Entertainment Software Rating Board

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) is a self-regulatory organization that assigns age and content ratings to consumer video games in the United States and Canada. The ESRB was established in 1994 by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA, formerly the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA)), in response to criticism of controversial video games with excessively violent or sexual content, particularly after the 1993 congressional hearings following the releases of Mortal Kombat and Night Trap for home consoles and Doom for home computers. The industry, pressured with potential government oversight of video game ratings from these hearings, established both the IDSA and the ESRB within it to create a voluntary rating system based on the Motion Picture Association of America film rating system with additional considerations for video game interactivity.

The board assigns ratings to games based on their content, using judgment similar to the motion picture rating systems used in many countries, using a combination of six age-based levels intended to aid consumers in determining a game's content and suitability, along with a system of "content descriptors" which detail specific types of content present in a particular game. More recently, the ratings also include descriptors for games with online interactivity or in-game monetization. The ratings are determined by a combination of material provided by the game's publisher in both questionnaires and video footage of the game, and a review of this material by a panel of reviewers who assign it a rating. The ratings are designed towards parents so they can make informed decisions about purchasing games for their children. Once a game is rated, the ESRB maintains a code of ethics for the advertising and promotion of video games—ensuring that marketing materials for games are targeted to appropriate audiences.

The ESRB rating system is enforced via the voluntary leverage of the North American video game and retail industries for physical releases; most stores require customers to present photo identification when purchasing games carrying the ESRB's highest age ratings, and do not stock games which have not been rated. Additionally, major console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings, while console manufacturers and most stores will refuse to stock games that the ESRB has rated as being appropriate for adults only. More recently, the ESRB began offering a system to automatically assign ratings for digitally-distributed games and mobile apps, which utilizes a survey answered by the product's publisher as opposed to a manual assessment by ESRB staff, allowing online storefronts to filter and restrict titles based on the ESRB. Through the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC), this method can generate equivalent ratings for other territories. Alongside its game rating operation, the ESRB also provides certification services for online privacy on websites and mobile apps. There have been attempts to pass federal and state laws to force retailers into compliance with the ESRB, but the 2011 Supreme Court case Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ruled that video games are protected speech, and such laws are unconstitutional.

Due to the level of consumer and retail awareness of the rating system, along with the organization's efforts to ensure that retailers comply with the rating system and that publishers comply with its marketing code, the ESRB has considered its system to be effective, and was praised by the Federal Trade Commission for being the "strongest" self-regulatory organization in the entertainment sector. Despite its positive reception, the ESRB has still faced criticism from politicians and other watchdog groups for the structure of its operations, particularly in the wake of a 2005 incident that surrounded the organization's handling of "hidden", objectionable content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas which could be accessed using a user-created modification.

The ESRB has been accused of having a conflict of interest because of its vested interest in the video game industry, and that it does not rate certain games, such as the Grand Theft Auto series, harshly enough for their violent or sexual content in order to protect their commercial viability. Contrarily, other critics have argued that, at the same time, the ESRB rates certain games too strongly for their content, and that its influence has stifled the viability of adult-oriented video games due to the board's restrictions on how they are marketed and sold.

## History

### Background

Video games with objectionable content date back as far as 1976; the arcade game Death Race required users to run over "gremlins" with a vehicle and avoid the gravestones they leave behind. Although its graphics were relatively primitive, the game's overall theme and the sound effects made when gremlins were killed were considered disturbing by players, prompting media attention. A developer known as Mystique became known for making sexually explicit adult video games for the Atari 2600 console, but garnered the most attention with its controversial 1982 game Custer's Revenge, which infamously featured a crude simulation of the rape of a Native American woman. Atari received numerous complaints about the game, and responded by trying to sue the game's makers.

A 1983 industry crash, caused by the market being overrun with low-quality products, prompted a higher degree of regulation by future console manufacturers: when the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) was launched in the United States in 1985, Nintendo of America instituted requirements and restrictions on third-party developers, including the requirement for all games to be licensed by the company. The console itself also included a lockout chip to enforce this requirement and prevent the console from loading unlicensed games. Such leverage on developers has since become a standard practice among console makers, although Nintendo of America also had stringent content policies, frequently censoring blood, sexual content, and references to religion, tobacco and alcohol from games released on its consoles in the United States.

