I’m not sure how I missed this, but someone just pointed out to me that in late July, the city of Amherst, NY, “failed to approve a game license for [Chuck E. Cheese’s] the kids-themed food and entertainment venue… citing concerns about violent video games and bad behavior by patrons that require police intervention.”  That is according to this article by Sandra Tan in The Buffalo News.  Tan reports that the Amherst Town Board deadlocked 3-3 when considering the license for Chuck E. Cheese’s, apparently meaning that the pizza and arcade hot spot for kids will no longer be able to offer games at their Amherst venue. According to her article, game content considerations drove the move:

Council Member Shelly Schratz said she was disturbed by several “action-packed shoot-and-kill games” that were accessible to children as young as 4.  “When I see 6-year-olds, 8-year-olds playing those games, when all the time we’re opening the paper and seeing those stories on youth violence, do we need those games to make money?” she said.  Schratz was one of three board members who voted against renewing the establishment’s game room license, which is necessary for the business to legally run its arcade games, a major draw for families that patronize the chain’s 500-plus locations from coast to coast.

I find the actions of Amherst in this case to be quite troubling. Here are a few quick thoughts about this incident:

(1) What in the world are local city councils doing licensing video arcades? It’s not like we are talking about riverboat gambling enterprises here (although I personally don’t think they need to be licensed either). Of course, there’s a tax angle in it for the local towns. Tan notes that “Licensing brings in revenue for the town, including a $100 application fee, an additional annual license fee of $200 for up to five games, and $40 more for each additional game, according to the town code.”  Essentially, towns like Amherst are taxing young kids’ quarters to fill city coffers!  But that doesn’t necessarily make it right, especially in light of #2…

(2) When lawmakers use an occupational licenses as a tool of content regulation it raises profound First Amendment issues. Unfortunately, as the comments cited above suggest, that seems to be what is going on in the Amherst case. If occupational licensure can be used as a tool of censorship in cases like this, where else might public officials seek to use it? Can licensed doctors or lawyers be told what they can say or print?

(3) I have to wonder if the proponents of such a video arcade ban ever visited a Chuck E. Cheese’s and really spent time examining the games. You won’t find many slasher games there. In fact, you’ll mostly find the games from the exact opposite end of the video game spectrum: many of the same mindless games we grew up with a generation ago, some of which aren’t even video games (like skee ball and mini-basketball).  Most of the actual video games found there are quite mild in nature. [Incidentally, I know this for a fact because I visit Chuck E. Cheese outlets with my kids far more than I care to admit!]

(4) At some point parental responsibility has to enter the picture. Where are the parents or guardians? Are they just dropping young kids off and hoping the Chucky the mouse will be their babysitter?  If so, those are some bad parents. But that doesn’t mean that the city council should be playing nanny and taking over those responsibilities for parents by shutting down arcades that the vast majority of kids frequent without incident.

(5) Finally, speaking of parental responsibility and less-restrictive approaches to the issue, did you know there is an arcade rating system for games?  The “Coin-Operated Video Game Parental Advisory System” is administered by the American Amusement Machine Association (AAMA), the Amusement and Music Operators Association (AMOA), and the International Association for the Leisure & Entertainment Industry (IALEI). It uses a color-coded, “traffic light” approach so that parents can review the green, yellow, or red sticker labels on arcade games and decide whether to let their children play. I’ve embedded that rating system and its various designations below. [I wrote about this more in my big “Parental Controls & Online Child Protection” book.]

In light of these concerns, I fail to see why Amherst or any other city should be in the business of licensing video arcades. And even if they are doing so for tax purposes, they shouldn’t be using that power to censor arcade games or shutting down businesses that offer such games.

The latest edition (Version 4.0) of my PFF special report on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now up.  For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education and media literacy efforts, and various other tools, methods, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety.  After evaluating that state of this market, I conclude: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”  Moreover, I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation.

Version 4.0 of the report is now over 250 pages long (up from 200 pages in Version 3.0) and it contains almost 70 exhibits (up from 50), 725 references (up from roughly 500), and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. Other new sections or appendices have also been added to the report, including:

• a new section examining how many households really need parental control tools;
• a new appendix on the downsides of mandatory parental controls and restrictive default settings;
• a new section on the dangers of “deputizing the online middleman” solution as an approach to solving child safety concerns;
• a new appendix reviewing the findings of 5 past online safety task forces;
• … and much more.

