
The time of blaming entertainment, especially video games, for violence in American is beginning to enter its twilight, turning into the opinion of cranky old people and politicians who want to claim to have done something without actually doing anything.
Enter Jim Matheson, Democrat of Utah, and his Video Games Rating Enforcement Act, which falls into the latter category.
The Video Games Rating Enforcement Act has two major provisions, one of which is de facto the case already and the other of which is blatantly unconstitutional.
The former is this:
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.
Since many retailers have it as a policy to only stock ESRB rated games anyway, this is about as moot as it gets. Especially since it means that if you want to buy something insanely violent from Steam, it won’t need an ESRB rating: Matheson’s law as written only applies to physical retail products. It’s also a bit questionable for the government to attempt to appoint an industry group as its own regulator.
And now for the part that shows this is entirely political grandstanding:
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or rent, or attempt to sell or rent– (1) any video game containing a content rating of “Adults Only” (as determined by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board) to any person under the age of 18; or (2) any video game containing a content rating of “Mature” (as determined by such Board) to any person under the age of 17.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s virtually identical to the California state law struck down in 2011 by ESA vs. Brown, the Supreme Court decision that made video games protected speech and makes laws like this pretty much impossible to enforce.
If you’re wondering why, precisely, Matheson is wasting your tax dollars on this crap, the answer can be found in the fact that he’s a Democrat in a heavily Republican district. Advocating for anything resembling the Democratic platform would cost him his job.
At least the Supreme Court has defanged guys like this, but damn if it’s not annoying.




For the record, Democrats are perfectly capable of doing this nonsense on their own. See: Lieberman, Joe and Gore, Tipper.
Meh, whatever, he’s just pandering to his base. He gets to show he’s “doing something” about a perceived threat.
Lieberman techniquely was an independent but often sided with democrats. But i agree with ur point.
Tom, Lieberman was a Democrat for almost his entire career. He switched to Independent when he lost the Democratic nomination for his seat in 2006, and stayed there because the party wouldn’t take him back. Aside from endorsing McCain in 2008, he pretty much towed the party line even as an “Independent.”
How come it’s the party that claims to be all about civil liberties is always coming up with laws that inhibit or hurt civil liberties? And don’t blame this guy’s republican district for the reason. Al and Tipper Gore are as liberal/democratic as they come and have been anti-video game and anti- free speech in music since the 80′s
Al hasn’t had the ability to introduce legislation for more than a decade now, and he’s been occupied with other things.
I’m happy to blame this guy’s district, because he wants to keep his job, but anything effective would involve something like raising taxes. So BS grandstanding it is!
The Right want’s to prevent anyone from gaining or earning any rights that they don’t have yet through law or practice, and the Left focuses on taking away the rights citizens already have. At the end of the day, though, either just wants to be contrary to the other side.
And I apparently put an apostrophe in “wants.” I’m not even drunk right now.
I’ve killed millions upon millions of virtual soldiers. And only like.. what, 3 people?
There’s no link whatsoever.
Sigh, if I’m ever gonna run for President, I have to come out and say that this was a joke.
It was only 2 people.
You can run as a throwback. You’d be the first president since Eisenhower that can say that.
Seems like this all started decades ago with those crazy bastards trying to stab each other for real while playing Dungeons and Dragons.
True story: in the 1960s, I gave my brother a bloody nose while we were playing the (aptly-named) board game “Aggravation.”
I have always been ahead of the curve.
Here’s how I look at it: Violent movies, games, and music might actually contribute to violence in one way or another. But here’s the caveat, the people who are influenced by these things are already disturbed. So while most people can engage in all sorts of violent entertainment and leave it on the XBox, people suffering from schizophrenia might take it differently. In a way, it’s oddly similar to how people treat guns. As much as people bad mouth the NRA, their members aren’t the ones out there committing these crimes. However, mentally damaged people might take that same hunting rifle and start shooting people.
This issue is more complex than people want to admit. All sides say, “no it isn’t us, it’s the other guys.” That’s why the NRA denies guns are the problem, Tarantino denies movies are the problem, and video game fans deny that video games are related to violence. All sides believe that crazy people shouldn’t get to dictate what sane people get to use for recreational purposes.
Don’t forget that time and again, these politicians piggyback onto fears held by uninformed parents, and as a result these politicians take focus away from the fact that parents should take a larger stand in what they feel their kids can watch/listen to and play. I’ve been watching rated NC-17 movies and playing M games since I was 10, and I didn’t turn out so bad or mal-adjusted. I have my mom to thank for that, because she didn’t depend on politicians to decide what I can and cannot consume as entertainment, and she was always having the conversation with me about how in the real world, violence is not the solution, and defining the line between fiction and glamorized violence and reality. So when politicans raise a stink about this, I just say “where are the parents in all this?”.
[www.youtube.com]
Paul Newman responding to the argument of anyone who thinks TV or Video Games are to blame for violence or drug use the only way you can.