Journal buffer-overflowed's Journal: Gaming - Age restriction legislation 2
Personally, I see absolutely no problem with the restriction of adult(and licensed) material to minors(the SCOTUS, since our dear friend Fortas left it has been in complete agreement on the rights of children, special exemptions et all). There is a growing perception that this is a problem, and currently the political fallout goes largely to the content developers.
By passing sane legislation(current proposed legislation is a bit onerous at points, black-bagging M games and keeping them out of premium retail space, fines in excess of the nearest equivalent in current law... tobacco sales, etc.) we can in effect do the following:
1. Gain political capitol by "thinking of the children" which we can use to ensure adult access to the material, as well as access by minors with explicit parental permission.
2. Prevent a similar situation happening in the video game industry that lead to crap like the comic book code under related circumstances. Industry self-regulation to avoid said fallout has thus far, in the US at least, restricted and stifled creativity in content as much as obsenity laws have(yes, ye olde Miller Test). Examples include network standards and practices(even cable channels fall prey to this even though there is no regulation of cable), the MPAA ratings system(how much stuff is cut or toned down to make an R/PG-13 rating?), etc. If the content levels aknowledged by the law are <18 & >18, and current trends continue, then there will basically be no limit to what you can put into an > 18 restricted or not rated title. The point is that age restriction can paradoxically free content by removing the concern that a pitchfork-wielding mob of parents and lawmakers is going to come down on you if you put a little hot-coffee into the game.
3. Deflect any blame, deserved or not, off the industry itself(and lawmakers for not "thinking of the children") and onto clerks and parents. After all, minors would be prohibited by law from making such purchases themselves.
4. Prevent people from claiming a minor purchased software, thus forcing the retailer to take it back regardless of policy.
5. Put video-game retail store clerks firmly into the college-age category.
6. Give retailers and developers a nigh-ironclad defense from frivalous lawsuits by victims of violence looking for a scapegoat as well as outraged parents.
The other option to solve this back-burner crisis, would be a campaign by retailers to remake their image in a similar vein as the movie industry did. A bit of an ad blitz, a few Gamestop fires clerk for selling GTA3 to 12 yo headlines, and you start fixing the perception. It has the same effect, w/o the force of law, and thus is equivalent in some ways, but imo a worse solution because it won't convey all of the benefits a law would.
Politicians are going to make political capitol off of this issue. They're already doing it in Florida, California, and to a lesser extent up on the hill. We can either engage in the process from the inside and get things that benefit us and the industry or we can take the politically unviable hard-free-speech tact and get shut out. Personally, I'd rather be in, and I'm an ACLU supporter. Leave the free-speech fight for another day, over other groups.
Just ask yourself this, would you rather have people like me engaging with lawmakers and the media, or guys like Jack Thompson?
Oh and while I'm thinking about it, the puerile shit isn't helping.
I missed TT... (Score:2)
Honestly, I'd rather have Jack Thompson, at least he's honest about his hatred of America.
Re:I missed TT... (Score:1)