FCC To Study Single Rating System For Movies, Video Games, TV & Music

from the under-what-mandate? dept

Tue, Sep 1st 2009 9:52am — Mike Masnick

GamePolitics reports that the FCC is planning to study the idea of a "universal rating system" for all kinds of media, including movies, music, video games and television. According to the Bloomberg article on this, the FCC actually has a mandate to do this under a 2007 law that gave it authority to explore blocking technologies, though that seems to go well beyond the official mandate of the FCC to only monitor communications using public infrastructure. Furthermore, every single attempt to put in place a gov't mandated solution for a ratings system has been struck down as unconstitutional (and a bunch have been tried). Every rating system you see now are voluntary agreements from the industry. Having the FCC even explore such an issue raises some serious constitutional questions.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: fcc, first amendment, movies, music, ratings, television, video games

36 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

johnjac (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 9:25am

Monoploy problems here too
Even if we set aside the 1st Amendment issues (and that is a big IF), The rating boards compete (if even indirectly) with one another to build a better 'product.'

To collapses this into a single systems would remove incentives to compete for parents' dollars spent on their children's entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 9:57am

this is just a baby step towards being able to ban content, not rated? Ban! Can't afford to get rated? BAN! Rated too high. BAN!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:21am

See, this is why I'm a Republican
Because they're all about keeping the government out of private business and shoring up the Constitution.

Wait. They did whatnow?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:22am

You know what, this is really simple
Sorry, FCC, but when you, the watchdog agency of the United States Telecom industry, declined to investigate the nation's largest telephone companies' complicity with illegal NSA wiretapping, then you're no longer of any interest to the country.

Get this straight, you primitive idiots, when you decline to do your goddamn job, then you don't get to have that job any longer. And yes, I realize that it was Kevin Martin who made that decision in 2006, but this new Obama guy could certainly reopen the investigation and hasn't.

Until you want to do ALL of your job, I don't want to hear from you, you FCC retards.

....I may have to move up my takeover timetable. Lord Helmet likes his videogames unrated and explicit in nature....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:24am

The constitution?
Surely you jest that something is against the constitution? Do we still use that old document? It was probably more of a suggestion than a mandate anyway. I mean it isn't like anyone died to bring us that thing anyway; is it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:35am

If done correctly this could be a good thing (neither of those will be true)

my dream is to see a system where content producers are given clear guidelines that they can then use to self rate.

It could be on a point scale, 1-100. each type of objectionable content would have a point value, say violence would be 25 points, blood from that violence would be another 25.
The point scale would then be broken down into 4 categories. 1-25 for everyone. 25-50 for PG 50-75 for teen, and 75-100 for mature or R. Any rating above R is pointless because adults should be able to watch anything.

This rating system would be enforced not by the government, but by the media (if anyone wrongly rates their content then the media goes into a frenzy about it)

I realize that this is a pipe dream, and that reality will be much like it is today. We'll get another secretive ratings board with arbitrary and politicized rulings (if the court battle doesn't get it thrown out first)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:35am

Re: You know what, this is really simple
but this new Obama guy could certainly reopen the investigation and hasn't.
Seems that is all Obama is doing these days so I am sure he will get to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:56am

While I do not believe a serious question of constitutional law is presented, I am curious where the thinks FCC gets rulemaking power to expand its influence in areas outside of its historic jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 10:58am

Re: You know what, this is really simple
"....I may have to move up my takeover timetable. "

Dude if you need a robot army .... just ask ... it'll take me about 6 months to tool up

( I was going to insert a link to play midi of darth vaders theme here, but for some reason I think we are being watched .... )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:01am

I've actually wanted a universal rating system for some time. It would actually be a win for the video game industry because M rated games often are not nearly as graphic as R rated movies. Dead or Alive beach volleyball for example was rated M, however if it were a movie it wouldn't get more than a PG13 rating. I'm talking bout the first DOAX, not the second mind you :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:05am

Re: The constitution?
I nominate you for comment of the day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:11am

This could be a good idea
I think that it's a good idea to make a universal rating system. I also think that it should be the TV rating system with their added little letters to let you know what it was rated that way for. This will help parents do their job and only have to remember one set of ratings.