When asked in 1987 about the suitability of a film-like rating system for video games, a representative of the Software Publishers Association said that "Adult computer software is nothing to worry about. It's not an issue that the government wants to spend any time with ... They just got done with a big witchhunt in the music recording industry, and they got absolutely nowhere". The association did recommend voluntary warnings for games like Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards (1987).

### Formation and early years

Video games' progression into the 1990s brought dramatic increases in graphics and sound capabilities, and the ability to use full-motion video (FMV) content in games. In the United States Senate, Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin led hearings on video game violence and the corruption of society which began in 1992. Two games of this era were specifically cited in the hearings for their content; the fighting game Mortal Kombat featured realistic, digitized sprites of live-action actors, blood, and the ability to use violent "fatality" moves to defeat opponents, while Night Trap featured 90 minutes of FMV content, with scenes that were considered to be sexually suggestive and exploitive. Both Nintendo and Sega had differing views on objectionable content in video games; a port of Mortal Kombat for the Super NES was censored to remove the game's overly violent content, whereas the port for Sega consoles retained much of this content, which helped increase sales. In May 1993, British censors banned Night Trap from being sold to children under 15 years old in the United Kingdom, which was an influence on Sega's decision to create an age rating system.

At the time of the 1993 hearings, there was no industry-wide standard in place for rating video games, which was a point of contention at the hearings. Sega had implemented its own voluntary ratings system, the Videogame Rating Council (VRC), largely to rate games released for its own consoles, which Nintendo largely disputed. The 3DO Interactive Multiplayer platform had its own age ratings voluntarily determined by game publishers, and the Recreational Software Advisory Council (RSAC) was formed for rating PC games, which used a system that rated the intensity of specific classes of objectionable content, but did not use age recommendations. However, Lieberman did not believe that these systems were sufficient, and in February 1994, threatened to propose the creation of a federal commission for regulating and rating video games. Stores like Toys "R" Us refused to sell titles they deemed were too violent for children following the hearings.

With the threat of federal regulations, a group of major video game developers and publishers, including Acclaim Entertainment and Electronic Arts along with Nintendo and Sega, formed a political trade group known as the Interactive Digital Software Association in April 1994, with a goal to create a self-regulatory framework for assessing and rating video games. While Sega had proposed that the industry use its VRC rating system, Nintendo representatives objected to the idea because they did not want to associate themselves with the work of their main competitor; instead, a vendor-neutral rating system known as the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) was developed. The formation of the ESRB was officially announced to Congress on July 29, 1994. The ESRB was officially launched on September 16, 1994; its system consisted of five age-based ratings; "Early Childhood", "Kids to Adults" (later renamed "Everyone" in 1998), "Teen", "Mature", and "Adults Only". The ESRB was the first rating system to also use "descriptors" with brief explanations of the content contained in a game, as the ESRB found that parents wanted to have knowledge of this type of content before they purchased games for their children.

The U.S. arcade gaming industry did not adopt the ESRB system, with the American Amusement Machine Association (AAMA) having cited "fundamental differences between the coin-operated and consumer segments of the video game industry" as reasoning. The AAMA, the Amusement & Music Operators Association, and the International Association for the Leisure and Entertainment Industry, adopted their own three-tier "Parental Advisory System" in 1994, which uses three color-coded levels of content intensity (designated by green, yellow, and red stickers affixed to arcade cabinet artwork).

### Expansion and recent developments

Alongside its efforts to classify video games, the ESRB also formed a division known as Entertainment Software Rating Board Interactive (ESRBi), which rated internet content using a similar system to its video game ratings. ESRBi also notably partnered with the internet service provider America Online to integrate these ratings into its existing parental controls. ESRBi was discontinued in 2003.

In 2002, Dr. Arthur Pober, the original president of the ESRB, stepped down so he could focus on academics. In November 2002, he was formally replaced by Patricia Vance, who formerly worked for The Princeton Review and The Walt Disney Company. In March 2005, the ESRB introduced a new rating, "Everyone 10+", designating games with content of a relatively higher impact than those of games rated "Everyone", but still not high enough to garner a "Teen" rating. The first game to receive this rating was Donkey Kong Jungle Beat.

