Sen. Charles Grassley: An Unregulated Video Game Market Is A Dangerous Thing
from the first-amendment-even-MORE-threatening,-apparently dept
It looks as if politicians just aren't going to let video games continue to operate without regulatory oversight. We've already seen Rep. Jim Matheson's bill, which would basically turn a voluntary system (the ESRB) into a mandatory one with fines handed out for violations. It's a cynically redundant piece of legislation which would score Matheson a cheap political win, if it only had a chance in hell of passing. (The bill is even more redundant than that -- Matheson had this same bright idea twice before, in 2006 and 2008.)Now, at the current Judiciary Committee hearings on "gun violence," Sen. Charles Grassley has suggested that current rating system just simply isn't good enough.
"There are too many video games that celebrate the mass killing of innocent people — games that despite attempts at industry self-regulation find their way into the hands of children," Grassley said at a Judiciary Committee hearing called to examine the causes of gun violence in the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last month.Really? Everyone's current scapegoat, Celebrate Mass Killing: Modern Warfare [Current Iteration] and its spinoff, Celebrate Mass Killing: Black Ops, tend to celebrate the killing of people trying to kill you. And only if by "celebrate" you mean, "advance the storyline," and if by "advance the storyline," you mean "reach arbitrary hotspot that prevents enemy re-spawning and allows your more capable squadmates to turn a doorknob or something in order to continue celebrating mass killings."
But more seriously, despite the attempts of the government to regulate tobacco and alcohol sales, these items still find their ways into the hands (and mouths) of underage persons. And despite the government's best efforts to keep porn out of the eyes and hands of youngsters, many, many teens have seen a thing or two and attempted even more. No system is perfect but I'm willing to put the stats of the purely voluntary ESRB (and the retailers involved) up against the stats of any government regulated, sin-tax-paying item.
As for actual dangerous items currently regulated by federal and state governments, here's where they line up. Cigarette sales to minors are at 8.5%, falling from 40% in 1997 (2011 statistics). If there's a national percentage on alcohol sales, it's very well hidden. Here's some information from various locales on underage sales compliance rates. Blount County, TN - 9.7%, Escambia County, FL - 5.8%, Fort Wayne, IN - 4.3% (liquor stores)/8.8% (bars and restaurants), Washington, D.C. - 9.5%, Salem, NH - 2.9%, Boulder, CO - 13%. So, overall, roughly in line with cigarette sales, if not possibly lower.
Both percentages are admirably low, but compare those percentages to what the ESRB has achieved without the threat of arrest or loss of a retail license.
According to stats released by the FTC (h/t to commenter DCX2 for tracking this down), underage teenage shoppers were only able to obtain M-rated video games 13% of the time, as compared to 38% for R-rated DVDs, 33% for R-rated movie tickets and 64% for music with a Parental Advisory sticker.
Grassley seems to feel that putting the government in charge of enforcement would keep fewer M-rated games from "finding their way into the hands of children." Perhaps he should first take a look at how effective existing regulation is at keeping cigarettes and alcohol out of minors' hands. According to the CDC, 39% of high school students had consumed alcohol in the last 30 days. Not only that, but underage consumption (people aged 12-20) represents 11% of the total amount of alcohol consumed yearly in the US. As for cigarettes, the number is only 19.5% of high school students.
So, even a well-regulated market fails to prevent these items from being used/consumed by minors. Regulating the video game market will result in much of the same. Deciding it's now a crime to sell a minor an M-rated video game won't prevent a family member or friend from purchasing the latest "celebration of mass killing" for someone under the age of 18. Most people are going to feel that handing off Call of Duty to a 15-year-old weighs easier on their conscience than handing them a six-pack of beer, a pack of smokes or a gun.
But here's the key issue: the government can safely regulate tobacco and alcohol sales without fear of trampling on the First Amendment. Not so with games, although Grassley seems willing to put on his boots and start trampling.
