Before I head out on the town for a Friday night of drinking, carousing, and womanizing, I’d wanted to do a quick double take. First, I want to stand up for Mitt Romney, and then, I want to criticize him.
I think the Wall Street Journal crossed the line in an editorial today. This is the type of garbage that gives many conservatives a bad name. If you want to knock Romney, find something besides his religion to go after him on. I’ve absolutely had it with all this religious dialogue. I’d be extremely happy if I didn’t have to hear the words Mormon, Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, or athiest for the rest of the campaign (wishful thinking). This type of stuff has no place in politics and I think it is stupid to criticize someone for something they had absolutely no control over. Mitt Romney was born into the LDS faith. It’s had some controversial doctrines in it’s past. So what. There is no religion that doesn’t have its share of shady truths, cover ups, and conspiracies. Romney’s father clearly supported Martin Luther King when he was alive, and I wish we could leave it at that (Romney’s terrible response didn’t help, but my guess is that he didn’t expect to have to deal with that one).
Now to criticize Romney. H/t to Allahpundit:
I want to restore values so children are protected from a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion. I’ve proposed that we enforce our obscenity laws again and that we get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence and that we go after those retailers.
What the hell is this nanny state crap?
As Mark says, follow the link and compare his answer to Bill Richardson’s or Obama’s. They want to educate parents, presumably through a ratings system; Mitt wants to start locking people up. Obscenity laws are notoriously fraught with First Amendment problems since it’s hard to write one that doesn’t accidentally (or intentionally) go too far and end up prohibiting forms of protected speech. Because they’re so ripe for abuse, they rarely withstand constitutional challenge and thus the government’s basically given up on using them to prosecute people. Mitt’s promise to social cons is that all that’s going to change, with the obvious goal being to intimidate retailers into not carrying violent games in the first place lest they risk prosecution.
We’re in the business of having less government intervention in our lives, not more. Rob at sayanything:
For another, what ever happened to personal responsibility? If a violent video game ends up in the hands of a kid, is it the retailer’s fault or the parents’ fault? After all, at $300 for a video game console and about $50 per video game, for the most part it ain’t kids who are buying these games. It’s parents, and if parents buy their own kids violent video games that their fault, not the retailers.
Ratings systems? Sure. Education to help parents understand these games and the rating systems? Sure. But going after people just for selling these games?
Romney supporters, help me out here… I’m not computing his statement at all.
Even John Edwards sounds more reasonable:
While parents must ultimately decide what video games their children play, a lot of the responsibility for restricting marketing should be placed on software manufacturers. The Entertainment Software Rating Board is a good example of industry responsibility, and I support its ratings program, guidelines for responsible advertising practices, and outreach to game manufacturers and retailers. I also support leading video console manufacturers’ use of parental controls.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:14 pm
From what I am getting out of it, Romney wants to go after the people illegally selling the games to children.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
ACT,
I don’t know if there is even an actual law that bans them from selling the games. If kids have the money to buy these things, then their parents are responsible for shelling out the fifty dollars and should take some responsibility.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:21 pm
It’s really fairly simple. There are laws. Do one of two things; either repeal the laws or enforce the laws. I know that it’s a novel concept, but for quite a number of years it seemed to work.
This novel concept could be expanded to, say, illegal immigrants for example. Imagine that!
December 21st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Federal obscenity law only applies to interstate and foreign regulation. Not video game retailers. There is no uniform national standard. So is Romney suggesting that we have a federal obscenity standard?
December 21st, 2007 at 8:30 pm
i am a romney supporter, and lean libertarian, so i understand your criticism. when he gave a speech at the iowa straw poll, i remember him saying something like ” lets have a button on every computer that filters out pornography” or something like that. not sure what to make of it, but i chalk it up to things that politicians say during the primary season, and then forget about when they get into office.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:33 pm
I believe there is a law preventing the sale of “M”-rated games to those under the age of 17.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:35 pm
I am a Fred supporter, and lean libertarian. Romney’s (or any politician’s) nanny state stuff really gets on my nerves. If moron parents want the government to parent for them, they shouldn’t be parents. I think Mitt could make an awesome president, but I simply can’t agree with certain positions of his.