In response to the growth of smartphone use, in November 2011, CTIA, a group of major U.S. companies representing the wireless industry, and ESRB announced the co-development of a free, voluntary ratings process for mobile app stores. The system uses ESRB's icons and content descriptors, along with four additional "Interactive Elements" ("Digital Purchases", "Shares Info," "Shares Location," and "Users Interact") to inform users of an app's behavior in regards to data collection and interactions with others. Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile US were among the first to implement the system for their own application storefronts, and Microsoft's Windows Phone Marketplace already supported ESRB ratings upon its introduction. ESRB president Patricia Vance explained that the partnership was intended to help broaden the ESRB's reach into the mobile market, and that "consumers, especially parents, benefit from having a consistently applied set of ratings for games rather than a fragmented array of different systems."

In November 2012, the ESRB and other video game ratings boards, including PEGI, the Australian Classification Board, and USK among others, established a consortium known as the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC). The group sought to design an online, questionnaire-based rating process for digitally-distributed video games that could generate ratings for multiple video game ratings organizations at once. The resulting ratings information is tied to a unique code, which can then be used by online storefronts to display the corresponding rating for the user's region. The three major console makers, Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have all committed to supporting IARC for their digital storefronts, including ESRB ratings for North American markets. Google Play Store was updated in March 2015 to adopt and display ESRB ratings for apps in North America through IARC. Windows Store also implemented IARC in January 2016. Apple's App Store still uses its own generic age rating system and does not use the ESRB or IARC systems.

## Rating process

While the ESRB formally operates within the ESA, they operate independently of the trade group to assess and apply industry-wide standards for video games. The ESRB operates out of offices in New York City.

To obtain a rating for a game, a publisher submits a detailed questionnaire (a "Long Form") that describes the graphic and extreme content found in the game to the ESRB, along with a video (VHS, DVD, video file, or other means) that demonstrates this content which can include gameplay footage and in-game cutscenes. This information includes the game's context, storyline, gameplay mechanics, reward system, unlockable and otherwise "hidden" content, and other elements that may affect its rating; the ESRB seeks to have enough information on context of the extreme content to be able to judge its appropriateness. The video game publisher may also provide printed copies of the game's script and lyrics from songs in the game. The publisher also pays an upfront fee for obtaining the ESRB rating.

After the information is reviewed for completeness and appropriateness by ESRB staff, the material is sent to at least three different raters, who are treated anonymously and prevented from talking directly with the publishers through the ESRB offices. Raters represent various demographics, including parents, along with casual and "hardcore" gamers. Raters were formerly hired on a part-time basis, but in 2007, ESRB transitioned to a team of seven full-time raters, who all live in the New York City area. The raters discuss what the most appropriate and "helpful" rating for the game would be, based on the footage and details provided. Most ESRB reviews at this stage take on the order of 45 minutes, though some cases based on material provided by publisher or by the type of game have taken up to four hours over multiple days to complete. One rater is designated as the lead for each game reviewed. The lead rater writes up the report and conclusions of the process, and works with other ESRB staff members to do a parity analysis to make sure the assigned ratings align with ratings from similar games in the past. Overall, between the raters' discussion and final reporting, the process takes about a week to complete.

At times during the internal review, the raters may find inconsistencies between the details on the Long Form and in the video footage. Should these occur, the ESRB contacts the publisher to ask for clarification of these matters, typically which are then resolved quickly. In some cases, the omission of certain material on the Long Form or in the footage may be significant. For any publisher, the ESRB gives them a number of warnings of such omissions which help the publisher to better prepare future submissions, but should a publisher make such omissions multiple times, the ESRB will fine them for subsequent infractions.

The publisher receives this final report of what rating the game will carry. According to the ESRB, most publishers have a good expectation of what they will be assigned and do not challenge what they are given. However, if a publisher does not agree with the rating that they were assigned, they may ask questions about why a rating was given and work back and forth with the ESRB to adjust it. Alternatively, the publisher may edit the game and submit the revised version for a new rating, which restarts the process. In such cases, the ESRB does not inform the publisher of what content must be changed or removed to change the rating, but only which content triggered certain rating elements, leaving the choice to the publisher to resolve. For example, an initial cut of The Punisher was given an AO rating due to the extremely violent nature of certain scenes contained within the game. To lessen their impact, the developer changed these scenes to be rendered in black and white: the revised cut of the game was re-submitted, and received the M rating. There is also an appeals process, but it has never been used.

