Senator Lanza speaking out loud, again.
In a bid to further undermine the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system and confuse everybody, the New York State Senate has passed legislation that will create the 'Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence'.
The bill (S.5888), sponsored by Senator Andrew Lanza (Republican, Staten Island), creates a 15-member panel 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."
In classically bullish prose, Senator Lanza's website states that the advisory council, "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."
Cracking down on video games violence has nothing to do with retail ratings systems. It has a great deal to do with censoring content. In a country that prides itself on freedom of speech and with people voting with their dollars, it's concerning that the Senator and his cronies are asking "How can we alter the content" rather than, "Why do people buy these games? What's making them sell?"
The bill will 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," says the Senator's website.
Of course, the recent shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech has also been shoe-horned into add some credibility to the bill. The Senator calls a game called, "V-Tech Massacre, a sick game which exploits the Virginia Tech University tragedy".
We assume that he means V-Tech Rampage, a game written by 21-year-old Ryan Lambourn (A.K.A. Pigpen), which was only available for free online and so would not have come under any rating system other than that of public opinion. It has certainly not appeared in retail in New York or anywhere else.
The Senator continues, "The emotions and behaviours 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 behaviour 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."
That's laudable, providing information to parents in order to make informed choices. Not a problem, unless we ask who decides the importance. Apparently, as this is predicated on "cracking down" we've already got quite a good idea of the agenda.
The reality is that video games available in retail already have ratings in New York and everywhere else in the U.S.A. One thing guaranteed to confuse the ESRB rating system (which if anything is over-detailed) is to introduce yet another rating layer. This is already being seen in the case of Best Buy's recent announcement of its introduction of ratings to 'enhance' the ESRB's.
To use a game such as V-Tech Rampage, to get its name wrong and to misunderstand it's distribution method (as well as its origin) - displays a total misunderstanding of how games are created and sold, and a lack of rigour. If the advisory council is going to make these kinds of elementary mistakes from the outset, then any findings it does produce have got to be received with more than a little scepticism.
This bill and panel - like several more emerging throughout the U.S.A. in this period leading up to a Presidential campaign - has all the appearance of a dangerously partisan, agenda-lead talking shop attempting to shift focus from rather more pressing matters and on to itself.
SPOnG advocates the correct and reasonable use, and enforcement, of video game rating systems such as the ESRB's or the European PEGI system.
Certainly if a retailer sells a game clearly marked as 18+ to a six-year-old, then that retailer should be held to account - financially.
Certainly any system has got to be understood by the people it's aimed at - the consumer.
What we find hard to stomach, however, is politically motivated grandstanding that will only serve to fragment a rating system that should be able to be understood by all. It's really not that complicated chaps: support and enforce the existing, nationwide (or in the case of PEGI, Europe-wide) system rather than points scoring locally.
Oh, and then deal with issues such as 10-month-olds being able to get gun licenses; parents not having the time, inclination or education to find out what their kids are playing, reading, watching or listening to.
Before we sign off, let's look at a few other things we can legislate against:
1. TV wrestling - Lionel Alexander Tate (12) convicted of first-degree murder for battering a 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick to death while showing her professional wrestling moves he said he had seen on television.
2. Balls - Shanice K (9) stabbed Queen Washington (11) to death over a ball.
3. Guns and the military - Adlai Stevenson (8) shot and killed Ruth Merwin while showing her a military drill he had seen with a loaded rifle. Stevenson ran for President of the U.S.A. twice.
4. Fantasy life and adolescence - Pauline Parker (16) and Juliet Hulme (15) savagely killed Pauline's mother with a brick in a sock. This was on the 22nd of June 1954, to the best of our knowledge some time before the introduction of video games.
5. Single-parent families - Henry McCarty (21) Shot and killed 21 men. Also known as Billy The Kid. Died in 1881 - once again sometime before the advent of Saints Row.
All of these people killed young, and were not influenced by video games (undeniably so in the last three cases).
The bill (S.5888), sponsored by Senator Andrew Lanza (Republican, Staten Island), creates a 15-member panel 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."
In classically bullish prose, Senator Lanza's website states that the advisory council, "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."