I don't think the FCC should mandate this. That would be a government required rating system requiring a central government controlled rating board and is the exact same thing as government censorship (with or without the government controlled board). This is a first amendment issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
David (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:27am

A good system
There was a good system in the local paper a few years back. It had, I think, 4 catagories - Sex, Violence, Language, Drug Use. It then had descriptions of how much of each of those was in the movie, not just a number, but actual words. Like "non-sexual nudity", or "Marijuana use, frowned upon". Things like that. There was no "ratings" otherwise. You could then decide whether showing your kids tits would scar them for life, but watching decapitations with blood spurting out was fine. Guy smoking a doobie but shown as a loser? Bad. Parents accidentally eating pot brownies and acting weird? Okay.

The 'problem' with it was that there isn't a single number. You had to actually read a bit to see what was what.

I recently saw "Midnight Cowboy". There is not a whole lot of sex shown (a bit of male butt and a few tits), and none of the actual "action", just before and after. Some drug use. Implications of homosexuality. Maybe a little language. Today, it wouldn't take editing more than a few seconds here and there to give it a PG-13 rating, but back then it was X.

You can't show people having sex, but it's okay for the characters to say "My ankles were up to my ears" (from "Will and Grace").

Sorry, but a single letter or number isn't really doing anyone any good. Think of how you'd rate your local museum - nudity, violence - at least an 'R', right? How about the recent arrest of a model posing nude at the Met, a museum full of nudes paintings? How about the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast at the Superbowl? One freaking breast. And yet "Saw" was recently shown on the Syfy channel. How fucked up is that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:30am

Re: Re: You know what, this is really simple
Now that you mention it, I actually make armed robots. (Among other types)

Name your offer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:32am

Re: This could be a good idea
"This will help parents do their job..."

Not bloody likely. Conduct some informal research at the movie theater: The vast majority of parents have no idea what movies their kids are seeing and what they're rated. And they absolutely don't care.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon B. (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:34am

"How about the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast at the Superbowl? One freaking breast. And yet "Saw" was recently shown on the Syfy channel. How fucked up is that?"

I'm with you on pretty much all of that.

The Janet Jackson thing was that the show is advertised as a family show (rating numbers, promotion etc) and then that whole performance happened. If the show is advertised as such, I don't think there'd be much problem with it.

And Saw... yeah... I saw bits of it while it was on. But it was Saw II, which I didn't like a too much. How much did they cut out? They had to have cut out a great deal. But you're right, the whole suggestive nature of the movie is more important than what's shown in explicit scenes.

Even Saw I was more implicit than explicit, except for a few scenes. (That's part of what makes it originally a great movie.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Guy, 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:38am

Re: Re: Re: You know what, this is really simple
Very considerate of you to include arms on them, what will they be carrying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:40am

Re: A good system
"How about the uproar over Janet Jackson's breast at the Superbowl?"

Don't you know that breasts are what made Lucifer turn into the devil? Lucifer saw God's left nipple and that's how evil entered the universe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 11:43am

Re: Re: This could be a good idea
That's what civil services are for. These people want the government to raise their kids, I say let them (on the neglectful parents bill).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:02pm

Re:
"The Janet Jackson thing was that the show is advertised as a family show"

Which is what made the uproar over the situation so comical.

The NFL as family entertainment is a joke: Professional football is a game BASED on violence, played mostly by criminals, and mostly watched by grown men. The game is so violent that the average lifespan of an NFL player is 55 years old, some 22 years shorter than the average American, and these are ATHLETES: www.sptimes.com/2006/01/29/.../A_huge_problem.shtml

The Super Bowl as family entertainment is a joke: In addition to the violence on the field, you have the sex and liquor off of it. Cheerleaders, beer commrcials, etc. are highly sexualized and filled with liquor adds in which the women are hot, the men are idiotic, and children are damn near non-existent.

Question: what is more damaging to a child's mind, seeing Janet Jackson's nipple for half a second, or watching that commercial in which Bob Dole is petting his dog with a raging hardon while watching a Britney Spears commercial that includes an ejaculating Pepsi bottle?

The halftime show as family entertainment: Another joke. Sexualized female singers like Britney Spears and Janet Jackson followed by a whole mess of male singers that just love to grab their dicks while performing: Kid Rock, Justin Timberlake, and Nelly to name a few. All the while it's produced by MTV, as if they have anything to do with music any more. In the words of Lewis Black, anyone who watches a minute of MTV knows that it would be more accurte to call it the Boner Network.

