that do not check for IDs from purchasers of games rated "M" or "AO" by the ESRB:
Reps. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah) introduced the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act on Wednesday to ensure that children “can only access age appropriate content without parental permission,” according to Terry.

“The images and themes in some videogames are shocking and troublesome. In some games high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape,” Terry continued. “Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children.”

Bill would require ID checks for purchases of games rated M (mature) or AO (adult only). It would also compel vidgame retailers to post ratings system explanations in the store. Retailers found in violation of either requirement would face a $5,000 civil penalty.

Several state legislatures have enacted similar laws, but each has been struck down by courts on First Amendment challenges.
View : : :
53.
 
Re: No subject
May 8, 2008, 12:12
53.
Re: No subject May 8, 2008, 12:12
May 8, 2008, 12:12
 
But it begs the question why haven't legislators learned from past similar laws and worded their law in a non vague way?

Pandering to demographics in an election year. Video games are a fairly easy target to demonize for support. By the time the laws get stuck down, they are already in office.

This comment was edited on May 8, 12:14.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
6.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
25.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
78.
May 10, 2008May 10 2008
2.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
4.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
41.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
3.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
20.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
21.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
22.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
5.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
9.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
7.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
8.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
10.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
11.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
13.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
14.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
16.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
12.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
15.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
17.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
18.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
19.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
23.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
24.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
28.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
31.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
26.
May 7, 2008May 7 2008
27.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
29.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
45.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
46.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
30.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
32.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
33.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
37.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
38.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
34.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
35.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
36.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
39.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
40.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
42.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
43.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
44.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
47.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
48.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
49.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
50.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
51.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
52.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
 53.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
  Re: No subject
54.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
56.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
57.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
59.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
     Re: No subject
64.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
      Re: No subject
65.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
       Re: No subject
67.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
        Re: No subject
68.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
         Re: No subject
71.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
          Re: No subject
72.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
           Re: No subject
73.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
           Re: No subject
66.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
       Re: No subject
61.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
     Re: No subject
63.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
      Re: No subject
55.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
58.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
60.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
62.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
69.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
74.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008
75.
May 9, 2008May 9 2008
76.
May 9, 2008May 9 2008
77.
May 9, 2008May 9 2008
70.
May 8, 2008May 8 2008