Grassley pointed to evidence that a mass killer in Norway had played the popular "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare" game and had referred to the game as part of his "training simulation."Oh, I see. We'll know what art is when Grassley points it out. Once again, Call of Duty is labeled an "innocent civilian shooter," somehow missing the point of the game completely. Sure, one could argue that Grand Theft Auto is an "innocent civilian shooter," but just because you can do it, doesn't make it the overall point of the game. You don't advance the story by shooting innocent people. It's always an option, but it's never required. (Personal note: I'm fairly sure I've run over way more civilians than I've actually shot, but I rarely get the urge to drive up and down the sidewalk at 60 mph when I'm behind the wheel...)
"Where is the artistic value in shooting innocent civilians?" Grassley asked.
Once you have a politician asking for regulation and questioning artistic value in the same breath, you've got a problem on your hands. The Supreme Court has already determined that government regulation of video game content is a violation of the First Amendment, but recent events have seemingly made it "OK" to push this dubious agenda again. The president has authorized a study into violent media (including video games), but it looks as if these legislators don't have any interest in collection actual evidence before making their move.
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: charles grassley, first amendment, free speech, regulation, video games, violence
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:eye-roll:
I think an unregulated Senate/Congress is far more dangerous to my rights and liberties than any video-game ever has been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: :eye-roll:
There I fixed it for ya...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: :eye-roll:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So are unregulated or poorly regulated banks and no government wants to do anything about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Bear in mind that bank bailouts and a "too big to fail" rationale are nothing new. We saw a very similar situation in response to the S&L crisis of the late 1980s. And when the banks realized that they could pull stupid crap like that with impunity, they started pushing for something new.
Federal regulations required that certain common-sense principles be followed when making loans on houses. For example, someone needed to be able to prove that they could actually afford the loan. The banks didn't like that much, because any loan they can't make is a loan they can't charge interest on. So they started pressuring Congress to repeal these requirements, cynically using the concept of helping minorities as the rationale. (Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how getting someone into a house that they couldn't afford, which was going to drive them further into poverty on the payments and end in an eviction counts as helping them in any way.)
The banks pushed really hard for subprime mortgages to be legalized, because they knew they'd make a killing. As "high-risk loans," they'd be able to charge extra-high interest rates, and they knew that if the whole thing ever fell apart, they'd be bailed out (again) because they were too big to fail. And the whole scam got pushed through by congressional Democrats, who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. (You don't usually tend to associate Democrats with deregulation, but that's how it happened this time.)
But the government never forced anyone to make any bad loans. If they had, you'd have seen a lot more banks in trouble when it all came apart, because they'd have all been carrying all those bad loans they were forced to make. But plenty of banks (including the one I bank at) saw the opportunity and chose not to grant any sub-prime mortgages (which they were able to do because no regulators were forcing them to) and came through it just fine.
If this big lie about banks being forced to make bad loans were true, then my bank (which does home loans, but only responsible ones) would have been in crisis. But they came through it just fine, so please don't try to further promulgate this lie where I can hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
More people owing more money just means projections look good and someone gets a nice big fat bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The reason I must point this out, there are so many trolls now days its nice to see a rational response to some other point instead of the usual negativity (course 90% of the trolls deserve it).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Know what the funny part about that is?
Reagan, after bailing the S&L banks out, sent over 2000 CEOs to prison for breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a source for that, BTW?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/04/14/business/20110414-prosecute.html
This compares the S&L crisis to the Current crisis and the governmental actions taken by both Reagan and Bush 1 vs Bush 2 and Obama.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're very close, and in some cases you are right, but I think in most cases it goes a little bit deeper. You have to go back to supply and demand.
There is a secondary market for mortgages where they are bought and sold. A mortgage broker acts as an interface to this market. They only have enough funds for a few mortgages at a time, and they require a sort of pipeline that they can sell these mortgages into so that they're off their own books. Notably, this means the brokers don't have much skin in the game once it's off their books.
One of the purposes the secondary market fulfills is the creation of Mortgage Backed Securities. These are a good thing; by combining thousands of mortgages, the risk of any one mortgage defaulting can be spread out among the others, so that the overall investment is less volatile.