Cracking down on video games violence has nothing to do with retail ratings systems. It has a great deal to do with censoring content. In a country that prides itself on freedom of speech and with people voting with their dollars, it's concerning that the Senator and his cronies are asking "How can we alter the content" rather than, "Why do people buy these games? What's making them sell?"
The bill will 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," says the Senator's website.
Of course, the recent shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech has also been shoe-horned into add some credibility to the bill. The Senator calls a game called, "V-Tech Massacre, a sick game which exploits the Virginia Tech University tragedy".
We assume that he means V-Tech Rampage, a game written by 21-year-old Ryan Lambourn (A.K.A. Pigpen), which was only available for free online and so would not have come under any rating system other than that of public opinion. It has certainly not appeared in retail in New York or anywhere else.
The Senator continues, "The emotions and behaviours 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 behaviour 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."
That's laudable, providing information to parents in order to make informed choices. Not a problem, unless we ask who decides the importance. Apparently, as this is predicated on "cracking down" we've already got quite a good idea of the agenda.
The reality is that video games available in retail already have ratings in New York and everywhere else in the U.S.A. One thing guaranteed to confuse the ESRB rating system (which if anything is over-detailed) is to introduce yet another rating layer. This is already being seen in the case of Best Buy's recent announcement of its introduction of ratings to 'enhance' the ESRB's.
To use a game such as V-Tech Rampage, to get its name wrong and to misunderstand it's distribution method (as well as its origin) - displays a total misunderstanding of how games are created and sold, and a lack of rigour. If the advisory council is going to make these kinds of elementary mistakes from the outset, then any findings it does produce have got to be received with more than a little scepticism.
This bill and panel - like several more emerging throughout the U.S.A. in this period leading up to a Presidential campaign - has all the appearance of a dangerously partisan, agenda-lead talking shop attempting to shift focus from rather more pressing matters and on to itself.
SPOnG advocates the correct and reasonable use, and enforcement, of video game rating systems such as the ESRB's or the European PEGI system.
Certainly if a retailer sells a game clearly marked as 18+ to a six-year-old, then that retailer should be held to account - financially.
Certainly any system has got to be understood by the people it's aimed at - the consumer.
What we find hard to stomach, however, is politically motivated grandstanding that will only serve to fragment a rating system that should be able to be understood by all. It's really not that complicated chaps: support and enforce the existing, nationwide (or in the case of PEGI, Europe-wide) system rather than points scoring locally.
Oh, and then deal with issues such as 10-month-olds being able to get gun licenses; parents not having the time, inclination or education to find out what their kids are playing, reading, watching or listening to.
Before we sign off, let's look at a few other things we can legislate against:
1. TV wrestling - Lionel Alexander Tate (12) convicted of first-degree murder for battering a 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick to death while showing her professional wrestling moves he said he had seen on television.
2. Balls - Shanice K (9) stabbed Queen Washington (11) to death over a ball.
3. Guns and the military - Adlai Stevenson (8) shot and killed Ruth Merwin while showing her a military drill he had seen with a loaded rifle. Stevenson ran for President of the U.S.A. twice.
4. Fantasy life and adolescence - Pauline Parker (16) and Juliet Hulme (15) savagely killed Pauline's mother with a brick in a sock. This was on the 22nd of June 1954, to the best of our knowledge some time before the introduction of video games.
5. Single-parent families - Henry McCarty (21) Shot and killed 21 men. Also known as Billy The Kid. Died in 1881 - once again sometime before the advent of Saints Row.
All of these people killed young, and were not influenced by video games (undeniably so in the last three cases).
Comments
Bailey 23 May 2007 13:25
1/1
Just look at the next article the Pirates of the Caribbean games has a big obverse 16+ logo on it but as the film has been given a 12a BBFC (and a PG13 US) rating. This will be a game that a lode of parents will by with out even looking at the age rating as they will have seen the first two and probable this one and will by it for there kids to play. If the game has blood, guts and gore as you would expect from a 16+ rating games and the parents are not happy with this the industry will get a lot of flak about it. But it would be solely the fault of the parent for not adhering to the age rating system on the box. But it would be reported by the ‘Daily Mail’ as ‘an evil game that corrupts children’