Congressman Wants Health Warning Labels For Games

California Congressman Joe Baca has introduced a new bill which would require videogames to carry a "health warning label" advising consumers that playing them can be dangerous.

The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009 would require that all games with an ESRB rating of T (Teen) or higher be sold with a label that reads, "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent videogames and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." Baca claims that recent studies from the Pediatrics Journal, the University of Indiana, the University of Missouri and Michigan State University "point to a neurological link between playing violent videogames and aggressive behavior in children and teenagers."

"The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families, and to consumers - to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products," Baca said in a press release. "They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility.  Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between playing violent games and increased aggression in young people. American families deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous products."

Baca's website describes him as a leading advocate in Congress against sex and violence in the media, with a particular focus on videogames. GamePolitics says Baca has introduced several game-related bills in Congress in the past, including the Children Protection from Video Game Violence and Sexual Content Act in 2007 which would have required the FTC to review the ESRB's operations and forced a study of the impact of videogames on children and young adults by the Government Accountability Office, but none of them have passed.

"We must hold the video game industry accountable and do everything in our power to ensure parents are aware of the detrimental effects that violent games can have before making decisions on which games are appropriate for their children to play," Baca continued, adding that he was "hopeful [his] legislation can work to stop the growing influence of violent media on America's children and youth."

Permalink

Do people even have to read the Constitution before they take public office anymore? I know Sarah Palin thought the Vice President was in charge of the Senate but that's a basic misunderstanding compared to this stuff.

It's real easy. It's the very First Amendment on the list.

Can I please change this one bit for more comic effect:

"Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between being human and increased aggression"

L.B. Jeffries:
Do people even have to read the Constitution before they take public office anymore? I know Sarah Palin thought the Vice President was in charge of the Senate but that's a basic misunderstanding compared to this stuff.

It's real easy. It's the very First Amendment on the list.

Im not too sure how this impeads freedom of speech, it just means if you make a game that is violent you need to put a sticker on the box. Sure it could be better phrased "this game is so violent itll fuck you up for life" then not only is it a warning but also a huge selling point.

Well its California of course he's a hippie

well i do know a lot of cool Californians but half i met are hippies

Eh, he looks a douchebag anyway.

Silly, silly man. Where's the healthwarning on my cupboard? I hit my head on that, so it's the cupboard fault?

scarbunny:

L.B. Jeffries:
Do people even have to read the Constitution before they take public office anymore? I know Sarah Palin thought the Vice President was in charge of the Senate but that's a basic misunderstanding compared to this stuff.

It's real easy. It's the very First Amendment on the list.

Im not too sure how this impeads freedom of speech, it just means if you make a game that is violent you need to put a sticker on the box. Sure it could be better phrased "this game is so violent itll fuck you up for life" then not only is it a warning but also a huge selling point.

You don't think slapping a giant label on a game that says it has been proven to make you more violent is going to impede a person's freedom of speech?

I always hate it when people use the argument that playing video games is related to increased aggression in young people. Maybe aggressive young people like to play violent video games and not the other way around.

first amemdment conflicts...& tabling bills to make crowdpleasing headlines for donators & constituents yadda yadda yadda. If he was serious about/though there was a chance of getting such a bill passed he'd have tagged it onto a bigger bill like normal.

scarbunny:

L.B. Jeffries:
Do people even have to read the Constitution before they take public office anymore? I know Sarah Palin thought the Vice President was in charge of the Senate but that's a basic misunderstanding compared to this stuff.

It's real easy. It's the very First Amendment on the list.

Im not too sure how this impeads freedom of speech, it just means if you make a game that is violent you need to put a sticker on the box. Sure it could be better phrased "this game is so violent itll fuck you up for life" then not only is it a warning but also a huge selling point.

There is a sticker on the box. Games are rated by the ESRB, but even then I doubt people buy games solely on the rating on the box. But regardless parents need to see that rating before letting little Billy play Grand-Theft-Anything. It's not a government job.

L.B. Jeffries:

scarbunny:

L.B. Jeffries:
Do people even have to read the Constitution before they take public office anymore? I know Sarah Palin thought the Vice President was in charge of the Senate but that's a basic misunderstanding compared to this stuff.

It's real easy. It's the very First Amendment on the list.

Im not too sure how this impeads freedom of speech, it just means if you make a game that is violent you need to put a sticker on the box. Sure it could be better phrased "this game is so violent itll fuck you up for life" then not only is it a warning but also a huge selling point.

You don't think slapping a giant label on a game that says it has been proven to make you more violent is going to impede a person's freedom of speech?

No, your still aloud to make and release the game and therefore practice your "freedom of speech" however it will have a warning label on it. Its a terrible idea but not uncontitutional.

Well, this is just more of the same stuff that always goes around. But, really, should you start placing labels like this then there is another major piece of media that needs warning labels and all that.