I issue major updates once a year and 1 or 2 minor tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety marketplace and debate. The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past couple of years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

As anyone who has spent time searching for comments on the FCC’s website can tell you, the agency doesn’t exactly have the most user-friendly website.  In the interest of making it easier for others to read the comments that came in last week in the agency’s “Child Safe Viewing Act” Notice of Inquiry, I have compiled all the major comments (those over 3 or 4 pages) and provided links to them below the fold.

Again, this proceeding was required under the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of the bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB 09-26) is to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.”  I filed 150+ pages worth of comments in this matter last week, and here’s my analysis of why this bill and the FCC’s proceeding are worth monitoring closely.

• Association of National Advertisers (ANA)
• AT&T
• Center for Democracy & Technology (Individual Comments)
• CDT (Joint Comments with other Public Interest Groups)
• Children’s Media Policy Coalition
• Coalition for Independent Ratings
• Comcast
• Common Sense Media
• Consumer Electronic Association (CEA)
• CTIA – The Wireless Association
• Cox Communications
• CustomPlay
• Digimarc Corp
• Digital Watermarking Alliance
• Digital Media Association
• Dish Network
• DirecTV
• Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
• Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI)
• Google (+ attachments A, B, C)
• Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
• Microsoft
• NAB + NCTA + MPAA (0n TV Guidelines)
• National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
• Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF)
• Sanyo
• Smart Television Alliance
• Sprint-Nextel
• TiVo
• TV Guardian
• TV Watch
• U.S. Telecom Association
• Verizon & Verizon Wireless
• Wi-LAN V-Chip Corp

Today I filed comments with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its proceeding examining the marketplace for “advanced blocking technologies.”  This proceeding was required under the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of the bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB 09-26) is to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.”  My colleagues will no doubt laugh about the fact that I have dropped an absurd 150 pages worth of comments on the FCC in this matter, but I had a lot to say on this topic!  Parental controls, child safety, and free speech issues have been the focus of much of my research agenda over the past 10 years.

In my filing, I argue that the FCC should tread carefully in this matter since the agency has no authority over most of the media platforms and technologies described in the Commission’s recent Notice of Inquiry.  Moreover, any related mandates or regulatory actions in in this area could diminish future innovation in this field and would violate the First Amendment rights of media creators and consumers alike.  The other major conclusions of my filing are as follows:

• There exists an unprecedented abundance of parental control tools to help parents decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.
• There is a trade-off between complexity and convenience for both tools and ratings, and no parental control tool is completely foolproof.
• Most homes have no need for parental control technologies because parents rely on other methods or there are no children in the home.
• The role of household media rules and methods is underappreciated and those rules have an important bearing on this debate.
• Parental control technologies work best in combination with educational efforts and parental involvement.
• The search for technological silver-bullets and “universal” solutions represent a quixotic, Holy Grail-like quest and it will destroy innovation in this marketplace.
• Enforcement of “household standards” made possible through use of parental controls and other methods negates the need for “community standards”-based content regulation.

My entire filing can be found here and down below in a Scribd reader.  All comments in the matter are due tomorrow and then reply comments are due on May 18th.

[FCC FILING] Adam Thierer-PFF Re Child Safe Viewing Act NOI (MB 09-26) http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=14264143&access_key=key-2nrvjm96q9cl5vep567l&page=1&version=1&viewMode=

Today, President Bush signed S. 602, “The Child Safe Viewing Act.”(CNet story here). The measure requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct an inquiry to examine the availability of, and methods of encouraging the use of, advanced blocking technologies that help parents protect their children from transmitted video and audio programming that the parents determine to be indecent or objectionable. The FCC has 270 days to complete the report.

I wrote about the measure more extensively when it passed the Senate back in October. As I noted in then, the measure was modified slightly when it passed through the Commerce Committee last year, but it still contains some provision that could be problematic. Specifically, as part of the FCC’s required study, the bill commands the FCC to “consider advanced blocking technologies” that:

• may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms;
• operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming.