Then someone else on Wall Street took these MBS and combined them into Collateralized Debt Obligations. These CDOs are split up so that the senior tranches are paid before junior tranches. This technique allows you to combine a bunch of MBS (or other financial product) together and sell some of it as AAA-rated debt with "low interest" (since they are paid back first), and some basically junk bonds for "high interest" (compensating for the risk of being paid last, or not at all).
Bear with me, we're almost there. Some genius on Wall Street figured out that you can take a bunch of the junk bond junior tranches and combine *them* into a CDO (they called it a CDO squared). Using the mathematical formulas that ratings agencies like Fitch and Moody's use to rate the CDOs, they managed to take an entire collection of pure crap and sell it as AAA-rated debt, the kind of debt you can sell to pensions and stuff.
Now you have a pipeline for crap mortgages. Wall Street had almost limitless demand for them. The brokers realized the demand was there for crap mortgages, so they gave them out to just about anyone who could fog a mirror. They probably slept at night thinking that house prices were appreciating faster than interest payments, so it seemed like houses were paying for themselves.
It gets worse. The banks knew these were ticking time bombs. Hell, Goldman Sachs settled with the FEC for practically designing a CDO to fail and then betting on that CDO's failure with a Credit Default Swap.
So long as they could sell squared CDO's to investors, the pipeline kept up. Then one day, someone realized these CDO's were dangerous. The market for them collapsed. This lead to a chain reaction, with the MBS market collapsing as well (hence the Fed buying all those MBS every month). With that collapse, the small brokers had no where to sell their crappy mortgages, so they collapsed as well. People with ARM or interest-only loans were then trapped by the tightened lending. All of a sudden, the number of homes in foreclosure skyrockets. The presence of all these foreclosed homes drives up the supply of homes for sale, which drives down the price of housing. The lower price for housing puts some people underwater on their mortgages, creating an incentive to just walk away, leading to more foreclosed homes. Tighter lending also means fewer buyers, which also drives prices down.
Notably, the Community Reinvestment Act, which is what is typically blamed for "forcing banks to make loans to minorities", had little to do with subprime. The default rate on CRA-approved loans is in line with historical averages. In fact, almost all of the crappy mortgages were NOT originated by CRA-approved lenders at all.
Had there never been a market for crappy secondary mortgages that could be turned into squared CDOs fueled by ridiculously low interest rates and ridiculously high appreciation, the brokers would have had no one to sell them to, and the loans would never have been made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's your sign...
"What is your specific academic training, education, and/or other experience in the arts and art history that qualify you to make a determination of the artistic value of a work?"
"Do you have any verifiable credentials that you can present to support these alleged qualifications?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anything, Modern Warfare is a recruitment tool for the military, despite showing how stupidly easy it is to get yourself killed in combat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, let's pay heed to the ravings of a mass murderer, because there's no way in hell he could be lying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So obviously, he was a bit of a prick, video games notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Army
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great britain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great britain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great britain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
brilliant point
it's a natural progression and slippery slope.
and the problem with the slippery slope is that games don't teach you to slowly pump the brakes until you regain control of the vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brilliant point
"grab the keys to the parents station wagon and go careening through school zones." 1981 Malibu Classic, 1985. Did it to go see some girl.
Pole Position baby couldn't wait to get out there driving. I did it because of the video game. Sound stupid? Felt stupid writing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brilliant point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: brilliant point
Actually on a greasy road I did slide my car, and regained control via pumping the brakes. AND I credit this to playing a car game. A few months before the incident I'd been playing a minor track racing game with a wheel controller. When I slid out I reacted the same way I would have in the game, and regained control of the car as fast as was possible. I'd not practiced that before in any way in the real world, but the reaction was natural and learnt from the game.
While I don't think that computer games saved my life, I do think they saved me a few thousand dollars and a lot of mess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your bias is showing (still)
It's violence. It's done with guns. What else should it be called? When you use silly terminology like that, it makes you look like you have some sort of agenda involving denying (or minimizing) the existence of the problem of gun violence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your bias is showing (still)
Take away all guns, and it will be knives,
take away all knives, and it will be sticks, big ones,
take away all sticks and it will be rocks,
Take away all rocks and it will be hands,
Skip to the end and just cut off everyone's hands.