The evening news.

Personally I learned more about buying drugs, killing people, getting a gun, making a bomb, stealing cars, and getting away with crimes from watching the news than I ever did from a video game.

But hey, more labels about violence will really only help the sales I suspect. Bring it on!

scarbunny:

L.B. Jeffries:

You don't think slapping a giant label on a game that says it has been proven to make you more violent is going to impede a person's freedom of speech?

No, your still aloud to make and release the game and therefore practice your "freedom of speech" however it will have a warning label on it. Its a terrible idea but not uncontitutional.

He's got a point, though. Presenting what is currently an unproven hypothesis that has plenty of evidence against it as an irrefutable fact kinda takes away your ability to disagree with the concept. PLUS, it's going to be a blanket warning, regardless if the game is violent or not, if it's Teen plus, it's going to be condemned as violence inducing and there's not a damn thing anyone can say to help.

scarbunny:

No, your still aloud to make and release the game and therefore practice your "freedom of speech" however it will have a warning label on it. Its a terrible idea but not uncontitutional.

Wait, so if I wanted to sell a movie and the government didn't like it, you think it's okay for them to slap a "THIS MOVIE IS EVIL! DON'T BUY IT!" sticker on it? Or "This movie will give you cancer and may make you go insane?"

And fortunately for us, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to do this because you're impeding my ability to talk by prefacing everything I say with "This is bad, don't listen".

The rating systems you see in games are self-governed and run by the video game industry. Same for movies. They are not run by the government and never should be unless you want the government telling you what you should read, think, and do all the time.

No one proved there's a link between violence and video games, it's like a warning for cancer on corn: it might be true, but no one proved it or cares.

I'm so sick of politicions trying to lead crusades against games.Honestly even if this did pass it won't have any effect on me as I already buy all my games, but what about yunger kids who can't do that, that little warning lable will be very off putting to their parents and keep them from getting there favorite games.

it should be obvious to the most ignorant person by now that some video games arent for kids. i think instead of more stickers on the box warning people that a given game contains violence, we shoud instead be putting warning stickers on the moronic parents that buy GTA for their 6 year old, saying 'warning bad parent'.

the problem isnt the game after all, its the parents that just ignore all the rating's and warning's allready ON the games and buy anything for their kid without a second thought then act 'shocked' when they see some blood or bewbs and blaim the gmae MAKER for THEIR stupidity.

As i recall those test revealed that people who just watched a violent act in a video game reacted more prepared for a similar violent act on tv.

Regardless i really don't have that much of a problem with it. I don't particularly agree with parents letting their 10 year olds have a crack on gta or manhunt, and most of the time that happens is because tbe parents are unaware of what they're buying.

I mean if i saw one of those labels i'd be expecting a certain level of gore from the game. Fallout 3 had some lovely body part servering and exploding in it. So i'd expect something like that to carry such a label.

My main concern is that if Geoff went out and bought a labeled health hazard game, and then went out and killed some people, would they look straight at the game and immediatly believe they have the cause. The idea seems harmless but could still damage the game industry more.

Brokkr:
I always hate it when people use the argument that playing video games is related to increased aggression in young people. Maybe aggressive young people like to play violent video games and not the other way around.

you kind sir. are a genious..ive never thought about it that way before....i dont think about this stuff anyways but you are a genious

This is why the rest of the world hates America. Whereas your average, balanced, observant person would be able to guess that playing a video game called "Head A'Sploder VIII" would cause some violent thoughts, our country wants to put a warning label on there. Then again, we need warning labels saying things like "hot coffee is hot," and "locking your baby in this safe might not be a bad idea." This might be just the thing to reduce our violent crime rate by...oh, half a percent.

I find myself wondering what people blamed youth aggression on before the advent of video games. TV? Heavy Metal music? Rock n' Roll?

Honestly, every generation misses the point. Young people are aggressive because THEY ARE YOUNG PEOPLE! Look at any male animal in the wild as they hit sexual maturity. They are so full of hormones that they can't help but be aggressive. Its no different for humans.

Gee a warning label... guess I won't play that gory game now... I guess they never realized why cigarette manufacturers put those labels on their packs, it's so that they wouldn't get sued, I'm pretty sure they're intelligent enough to know that nobody gives a crap about a label, it's like a thin paper wall guarding a briefcase full of gold, the moment people realize that the wall can be breached by poking it they won't care anymore...

People Demand Health Warning Labels For Congressmen

"Congressmen have a responsibility to parents, families, and to constituents - to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often created by their offices," Baca said in a press release. "They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility. Meanwhile research continues to show a proven link between creation of idiotic, unnecessary legislation and increased aggression in people. American people deserve to know the truth about these potentially dangerous laws."