But yeah, we were all just so shocked and outraged when a member of the Jackson family (maybe THAT'S what they mean by family entertainment) did something fucked up.

Idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chucklebutte (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:13pm

Um...
How about we get rid of ratings altogether? What happened to common sense? You are trying to tell me that with names like Mortal Kombat, Thrill kill, and cant forget Grand Theft Auto that you cant figure out what those titles are about? serious?. Just alone those names would tell me everything I need to know about these games to make a decision if I would buy them for my child or not.

Stop making a parents job easier than people think it is (Its not easy but its definitely fun!) The point is ratings are not very useful or helpful cause lets face it if you want it you gonna get it regardless of how you get it. They also make the package so ugly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whisk33, 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:30pm

What is this about?
I read the title and I read the article and they seemed mismatched... Title talks on universal rating article talks about blocking technologies... I'm totally lost.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
imbrucy (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:32pm

Re: The constitution?
That would be a really funny comment, if most of Washington didn't think it was true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:33pm

Re: Re: Dark Helmet
Lord Helmet, please take me now. Just take me away to your secret lair so I can feed you grapes and rub your feet while listening to your commentary on socio-political issues. Please?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Dark Helmet
I just threw up in my helmet...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PRMan, 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:42pm

Re: You know what, this is really simple
Wow. Wait until you read up on the FDA and aspartame...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 12:44pm

Re: Um...
Names aren't always the best indicator. For example, Leisure Suit Larry.

Not that a rating system is required, don't get me wrong. Google is a parent's friend, too.

I just wouldn't go around assuming that a harmless name = a children's game.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 1:01pm

I think it's a good idea to have one system for rating all media, although it should be 100% up to the industry if they want to fallow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Sep 2009 @ 1:04pm

Surely you jest that something is against the constitution? Do we still use that old document? It was probably more of a suggestion than a mandate anyway. I mean it isn't like anyone died to bring us that thing anyway; is it?

Yeah, that was my first thought - the last sentence should have read:

Having the FCC even exist raises some serious constitutional questions.

If we as a country believe that we need a federal commission to regulate communication, then by all means let's amend the Constitution to make it happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: You know what, this is really simple
"Wow. Wait until you read up on the FDA and aspartame..."

-If you were being sarcastic, then bravo because that truly made me laugh

-If you were not, then you should look into my comment history. I'm well aquainted with the matter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bradley Stewart, 1 Sep 2009 @ 1:38pm

When I Was A Kid Growing Up
my parents had a rating system for me. If I wanted to see it, hear it, play it, or read it, it was OK with them. It worked just fine. Hey if it wasn't for all the nutty Parents, Politicans,and Religous Leaders the FCC could adopt my folks policy. It was nice and simple and clean and by the way it was constitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Angelica, 1 Sep 2009 @ 1:49pm

Re: You know what, this is really simple
Until you want to do ALL of your job, I don't want to hear from you, you FuCCtards. FTFY.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 2:06pm

Re: Re: You know what, this is really simple
I bow to your skills in the realm of pun....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh (profile), 1 Sep 2009 @ 2:57pm

Re: This could be a good idea
I agree. It cannot be mandated, but having a single universal rating system is good. The TV rating system is fine, but the video game system is more detailed. While it has generalizations such as the anyone/teen/mature/adults-only, it also has descriptive ratings that distinguish between simple blood or far more 'gore.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Olz (profile), 2 Sep 2009 @ 7:27am

Rating systems
The big problem with rating systems as they stand is that they are blanket ratings. An "R" could be for any number of things. When I was in high school (many, many) years ago an "R" meant at least one scene with female breasts.

If they want a meaningful system they each type of "objectionable" material within the medium would have to get its own rating. So a movie might be on a 1 to 100 scale: Drugs 47, Nudity 3, Langauge 93, Sexual situations 13, Violence 80.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Nov 2009 @ 11:59am

In a way it makes sense because it would be easier for parents to know what is 'safe' for their kids. Ont he other hand there are different kinds things which could be bad in games, music or movies which means it's best to tell parents what's bad instead of putting everything under the same rating.
old movies
[ link to this | view in thread ]