Those two provisions are cause for concern since they raise the specter of what I referred to as “convergence-era content regulation” in a PFF paper about the bill last year. It does so in two ways. First, it opens the door to FCC bureaucrats investigating media content controls for wireless and Internet platforms, something it has never been empowered to do before. Second, by specifying that these new advanced content blocking technologies should “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator,” the law seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption that suggests the FCC might be able to come up with better media ratings on its own.

Of course, I could be overplaying these fears. The FCC might just stay true to its required role to act as an independent agency that can objectively evaluate the market and produce a balanced report on the issue. Then again, like so much else on this front, the entire endeavor could become a politicized mess and another exercise in media-bashing, complete with calls for greater regulation “for the children.”

Bottom line: We have to hope that the FCC doesn’t use this “study” as an excuse to undermine existing voluntary parental controls and private content rating efforts or, worse yet, embark on an effort to impose new speech controls or mandatory rating and labeling schemes on media content. If they follow that path, a serious First Amendment battle awaits.

P.S. If the FCC wants to save some time and some taxpayer dollars, I am happy to send over free copies of my big Parental Controls & Online Child Safety report to all FCC officials. Not to sound arrogant, but I believe my report already accomplishes most of what the bill requires. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for the FCC to call.

[Note: The Washington Watch page for S. 602 is here.]

Yesterday, the Senate passed S. 602, “The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which was introduced by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) in February 2007. The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to study the market for “advance blocking technologies” (i.e., parental controls and rating systems) that parents can use to protect their kids from inappropriate content from various sources and platforms. On the surface, the measure seems harmless enough, but in practice, it could have some troubling long-term free speech implications if it leads to more government meddling with parental controls and ratings systems.

The measure requires the FCC to initiate a notice of inquiry to consider measures to examine:

1. the existence and availability of advanced blocking technologies that are compatible with various communications devices or platforms;
2. methods of encouraging the development, deployment, and use of such technology by parents that do not affect the packaging or pricing of a content provider’s offering; and
3. the existence, availability, and use of parental empowerment tools and initiatives already in the market.

That all sounds harmless enough. Indeed, such a study could produce some useful information about the state of the parental controls marketplace.  (Of course, I could save them some taxpayer dollars and just send copies of my big Parental Controls & Online Child Safety report to all FCC officials!)

But it’s what comes next in the bill that causes me some heartburn. As part of the review mandated by the bill, S. 602 commands the FCC to “consider advanced blocking technologies that”:

1. may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms;
2. may be appropriate across a wide variety of devices capable of transmitting or receiving video or audio programming, including television sets, DVD players, VCRs, cable set top boxes, satellite receivers, and wireless devices;
3. can filter language based upon information in closed captioning;
4. operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming; and;
5. may be effective in enhancing the ability of a parent to protect his or her child from indecent or objectionable programming, as determined by such parent.

I have highlighted the two provisions that are cause for concern since they raise the specter of what I referred to as “convergence-era content regulation” in a PFF paper about the bill last year.  Let me explain.

Regarding that first provision, here’s how I stated my concern in my old paper:

In demanding that regulators investigate and consider requiring blocking technologies for “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms,” the measure potentially opens the door to the beginning of convergence-era content regulation at the FCC. The agency currently has no authority to regulate content (or parental control technologies or rating systems) on most media or communications platforms outside of broadcasting, and its authority over broadcasting is limited. But S. 602 would potentially give regulators the ability to begin expanding the horizons of federal content regulation. One wonders what sort of resources the FCC would need to carry out this task. After all, we’re talking about numerous platforms and a potentially enormous volume of content. The FCC would likely need a small army of regulators to ensure that all “wired, wireless, and Internet platforms” were in compliance with the law. Will there be a specific team of FCC officials devoted to monitoring advanced blocking mechanisms for the official websites of major media operators? What about YouTube.com, MySpace.com and other major websites that host both user-generated content and professional media content? What about the new media platforms and content that mobile operators are offering? Many advanced blocking tools already exist to screen or filter online content, but whether other types of regulation could be required under S. 602 remains unclear. Moreover, the global reach of many of these online platforms raises other enforcement issues.