FWIW, I am also LDS, and I hold to the opinions expressed by Ken Jennings in his New York Daily News letter (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/19/2007-12-19_politicians__pundits_please_stop_slander.html).
December 21st, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Re #5 Romney reiterated that promise this week.
Speaking in Fort Dodge, Iowa, Romney told the audience that he is concerned about the effects of pornography on American culture. Romney pledged that if elected, he’ll “make sure that every computer has an easy-to-engage filter to stop pornography.â€
Setting aside the practical impossibility of Romney’s pledge, it is a useless promise at its core, anyway. Online content filters already are very easy to come by. The efficacy of these filters is debatable, but availability of filters certainly is not the problem.
December 21st, 2007 at 8:42 pm
uh, fredfighter, what does romney’s comment have to do with what “mormon parents” want?
December 21st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Oh, I know why, its because Romney is Mormon and therefore what he wants “Mormons” want. Sorry, I was confused.
Hey, speaking of which, if baptists want to take money from those who have it and do good things with it through government taxation, they should just forget about taxing and encourage their people to choose to give their money to charity freely, not through the government.
Your comment makes no sense even if you are ‘lds’
December 21st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
John Galt: my comment was effectively two-part. The first refers to Romney’s nanny state ideas (as read in the second part of Tommy’s post). The second refers to Romney being attacked for his religion (as read in the first part of Tommy’s post).
It’s really not that complicated; I made no reference whatsoever to Mormon parents or what Mormons’ political views are. You’re misreading something…
December 21st, 2007 at 8:50 pm
John Galt,
He said “moron” parents, not mormon parents. A slight difference there
December 21st, 2007 at 8:51 pm
On second read, I made reference to “moron parents”. Note that I definitely did not say “Mormon parents”.
December 21st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I don’t get what the problem is here with Romney’s statement. He wants to enforce laws already on the books, laws that aren’t necessarily being enforced today, to protect kids from violence and pornography. That’s a bad thing? Personal responsibility is all well and good, but when parents are dealing with a government that won’t even enforce laws already in existance, it makes it that much harder to protect kids.
Tommy – is FDT against enforcing obscenity laws? If so, he may want to keep that one to himself.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:19 pm
alaska,
There are no consistent laws on the book. See #4. No, this is Mike Huckabee area of nannyism.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Tommy, I am glad you brought this question up. This is one thing I do struggle with. I mean this as a parent. I do not feel there is much worthwhile on the TV nowadays, so I do not subscribe to any multi-channel packages. Even then, I would expect the public broadcast to be a bit restricted, since it is available to everyone. Now, the public broadcast is under the jurisdiction of FCC, the federal agency. I would appreciate it very much if they can keep within a scope that is acceptable to everyone. I mean, Victoria Secret ads during the day??? Come on! They can show all they want on the paid broadcast, as people can control what they are paying, but the public broadcast? This is my feelings. I am not sure if MItt is thinking along the same line. I won’t say anything about what Mitt mean on those. But this is what I am feeling. If there is something available to everyone, then ensure its context is reasonable acceptable to general public. If it is the paid service, then it is free market — the customer gets what they are paying for.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:20 am
Tommy,
I am a bigtime gamer and, as #6 suggested, I believe there are laws that bar retailers from selling M-rated videogames to children. They can sell them to the parent who can then turn them over to the child, but I think they are supposed to be checking IDs at the counter.
Unfortunately, these laws are very poorly enforced. There was a study of the videogame industry done several weeks back, and if I remember correctly over half the minors who attempted to buy M-rated videogames were successful compared to about a quarter that were successful in getting into an R-rated movie.
My interpretation of Romney’s statement is that (to the extent it means anything) there should be a crackdown on retailers that aren’t carding minors for M-rated games.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:43 am
First, let me clear up a misconception that has been repeated in this thread: There is NO LAW restricting the sale of any video game in any fashion. The video game industry’s rating system is a voluntary compliance set-up, the same as movie ratings.