Blaming video games for gun violence is just stupid. Its OK we blow the hell out of ppl around the world, and have it on TV everywhere, but this is just another politicians talking point to say see:
Terrorism
children
crime
lookie me I am doing something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your bias is showing (still)
Oh, I definitely agree. I'm a gamer myself, have been all my life, and I've never shot anyone IRL with anything scarier than a Super Soaker. But talking about gun violence as if it was not a legitimate issue at all (regardless of the dubious connection to video games) is just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your bias is showing (still)
Now a rational discussion would be why these things happen, and a portion of the discussion would be about the tools used by those who caused said violence.
The entire discussion should not be about the tool. People create tools, its one of the things that supposed to make man a "high" form of life, but we never talk about the human that did the violence (guns are not automated, they and all tools require a person to operate them or start them up, or make a decision to be used in some manner). Yet so far no where in the discussion have we as "reasonable" people had the discussion on what makes a person perform such a huge act of violence.
Now you could argue that is what the lobby to "control" the games are trying to do, but once again it fails as it goes down one path and one path only, instead of looking at the true fault and that would be a person made a decision. Now lets talk about why they made such a evil (by most peoples standard) decision. In understanding you will find truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your bias is showing (still)
These are all examples of violence, but they're very different things that need to be treated as distinct, individual problems, and I don't think anyone would deny that. So why is it that only when the tool involved is a gun, that people try to deny that it's a real, distinct problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Your bias is showing (still)
Probably because violence done with a gun -isn't- a distinct problem; its a subset of all the different kinds of violence you just mentioned as defined by the tool used to commit it. 'Dealing' with guns won't solve the problems with violence in this country; it will only shift these acts of violence to other, different tools.
Or, to borrow part of the line from you I just quoted, "Why is it that only when the tool involved is a gun", is the tool suddenly more important than solving the distinct problem that tool was involved in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your bias is showing (still)
So if we're going to freak out about violent activity, it would make more sense to address the larger risks first. That we are instead focusing just on "gun violence" is pure politics.
With that background, the quote marks make sense to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your bias is showing (still)
Guns are not very complicated at all, they are a technology from the 1700s, it is too late to put that genie back in the bottle.
Outlawing guns will take them away from *the law abiding*, but not from the criminals who would shoot people.
Gun crime has increased in places where guns have been banned and the criminals can rely on the fact that most people are unarmed. Crimes only take minutes to commit and the police *arrive after* the crime.
The second amendment has the clearly stated purpose of protecting a balance of power to ensure the citizens are ultimately at the top instead of being repressed by some form of dictatorship as in many other countries.
For full disclosure, I have no gun, but enjoy the benefits that those who would commit a crime against me or my family are left not knowing who is packing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your bias is showing (still)
All legitimate terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most of the underage kids I know (e.g. My kids' friends) get access to "mature content" through, of all places, their loving parents. They have unfettered access to R and unrated movie content through the cable television that is ubiquitous. Music is purchased online with no age verification through mommy & daddy's iTunes account. Parents purchase M-rated console games for their 9-year-olds for their birthday.
Regulation that is voluntary or government enforced won't make a difference either way. this content will remain available.
The only logical answer is to threaten to imprison the parents if the kids are caught in possession. [/s]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bin Laden said it best...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bin Laden said it best...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
good one!
same old, same old. nothing new is added to the conversation, it just gets brought up and rehashed every time a new travesty occurs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another footnote in the guilty until proven innocent society history books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are the thought police when you need them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waitwaitwait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
The "cause" (not really a cause, it has not been proven to be true. In fact, it was proven that it is completely inconclusive) is more dangerous than the ACTUAL OBJECT THAT ACTUALLY KILLED THE ACTUAL PEOPLE?
