Video game industry regulations proposed for the third time in four years

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Peter
    Feb. 10, 2009 8:37 a.m.

    Agreed, this Bill actually makes matters worse, not better.

    Unless this is some kind of plan to force shops to stop carding people, and then claiming that as a basis for trying to legally enforce the ratings, something that will get nowhere because it is entrapment, then I honestly cannot see any real positive side to this Bill for either side of the debate.

  • Sortableturnip
    Feb. 9, 2009 7:21 a.m.

    Your bill is going to do more harm than good, Jack. The stores will simply not advertise that they are not selling M-rated games to underage people and they will be able to sell ANY RATED GAME TO ANYONE. Jack, do you really think that a cashier making $7/hour really cares about carding someone for a video game? They are not selling them a restricted product like alcohol, tobacco, firearms or pornography. Until you can get that through your thick headed skull, every attempt you make to have them restricted will FAIL.

  • Jack Thompson
    Feb. 9, 2009 5:38 a.m.

    Sure the games are labeled. And despite that, Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart, GameStop, Toys R Us and others are STILL selling these harmful, mature-rated games to kids with no parents in sight in the stores and to all kids of all ages via the Internet.

    This is what we aim to stop: Saying you don't make such sales when you do. It's called Truth in Advertising people. How can any thinking person object to a law that says, "Practice what you preach"? Call it the Anti-Hypocrisy Bill if you like. Jack Thompson

  • Peter
    Feb. 8, 2009 1:44 a.m.

    Typo in my last post, I meant ESRB dot com, sorry.

  • RoffleCopter
    Feb. 8, 2009 12:00 a.m.

    @Help parents protect their child,

    Games ARE labeled.

    And while it may prove "offensive" to the eyes for some, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a child watching age-restricted content. I've been doing so from an incredibly young age (Around 6 or 8, I believe) and I can't stand the thought of hunting, never mind shooting an actual person.

    Furthermore, taking the freedoms away from an entire country to protect a few incompetent parents is hardly fair. And yes, I believe anyone who can't afford to spend time with their kids is incompetent.

    But honestly, you want the government to step in and start baby-sitting? Then please, games are the least of your worries. First, let's ban "objectionable" religions (this includes Christianity), weapons, psychoactive substances (like beer), unhealthy foods/drinks, and carbon-based cars.

    Only AFTER taking care of all these much more serious influences should you start worrying about TV, books, games and other media forms.

  • Peter
    Feb. 7, 2009 11:38 p.m.

    Actually, Video Games are clealy labelled, and most consoles come with password controls that prevent games above a certain rating being played on them. Computer access can also be password based, it takes a small amount of time to learn, and there are plenty of walkthroughs on the Internet for parents.

    Check ERSB dot com for details of the ratings.

    Stores already run a policy of not selling, for example, M-Rated games to underage buyers, the system isn't perfect, but till-workers who make mistakes can get into trouble if they sell to someone under the suggested age recommendation.

    If this Bill were enforced, shops would have little choice but to abandon that voluntary system entirely, because, instead of the Till-clerk getting into trouble, the shop itself would be fined for their mistake. By abandoning the voluntary system, they would be protecting themselves in a shaky financial climate. If they abandoned the system, they could not be held responsible for false advertising.

    In short, this Bill would actually make it easier for young children to buy games not intended for their age group. Or, to put it another way, it's more dangerous than helpful.

  • Help parents protect their child
    Feb. 7, 2009 11:14 p.m.

    Parents have a tough job in these times when there is so much to screen and many parents are not as available as they would like; they are forced to work several jobs. Their children are not always at home and may be doing video games at a friend's house. It would be a lot easier for parents if there were better measurements set, better regulations. The rules could be clearer.

    Abusing freedom of speech by refusing to even label objectionable material is just as bad as denying it.

  • Similar action resulted in $$
    Feb. 7, 2009 7:26 p.m.

    Similar action in another state resulted in the state writing out a check for the legal expenses for a video game company.

    Maybe this is a ploy to stimulate the video game industry?

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 7, 2009 6:46 p.m.

    Why to we have to waste tax payers money again by coming up with some hokey laws about how to or not to advertise video games? Parents raise your kids and don't let them buy games that are inappropriate. Don't give the responsibility of raising our kids to lawmakers. Take some ownership of your families people.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 7, 2009 2:43 p.m.

    More wasted tax dollars. Here is a better idea, give tax credits to video game developers in the state of Utah to help stimulate our economy. Video games are part of modern culture, deal with it.

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 7, 2009 12:26 p.m.


  • uncannygunman
    Feb. 7, 2009 12:45 a.m.

    This is so bizarre. I can't wait for signs to go up saying "Due to Utah law, we are no longer able to enforce any age restrictions on video games."

  • Anonymous
    Feb. 6, 2009 7:19 p.m.

    Wonderful... More of our tax dollars down the toilet.

  • It takes a village to...
    Feb. 6, 2009 6:37 p.m.

    completely control a child's mind. This is yet another step in a serious of methods to get children everywhere to march goose-step-in-step with the legislature's opinion of morality.

    These kids have parents. How about you leave it up to them?