Second, regarding the second provision I highlighted above (about “independent ratings”), here again is how I stated my concern in my paper:

in specifying that these new advanced content blocking technologies should “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator of such video or audio programming,” S. 602 seems to imply that existing voluntary rating and labeling systems cannot be trusted. That is a dangerous presumption. Existing rating and labeling systems, while not perfect, are well-established and comprehensive. It is simply unrealistic to expect that all new advanced content blocking technologies will operate independent of existing rating and labeling systems, such as the television rating system, the MPAA movie rating systems, and the video game industry’s ESRB rating system. It is important to realize that these systems rate and label almost all the entertainment content produced in their respective fields. While third-party rating systems can supplement these official industry rating schemes, it is unlikely those independent schemes will ever be as comprehensive as the official industry systems. More importantly, existing blocking tools on the market today, such as the V-Chip and cable and satellite set-top boxes, rely on those official rating and labeling systems, which most Americans are already familiar with. It is unrealistic to expect all new consumer media devices to employ alternative blocking schemes or be able to read independent rating systems. Thus, it remains unclear what that sponsors of S. 602 are hoping to accomplish by specifying that new blocking systems “operate independently of ratings pre-assigned by the creator.” Regardless, the real danger here is that that language could fuel a push for “universal” media ratings that would be imposed by the government or a third-party which has the government’s blessing. It goes without saying that such a proposal would raise serious First Amendment concerns. But, even setting aside the clear First Amendment concerns, there is no practical reason to believe that the government could actually do a better job of assigning ratings or creating parental control tools. If the government were responsible for assigning content ratings or labels, for example, five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC or some other regulatory agency would simply substitute their own values for those of the voluntary rating boards or other labeling organizations in existence today.

Importantly, however, the version of S. 602 that the Senate passed was amended before being voted out of the Senate Commerce Committee on August 2, 2007. The amended version made a few important wording changes to the original version of the bill. Specifically, the Senate Commerce Committee struck the phrase that specified the FCC would have the power ” to encourage or require” the use of advanced blocking technologies.  Needless to say, that’s a very important deletion since it means that S. 602 hasn’t granted the FCC sweeping new powers to require the creation of content controls or ratings systems.  It’s one thing for the FCC to study the marketplace of existing controls and ratings systems. It’s quite another for the agency to get actively involved in the business of mandating or regulating those controls or rating systems.

Sen. Pryor and his Senate colleagues are to be commended for avoiding direct content regulation and instead focusing on empowering families to make media consumption decisions on their own. Nonetheless, in an attempt to empower parents it is important that Congress not empower regulators instead.  S. 602 opens the door to an expansion of the FCC’s authority over media content on multiple platforms and threatens to undermine private, voluntary rating systems in the process.  There are better ways to help parents and protect kids.

Further reading / sources:

• The Senate-passed version of S. 602
• press release from Sen. Mark Pryor about Senate passage
• article by Ted Hearn of Multichannel News about Senate passage
• my PFF white paper on the earlier version of the bill: “Convergence-Era Content Regulation? S. 602, The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007“.

Just FYI, the latest update of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now live. The new version, Version 3.1, provides minor updates to all sections of the book and a new appendix of relevant research in the field. I issue major updates early each year and 1 or 2 tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety market and debate.

For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past two years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

A few days ago I posted an open letter to New York Gov. David Patterson about a measure that recently passed through the New York legislature and was awaiting his signature. The bill proposes a new regulatory regime for video games that would include greater state-based oversight of video game labels and console controls as well as an advisory board to monitor the industry. Unfortunately—but quite unsurprisingly—Gov. Patterson signed the bill last night. And so I am certain that another legal battle will ensue regarding the constitutionality of the measure, and it will likely be struck down like every other measure on this front because it violates the First Amendment. Regardless, let’s talk a little more about what animates this specific legislative effort, because I think it is very important and foreshadows the heated debate to come over video games and all media in coming years.

The New York measure is notable in that, unlike most of the other state or local measures that had been stuck down in recent years that proposed penalties for the sale of games to youngsters which were labeled by the ESRB to be intended for an older audience, it simply proposed more “oversight” of the ratings process and parental control technologies by the state. Specifically, it mandated that all games be rated and that all consoles contain screening controls. The response to that proposal has generally been: “So what?” After all, all video games are rated already and all game consoles contain parental controls. The measure also mandated a 16-member oversight board to monitor the industry and this process. Again, that proposal was not regarded by many as a serious threat to the video games or free speech.