That is, a game store clerk might be fired by management for violating store policy by selling a mature-rated game to a minor, but could not be arrested.
Since 2001, nine states or municipalities have passed laws trying to criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors. All have been challenged on constitutional grounds by the video game industry and all have failed (Indianapolis, St. Louis, Washington State, California, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana and Oklahoma). California & Minnesota decisions were appealed by the states and are currently under review by Federal Circuit Courts.
So Romney’s position here would seem to be an unlikely proposition, given the legal history. One may make his/her own judgments as to his motives.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:38 am
it’s not the job of the government to legislate morality. try teaching parents about the ratings instead of passing laws.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
As I see it, it’s similar to going after movie theaters for not checking ID’s in NC-17 (R) movies, if you threaten a theater with a fine or some kind of punishment, that’s the only incentive they’ll have to check for an ID, otherwise money is money. The same goes for the video game industry, what does wally world or gamestop care if a kid is playing a video game that society doesn’t think appropriate, they get money for the game and their role in the transaction is over. However, find some way to make them responsible for who they sell that game to, then all of the sudden you have responsibility at one more spot on the path to get games to kids.
Now the reality of this is like it was said earlier, you can’t stop a parent from being an idiot, if they buy their kids whatever they want without thinking as a parent first, ratings, regulations, fines, and yada yada yada is all worthless. They can circumvent the whole thing if they don’t want to be a real parent.
Or, if your kid is worth his spit, he’s got bittorrent running as a background process on your machine right now downloading whatever he wants without you knowing a darn thing. They’ll get it somehow, so regardless of what is out there to help the process be more robust, if a parent doesn’t know how to teach their kid, you got bigger problems than call of duty.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Glad to see some gamers giving their interpretation of the laws. It’s not something I’m that familiar with so I defer to their comments. I might post more about this a little later this week, so be sure to check back with our site.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
@Al
It’s actually quite hard for a kid by himself to get an M-rated game, especially at places like Gamestop. It’s the parents that usually buy games for their kids, then blame the industry for their idiocy.
The ESRB and retailers are all doing a fantastic job at keeping parents educated and keeping kids from buying M-rated games.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Sorry for the double post, but I’d like to point out something else. Isn’t it odd that Mitt Romney is not completely against waterboarding, but thinks that media violence is causing an “ocean of filth” that our kids are swimming in? So the real problem here is virtual violence, and definatly not ACTUAL violence/tortue? Personally, I’m ok with both, if you need information
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Whatever happened to “no big government”? If you ask me, getting the government involved in something like this is a totally hypocritical policy advocated by a conservative. This is why I hope Giuliani wins the election.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Just a note, film ratings in the USA are also self-imposed and have no legal backing. There is no law permitting the sale of R-rated or even unrated films to anyone. Therefore the film industry is the same as the videogame industry. They are both self-regulated and not government regulated.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
I would like to reiterate what Game Politics and jccalhoun have stated. Movie and Video Game ratings are voluntary and self enforced. There are no laws enforcing either one. What Romney is proposing, is creating laws to support those ratings. Unfortunately for him, 9 state laws have already been struck down on first amendment grounds. These ratings cannot be enforced by the government.
I think that the video game industry is doing a great job enforcing the ratings themselves and they are improving on a yearly basis.
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
OK I have just this to add. ALL current gen consoles (and probably all future consoles) have parental controls built in. If a parent takes the 2 minutes required to set up the parental controls on their child’s console, then any game above the rating that the parent chooses WILL NOT PLAY. So even if a 9 year old managed to get Grand theft auto if his parents used the tools given to them, he would not be able to play it. How many 50-60 dollar M rated games do you think that 9 year will buy when he finds out it wont play on his system? It doesn’t matter if the kid can buy it if he can’t play it.
December 22nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Ok just reinforcing a few things.
First off there are NO LAWS in the U.S. currently that restrict or legislate sales of video games. Not even video games with AO ratings (The highest rating, similar to NC-17 or X on movies). What does enforce the ratings system is a few things that have been done voluntarily by companies.