When the game is ready for release, the publisher sends copies of the final version of the game to the ESRB, who reviews the game's packaging, and a random number of games they receive are play tested for a more thorough review, typically for up to four hours. Penalties apply to publishers who misrepresent the content of their games, including the potential for fines up to US \$1 million and a product recall to reprint proper labels, if deemed necessary. With newer games often having large content patches at release as well as downloadable content, season passes, and other games as a service updates, the ESRB will flag these games in their system and periodically check on the new content to make sure it remains within the established rating.

The ESRB typically posts rating information for new titles on its website 30 days after the rating process is complete; in 2008, in response to incidents where this practice inadvertently leaked information about games that had not yet been announced, the ESRB began to allow publishers to place embargoes on the release of ratings information until a game is officially announced.

### Associated media review

Besides evaluating games, the ESRB also oversees the marketing and advertising materials released for games that have undergone the ESRB rating process or in progress. This includes making sure that such material includes the given ESRB rating, and that the marketing has been tailored appropriately to its target audience, particularly for television spots. The ESRB provides guidance for what type of content is reasonable for certain types of games, what type of content may be inappropriately gratuitous, and the presentation of the ESRB rating within the work. The ESRB will go back and forth with publishers when there is objectionable elements within the marketing to correct these issues.

### Shortened processes

In April 2011, the ESRB introduced its Short Form, a free streamlined, automated process for assigning ratings for console downloadable games as a way to address the rapidly growing volume of digitally-delivered games. Rather than having raters review each product (the Long Form), publishers of these games complete a series of multiple-choice questions that address content across relevant categories, including violence, sexual content, language, etc. The responses automatically determine the game's rating category and content descriptors. Games rated via this process may be tested post-release to ensure that content was properly disclosed. The survey-based method is also used in the ESRB/CTIA and IARC rating programs for mobile apps. The ESRB phased out the Short Form for digital-only games, instead directing those developers and publishers to use the similar free questionnaire-driven IARC program, which was being adopted beyond mobile app stores, including the Nintendo eShop and PlayStation Store, as a requirement for posting, and which automatically are accepted by several national-level rating boards, including the ESRB.

In response to concerns from Sony on the growing number of indie game titles that were receiving physical releases alongside retail ones, the ESRB began instituting new rules around August 2017 that any retail product was mandated to undergo the standard Long Form review for the game, disallowing the use of the Short Form for such titles. Alongside this, ESRB introduced a "value tier" for the Long Form review process for games developed at lower budgets (under \$1 million), with a cost of \$3000 for obtaining the retail rating. This decision has impacted the choice of several boutique indie game publishers, who have either cancelled plans for retail versions or had to stop selling retail versions to comply with the new ESRB rules.

## Ratings

ESRB ratings are primarily identified through icons, which are displayed on the packaging and promotional materials for a game. Each icon contains a stylized alphabetical letter representing the rating. A full label, containing both "content descriptors" and rating, are typically displayed on the back of a game's packaging.

Games that provide post-release downloadable content must ensure that the new content remains consistent with the original ESRB rating; otherwise the ESRB requires that the original game be re-evaluated and remarked with the more appropriate rating in considering this new content.

The appearance of the ratings icons themselves have been updated several times; originally carrying a stylized, pixelated look, they were first updated in late 1999 to carry a cleaner appearance. In August 2013, the rating icons were streamlined again; the textual name of the rating became black text on white, the "content rated by" tagline was removed, and registered trademark symbols were moved to the bottom-right corner. The changes were intended to increase the icons' clarity at smaller sizes (such as on mobile devices), reflecting the growth in the digital distribution of video games.

### Retired ratings

### Content descriptors

In addition to the main age-based, ratings, ESRB ratings also incorporate one or more of 30 "content descriptors", which provide detailed information about the specific types and levels of objectionable content contained in a game, including categories covering different levels of violence, language, sexual content, nudity, use of alcoholic beverages, tobacco products and drugs, crude and mature humor, or gambling.