But I fear that many are missing the big picture here. The New York bill is actually far more important that many people suspect because of what it foreshadows: A day when politicians will claim that we can make rating systems more “scientific” by putting public health bureaucrats or university social scientists in charge of them. Indeed, last night on Bloomberg TV, this became the focus of a debate between me and Dr. Michael Rich, Director of the Center for Media and Child Health at the Harvard Medical School. After you watch the clip, I’ll have much more to say about this issue down below the fold.

As you heard in the clip, Dr. Rich favors a greater role for “science” and social scientists in the video game rating and labeling process. But let’s explore what that might mean in practice.

Over the past decade, I have heard many critics make the argument that media rating and labeling systems should be centralized in the hands of the government, some academic elites, a private (non-industry affiliated) rating organization, or some combination of all of the above. These critics often give lip service to private, voluntary rating systems but they then turn around and advocate that the entire process be run by people (usually closely resembling themselves!) who would somehow rate media according to more “scientific” criteria / variables.

The problem here is that media content is art, and art is fundamentally subjective. It’s not like there is some sort of Periodic Table of Media Elements that tells us what makes for good vs. bad art. Media ratings and labels, therefore, will always be based on judgments made by humans who all have somewhat different values. Those doing the rating are being asked to evaluate artistic expression and assign labels to it that provide the rest of us with some rough proxies about what is in that particular piece of art, or what age group should (or should not) be consuming it. In a sense, therefore, all rating systems will be inherently “flawed” since humans have different perspectives and values that they will use to label or classify content.

Thus, even if a bunch of social scientists at Harvard were running the show, the media rating and content-labeling process will never be an exact science; there will always be something fundamentally subjective about it. Incidentally, exactly which “social scientists” would get a say in the process? Psychologists? Sociologists? Political scientists? Criminologists? Hey, what about art historians! I can almost see a joke in the making here: “How many Harvard social scientists does it take to rate a video game?”

But Dr. Rich and others like him would likely argue that some forms of media or art have unique influences on the development of the mind—especially the minds of children. They would argue, for example, that exposure to certain forms of violent media content will breed aggressive behavior in youth, or at least make them more desensitized and fearful of the world around them.

For the sake of brevity, I am not going to go into my typical long-winded discussion here about “media effects” vs. “catharsis effect.” Instead I will just reference the latest of my many essays on the topic (“Why hasn’t violent media turned us into a nation of killers?”) and I also recommend that you read my review of the excellent new book, Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” by Lawrence Kutner, PhD, and Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, cofounders and directors of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media. (As you will see when you read the book, apparently not everyone at Harvard agrees with Dr. Rich! That also makes one wonder how much actual consensus there would be in the scientific community about the ratings and labels they would be imposing on artistic expression.)

OK, so let’s just imagine that those social scientists who espouse “monkey see, monkey do” theories of media effects somehow get a say in rating and labeling video games. Think about what that would mean in practice. Imagine how long it would take a game like “Halo,” “Gears of War,” or “Grand Theft Auto” to get through that review process. And imagine what the warning label on the box would look like once they were done! They’d probably affix a 10-page memo to each game carton and then a poison (skull-and-crossbones) logo for good measure. Or perhaps the label would come in form of a Surgeon General’s warning about the product being hazardous to one’s (mental) health?

In the end, the whole system would become an unworkable farce if mandated by government. Nothing would be getting rated and to market in a timely way. Game developers would be in open revolt against it. And industry lawsuits would be flying.

More importantly, few people would likely use it. Many media critics seem to forget that there is trade-off between convenience and comprehensiveness in terms of rating and labeling systems. As Kutner and Olson note in their book: “The more complicated a system becomes, the less likely busy parents are to understand it and to actually use it.” We have to be careful not to upset this balance. In my opinion, the current ESRB game rating system pushes the labeling process just about as far as it can go on the comprehensiveness scale, but does so using easy-to-comprehend ratings (7 of them) and content descriptors (over 30 of them). When media critics and social scientists say they want to make the system even more “comprehensive” and “scientific,” therefore, I really have to wonder if they have thought through the practical implications of such a move. Exactly how many more ratings and labels are we talking about? Exactly how much more detailed could it be than the ESRB’s existing system, which already has 12 different content descriptors for violent content alone (from “cartoon violence” to “sexual violence” and everything in between).