First off AO rated games are not supported by Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo, the three major console manufacturers will NOT allow AO games to be produced for their consoles. They don’t license these games to be published on their consoles, therefore they cannot be sold.
Secondly, retailers – including Walmart, Best Buy, Gamestop, etc. – Have strict policies regarding the sale of M rated games. these companies require ID checks. This of course doesn’t always happen because we don’t live in a perfect society, but at a company level there isn’t much more these companies can do. It comes down to the individual seller at each cashier to enforce the policy.
Right now game ratings are enforced in the same way movie ratings are enforced, with no government intervention.
To the concerned parent or any parent, please take an interest in what games your child plays. If you don’t know that much about videogames or don’t have time to watch them play I have a few suggestions. First off learn about and follow the ratings system. In a recent poll the major complaint by most parents using the ratings system was that it was MORE strict about content then they would be (meaning games that got an M rating they would have rated lower.) Just by following the age guidelines on the ratings system you will be generally protecting your child from content they might not be able to handle.
Do this when you buy games, but also inform your kid’s friend’s parents about your decision so they can help you. Also, if your child owns a console use the parental locks. All the new generation consoles have software built in that allows you to control what level of ratings that the console will play. Make sure it is password protected and think about changing the password on a regular basis to keep your kid from breaking it.
Finally, nothing is more helpful then talking to and understanding your child’s state of mind when it comes to gaming. Talk to them about what they play, ask them about games and why they like them. If they play violent games talk to them about how the games are not real and the violence should not be translated. I can’t stress enough as a gamer how much my parents affected the way I look at media. You DO have an impact. Don’t make it into something where you’re lecturing, have a conversation. Ask them to explain things to you. Showing general interest like that is the best way to reach your kids and get them to really think about things in a responsible way.
The fact of the matter is no amount of laws or company policies will stop kids from playing violent or mature games. As a parent you have to step up and teach your kids about what is and is not acceptable in the real world, and this is just part of that. There are lots of tools at your disposal, including ratings, game reviews online, videos, retailers (talk to the people about the games your kids want, they usually will be willing to help you) that you can use to help you make these decisions quickly and responsibly.
The last thing, is if you plan to let your children play online, be watchful. Online gaming opens up whole new possibilities including social interactions which CAN AND DO change the content of a game, usually making it more mature and vulgar. Be aware of these changes and you will be better prepared to raise your kids.
Games now are made for mature audiences, with the average age of a gamer being 33 and the average gamer being male. This means that the target audience for most game companies is an adult male, not a young child or even a teenager. You as a parent are responsible for deciding and enforcing your decision about what games are suitable for your children.
December 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 am
Almost forgot, on the topic of AO games, most retailers, IE Walmart, Gamestop, etc. won’t carry them even if they do get made.
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Romney’s comments are sensationalist and baseless. Let the parents do their job Governor.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
The AO rate games (NC-17 in movies) cannot even be played by the current consoles because of the manufacturer’s lockouts.
Also parents should know what happens in their houses because even if the kid is able to buy the game he still has to play it in his own home or at a friends but once again the parents should pay enough attention to what goes on.
Lastly the bills that get shot down don’t fit with the rating system. instead they use an obscenity test like is used for adult videos. for the games though the test is very broad. judges say you could drive an 18 wheeler through the guidelines the laws would set up.
would you allow your child to play a game that lets them search through a dungen looking to consume disembodied souls? No? well no more PacMan for them. what about a game where the bash in the skulls of wild animals? No? Super Mario Bros. is gone too. the point is that any game could be banned.
some of them would even establish impossible guidelines for rating the games. if those guidelines are not met then the state would rate the games and in addition say which ratings could be sold and which couldn’t. that is not right at all.
One more last thing, the average Video game player is 33 and has been playing for over 20 years.
December 26th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
i think that with a lot of the candidates being cookie cutters when it comes t major issues the smaller stuff like this is pretty important. i know Mitt is off my list.
December 28th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
GodVoter.org Picks Romney: http://www.godvoter.org/news-romney-disdorsement.html