My brain just pooped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question
Here. http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3stcpl/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you know what is also an "innocent civilian shooter", and the most widely used to top it all off?
Syringes
Maybe he'll want to do something about that?
Maybe he'll want to prevent doctors to give syringes (even without needle, that's simulation and has no artistic value) to children so they can play with water?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An unregulated Senator market is a dangerous thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I ask something
REALLY..
HOw long ago have the Social groups and activities in local areas, GONE AWAY??
Even in small towns, there USED to be tons of activities going on..NOW??
PS.. they didnt COST ANYTHING..
Are we isolating ourselves??
All the news and ABUSE of NEWS? does it scare us that THINGS HAPPEN. That a Church leader molested a child? That a school was shot up??(get better doors, and metal detectors)
HAVE the lawyers scared off the PARENTS from letting the kids go to the PARK, and they MIGHT get hurt??
This is getting as bad as the OLD halloween scare from the 70's,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can I ask something
Lawyers? hell no, the COPS have me too scared to let my kids go to the park.
Literally, I had a cop come knocking on my door one day because another parent saw my kids (8, 11 at the time), playing at the park with no parent, and decided police action was necessary. so she called 911 and the local police department had to come and ask my kids where they lived. RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
The cop then proceeded to have them escort them to our house, where he knocked on the door and proceeded to belittle me for allowing the kids to go to the damn park. I asked him what crime was being committed and obviously he started backpeddling.
but I'll be damned if I dont send the kids out to play as much anymore... I'm not scared they're gonna get hurt, I'm scared they are gonna be traumatized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can I ask something
Not criticizing you, I'm pointing out that all the complaints about kids getting fat can be summed up with stuff like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
here's something even more dangerous
With a violent government, is it any wonder the citizens are becoming just as violent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need to start regulating this "air" as soon as possible! Everyone will be a lot safer when we figure out a way to completely eradicate "air"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Civilian shooters"
GTA - the cops start chasing you.
Call of Duty - the civilian shooting section was presented as a terrible event, not glorified, and had terrible consequences.
Hitman - Massive negative score.
Most other shooters that have civilians simply end in a failstate if you shoot one. Its supposed to challenge the player to pick their targets carefully.
This is just a perfect example of government officials justifying their existence by "fixing" something that will have no consequence except making them look good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not blaming game(s) or the lack of guns though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Possibly the over medication of our youth with unnecessary mind altering drugs has something to do with this. I have yet to see any study which included this potentially contributing factor. Anyone seen one - I'd be interested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When its real violence vs pixelated violence, id pick the latter all the time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PAYPAL
PAYPAL
PAYPAL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure what the dots were though. Couldn't have been drugs as they were illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what os definitely more dangerous is having people who are in powerful positions but not a clue what they are talking about or dealing with try to fix something. he, like others, would be much better off keeping his snout out and putting the problem (if it actually exists) into the hands of people who have the knowledge and the commitment to correct any issues, rather than just trying to make a name for himself by screwing up royally!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, if that's the case he's not only ignoring the artistic intent of that segment (deliberately disturbing in order to cement the immoral enemy), but also the self-imposed reaction to that segment's controversy (they made it skippable so you don't have to play it if you don't want to). The rest of the games concentrate on the killing of enemy combatants whose quest is to undermine western civilisation. Hardly innocents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alcohol taxation
Currently, the tax on beer is $18 per 31 gallon barrel for each barrel produced annually in a run of 2,000,000 or more.
For less than that, you pay $7 per barrel up to 60,000 barrels and $18 per barrel after that.
Overall, it comes out to something like $0.05 a 12 oz. bottle is federal tax.
I'm unfamiliar with the exact tax schedule for distillation or winemaking, but it's dependent upon alcohol content. Wine runs around $0.21 per bottle and distilled liquors run over $2.
Here's a link with details for the interested:
http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/atftaxes.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
america's army..
seems perfectly legitimate for the government to back. AND it's distrubuted for free.
I'll admit it's been years since I last played it or any of the modern commercial shooters.
Will it also be reviewed, and/or regulated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army
just sayin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]