Another point: The argument that government or “ratings by social scientists” would provide more objective ratings is also undermined by the grim reality of special-interest politics. Government officials or government-appointed commissions would be more susceptible to various interest group pressures as they were repeatedly lobbied to change ratings or restrict content based on widely varying objectives and values. Inevitably, as has been the case with the broadcast indecency complaint process in recent years, a handful of particularly vociferous groups could gain undue influence over content decisions. That possible outcome raises what the Supreme Court has referred to as the “heckler’s veto” problem since a vocal minority’s preferences could trump those of the public at large.

Now let me be perfectly clear about one thing: I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with folks like Dr. Rich and his colleagues devising some sort of “scientific” rating or labeling scheme for video games and other forms media content. But the fundamental question in this debate is: should such a system should be the law of the land?

In my book on Parental Controls and Online Child Protection, I spend a great deal of time in Chapter 2 talking about the importance of third-party ratings and pressure and I heap a lot of praise on the various independent, third-party content rating and labeling systems out there today. In particular, my wife and I absolute love Common Sense Media and rely on its ratings every week when we are consider what media to allow our kids to consume in our home. It’s a great system that is highly informative; and the feedback from average parents and kids on the site is very helpful too. Other great 3rd party rating and labeling services just for video games include: What They Play, Gamer Dad, and Children’s Technology Review, all of which provide detailed video game reviews and information about the specific types of content that kids will see or hear in a game. [Incidentally, the ESRB has a section on its webpage that highlights all these independent sites.]

So here’s the question for Dr. Rich and the folks in the social science community: Why not just create your own “shadow” ratings process or collaborate with these other organizations to serve a worthy “watchdog” role over the existing rating and labeling process? That’s the win-win solution here.

It would be a huge mistake to throw out the existing ESRB system. It is working very effectively and it is already widely recognized by the vast majority of parents. Surveys by Peter D. Hart Research Associates reveal that 89% of American parents of children who play video games are aware of the ESRB ratings and that 85% of them consult the ratings regularly when buying games for their families. That’s pretty impressive considering how young the ESRB rating system is.

Moreover, let’s not forget that every game console and computer system on the market today is geared to read the ESRB ratings metadata (digital tags) that are embedded in every game shipped to market. That’s how the parental controls are enabled. Should we toss all that work out the window and just start from scratch? I think that would be a huge mistake.

Again, there is nothing stopping Dr. Rich and his fellow social scientists from crafting their own system. In fact, I believe I speak for many parents when I say we would welcome it. But mandating it and asking that it serve as a replacement for the existing ratings and console controls is an completely different issue. It’s a non-starter in my opinion.

Now that the New York bill has passed, however, the door is open for this sort of proposal to see the light of day. If the measure is not struck down, watch to see who is appointed to the 16-member advisory committee and listen to hear which way they are going. I bet it ends up being something along the lines of what I have suggested above.

PFF has just releasing an updated edition of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.” The new version, Version 3.0, includes two new appendixes and updates to each section to reflect new parental control tools and programs developed in the last nine months.

The updated report is timely as it comes on the heels of the recently-announced Internet Safety Technical Task Force, which is being chaired by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. I am privileged to serve as a member of the Task Force, which is evaluating various online safety technologies and strategies and then reporting back to state attorneys general with our findings.

Those issues and much more are covered in the latest edition of my report. The report explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

Version 3.0 of the special report, now over 200 pages, contains over fifty exhibits and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. A greatly expanded section on video empowerment technologies has also been included. Finally, two appendices have also been added: a comprehensive legislative index cataloging over thirty bills introduced in Congress on these issues (complied with John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology), and a glossary of 35 relevant terms and cases.

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, as are the previous editions. And I am happy to provide hard copies to those who are interested.

PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.

This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) proposed new legislation on Thursday that would make it a federal offense for retailers to sell a minor a video game that includes violent or sexual themes. Her bill would impose a $5000 fine on any retailer that sold a youngster a game that was classified as mature or violent under the video game industry’s voluntary ratings system.

The Clinton bill might best be thought of as a “hanging the industry with its own rope” regulatory scheme. That is, her bill would hijack the industry’s voluntary ratings system and then use it against them (and retailers) should someone choose to sell a game with mature or violent themes to someone under the age of 18.