"We must hold Congressmen accountable and do everything in our power to ensure people are aware of the detrimental effects that Congressmen can have before making decisions on which legislation is appropriate for their society," Baca continued, adding that he was "hopeful [his] legislation can break the trend of useless, feel-good tripe purportedly created 'for the children'."

Fixed that for you, Mr. Baca.

Also, I recommend a label of "This Space For Rent" as a tattoo across the forehead, or perhaps "Will Trade Freedoms For Funding".

Introducing Joe Baca, the Jack Thompson for a fresh new year.

He's a congressman from California. Hmmm... what if they agreed to this proposal, but in order to fairly implement it they slapped that warning sticker on all films and television shows as well? I wonder how his constituants would view that development, hmm?

(Let's stop privilging media based on their medium, dammit.)

-- Steve

I'll admit i do get some good quotes from violent games such as Gears 2 e.g. "Eat shit and die."

But ppl don't really think that people like me are gonna strap a chainsaw to a machine-gun and go around butchering people do they? I'm still 14 for COG's sake.

Pardon the.................. Gears thing..........

Im so sick of hearing this s*** O well all these anti game technophobes are over 40 so just let time take care of them just keep pointing out there bull****

Brokkr:
I always hate it when people use the argument that playing video games is related to increased aggression in young people. Maybe aggressive young people like to play violent video games and not the other way around.

hate to break it to ya man but its a fact, exposure to violence DOES make people more aggressive. how much more aggressive is based opn a lot of factors but mostly how much exposure and the particular person, but its not just some researcher blowing crap out of their ass like some politicians.

however, this is absurd. the esrb does its job very well, its the parents that dont. a 10 year old starts playing an m rated game, is that the industrys fault or the parents? parents are the ones responsible for what they allow their children to do and if you dont care to look at the ratings then you have no right to bitch about the system not working.

and lastly, the vice president does act as the head of the senate last i checked.

He's just committing the fallacy of Correlation does not imply causation. Of course violent people are going to be more attracted to violent video games, anyway.

Pretty soon the government will start taxing video games to lower their consumption. If that happens...
Piracy, Ahoy!

Really, this shouldn't bother me. So some fuckwit wants to slap another pointless and totally-ignored label on the box, o whell. Cigarettes have in my mind proven that no number of warnings slapped on a package will change whether or not people purchase something. The thing about this that does bother me is the "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent videogames and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." bullshit.

That statement is an outright lie. No unbiased study I have ever seen has ever found a link between violent media and violence in children. I've seen plenty of biased studies, but you can't trust the results of those. I've seen unbiased studies which concluded no link could be found, which isn't saying there isn't one, but that there surely is no proof. But no, to make that statement as fact is an outright lie and I greatly protest the placement of lies as such because you never know where it will end. Don't be surprised if you start seeing health-fanatic, moralistic, or commercialist lies popping up shortly after...

On the cover of any meat product - "Animals were brutally tortured to produce this product"
On the front of adult materials - "Viewing this product is an affront against God"
or on every can of Pepsi - "Whitens teeth 50% better than other Cola drinks"

And what about all the studies that say video games have no link to violent behaviour O so if u keep ignoring crap u don't agree with it will go away will it ignorant p***

ratix2:

Brokkr:
I always hate it when people use the argument that playing video games is related to increased aggression in young people. Maybe aggressive young people like to play violent video games and not the other way around.

hate to break it to ya man but its a fact, exposure to violence DOES make people more aggressive. how much more aggressive is based opn a lot of factors but mostly how much exposure and the particular person, but its not just some researcher blowing crap out of their ass like some politicians.

however, this is absurd. the esrb does its job very well, its the parents that dont. a 10 year old starts playing an m rated game, is that the industrys fault or the parents? parents are the ones responsible for what they allow their children to do and if you dont care to look at the ratings then you have no right to bitch about the system not working.

and lastly, the vice president does act as the head of the senate last i checked.

I've seen reports from research studies done that defend both sides of this. Most are just biased. The ones that aren't usually say that no correlation between the two can be found.

I would like to point out that being a congressman who stands between gamers and their games is dangerous to your health.

You know it's funny. A while back somebody told me I should move to California from Massachusetts because California is a "real" state.

In that time, the "real" state has let the morons who live in it ban gay marriage and elect a moron who thinks video games need gigantic warning labels with lies on them.

Meanwhile in my "fake" home state, we've stamped out unconstitutional anti-videogame legislation (and hell, I helped in some way with that) and have legalized gay marriage.

Points to the Massholes, methinks.

[/Jingoism]

Anyway I believe this is unconstitutional because it is slander. There has been overwhelming evidence that the only people affected negatively by violent videogames are the people who are already showing uncontrolled agressive and violent tendencies. Everyone else is perfectly fine, however. So putting a label on a game that makes a blatant falsification of data like this is indeed a violation of the First Amendment.