The problem with this regulatory scheme is that is will have two related unintended consequences. First, if federal officials threaten to use the industry’s voluntary ratings scheme against them in this fashion, some developers might choose to abandon the voluntary scheme altogether. Second, if enough developers did abandon the voluntarily ratings scheme, it would likely lead to calls by Mrs. Clinton and others in government to impose a mandatory federal ratings scheme on this industry. And that poses serious First Amendment issues since the government (either the FCC or FTC, I assume) would be required to define what constituted “excessive violence” or “mature themes” in electronic games.

What makes this so troubling is that the video game’s voluntary ratings scheme is outstanding and a real help to millions of parents like me. While most media sectors today have ratings systems of some variety, some of these ratings schemes are more descriptive than others. The video game industry’s system is the best.

In 1994, the video game industry formed the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), an independent ratings body for computer software and video games. It is, by almost all accounts, the most comprehensive and descriptive ratings scheme yet devised by a major media sector. ESRB ratings provide parents and consumers with six age-based ratings categories (Early Childhood; Everyone; Everyone 10+; Teen; Mature; Adults Only 18+), but then also go much further by providing more than 30 different “descriptors” explaining the precise type of content consumers will see in the game.

The movie industry’s ratings system, while not as descriptive as the video game industry’s, provides a well-known 5-part ratings scheme (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) as well as some content-specific descriptors that appear before a movie begins.

The television ratings system builds on this model with six age-based ratings (TV-Y (all children); TV-Y7 (for older children); TV-G (general audience); TV-PG (parental guidance suggested); TV-14 (not recommended for children under 14); TV-MA (for mature audiences only)). In addition, programs often contain four single-letter descriptors to specify whether the program contains intense violence (V), sexual situations (S), coarse language (L), or suggestive dialogue (D).

It goes without saying that these ratings schemes are probably not perfect, although one struggles to imagine how the video game industry’s system could be any more detailed without becoming unnecessarily cumbersome. Some critics claim the age-based ratings employed by the movie and television sectors are not clear enough, or that they could be more descriptive like the video game industry’s system. Efforts have been made to improve or update at least the movie industry ratings scheme over time. The television ratings system, which is still quite young, will probably evolve too, and pull-up, on-screen menus are already providing much additional information for cable and satellite consumers.

But, regardless of the current efficacy of any of these ratings schemes, the important question here is whether the government should have any say over how video programming is rated. Any attempt by government to impose a mandatory ratings scheme on industry would almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment. Realizing this, many policymakers have long favored the hang-industry-with-their-own-rope approach. Again, the thinking here is that government would not seek to create its own, constitutionally-suspect ratings scheme but, instead hold the industry liable in some fashion for supposed failures to use their own ratings system properly.

Again, these ratings systems are a subjective, imperfect science. Clearly, some in government, and perhaps even many average citizens, believe that industry could “do more” to provide better ratings or information. But it does not follow that government should be the one “doing more” by taking the extreme step of regulating video programming or hijacking an industry’s rating system. This is especially the case since regulatory efforts like the Clinton bill would almost certainly lead some developers to opt-out of their voluntary ratings scheme altogether to avoid the threat of legal liability.

Finally, while it is beyond the scope of this discussion (but will be the subject of my next major paper), measures like the Clinton bill ignore the reality of technological and media convergence and the special problem it creates for regulators. While these regulatory schemes may sound fairly straightforward to those in Congress, anyone who understands the nature of electronic networks, the Internet and interactive / adaptable media, realizes that such scheme could cast a much wider net than lawmakers realize. For example, if a random Joe develops a piece of freeware that involves a violent game of bloodsport of one variety or another (and this has been done many time on the Net already), how will this law cover it? And what about games that come bundled with some other piece of media, like a DVD or compact disc, and are on the same disc? Does that open up the movie or music to a ratings scheme too? If not, why not?

You get the point. The Clinton bill would open up a real Pandora’s Box of enforcement difficulties for the feds. Of course, it will all likely be struck down as unconstitutional by the first court that gets its hands on it, so perhaps I’m just wasting my breath here.

Regardless, as a parent of two kids, and as a life-long gamer myself, I say keep your hands of my X-Box Hillary! My wife and I can decide for ourselves what is right and wrong for our kids. And if they buy a game we don’t like at the store, we’ll find out about it soon enough. After all, where are they going to get the money to buy that game?