### Interactive elements

An ESRB ratings label may also include a third section related to "Interactive Elements", which disclaims if a game offers online communications, collects personal data, or offers digital goods or other premiums (including downloadable content and microtransactions) that require payment of real money to obtain.

## Enforcement

The ESRB rating system is primarily enforced on a self-regulatory basis by the video game and retail industries; in markets where it is used, retailers typically enforce the "Mature" rating using photo identification, and refuse to stock video games that have not been rated by the organization, or are rated "Adults Only". Modern video game consoles include parental controls that can be configured to restrict games played by specific users, using factors such as their ESRB rating. The ESRB has also taken action against video game distributors who use the ratings icons in advertising without authorization or having actually been issued the rating by the board.

Steam, the largest digital distribution storefront for personal computers, does display ratings when available, and allows games to be categorized and filtered based on categories and the extent of potentially objectionable content, but an ESRB rating is not mandatory. As of June 2018, following complaints regarding inconsistent enforcement of its previous guidelines, Steam stated that it would only ban the sale of games that contain blatantly illegal content, or games that it classifies as being "straight up trolling". However, in March 2019, it was revealed that there are still undisclosed limitations to this policy based on "costs and risks" associated with Steam's ability to distribute specific games.

In the United States, there have been attempts at the state and federal level to introduce laws requiring retailers to enforce the ESRB ratings system. In 2004, California Assemblyman Leland Yee sponsored a state bill requiring retailers to stock M-rated games on separate shelves that are at least 5 feet (60 in) from the ground. The bill was passed, after it was modified to only require that retailers promote awareness of the ESRB ratings system to their customers.

The following year, California passed AB 1179, a second bill sponsored by Yee, which banned the sale of "violent video games" to minors. The term was defined using a variation of the Miller test (originally created to judge whether a work is obscene), separate from any rating the game may have received. In a landmark ruling, the law was struck down by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which ruled that AB 1179 was unconstitutional because video games are a protected form of expression.

In Canada, ESRB ratings are enforced under provincial laws by film ratings boards in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan. As in the U.S., most retailers voluntarily enforce the ratings regardless. Prior to the implementation of the Film Classification Act, 2005, which gave it the power to enforce ESRB ratings, the Ontario Film Review Board had used its own powers to classify the M-rated Manhunt as a film and give it a "Restricted" rating to ban its sale to those under 18. By contrast, the British Columbia Film Classification Office considered the ESRB rating to be appropriate.

## Marketing

The ESRB enforces guidelines that have been adopted by the video game industry in order to ensure responsible advertising and marketing practices. These include ensuring that game packaging, advertisements, and trailers properly display rating information, restricting where advertising materials for games rated "Teen" or higher can appear, forbidding publishers from "glamoriz[ing] or exploiting" a game's rating in advertising, and requiring online marketing of games rated "Mature" or higher to be restricted to users who are appropriately aged. This allows the ESRB to restrict video game advertising "to consumers for whom the product is not rated as appropriate." The board also forbids ratings from other organizations from being shown alongside ESRB ratings on publishers' websites or social media outlets. A group of online gaming publications known as the ESRB Website Council operates under a similar code of conduct, which requires them to display ESRB ratings information for games that they cover, and implement systems to restrict access to audiovisual content depicting M or AO-rated games to users who are appropriately aged.

In March 2013, the ESRB eased certain restrictions on the promotion of M-rated games. Firstly, trailers for games that are or are anticipated to be rated "Mature" can be cleared by the ESRB as being appropriate for "general" audiences—similarly to the "green band" ratings issued by the MPAA for film trailers. Secondly, the board began to allow, on a case-by-case basis depending on the target demographic of the game, M-rated games to be cross-promoted in the marketing materials of games with lower ratings.

## Online privacy

In addition to its video game ratings operation, the ESRB also offers an online privacy program which helps websites adopt privacy policies and data usage practices which comply with relevant laws and best practices for the collection and use of personal information, and provides "Privacy Certified" seals indicating certification under the ESRB's privacy guidelines. In June 2013, the service was extended to mobile apps, with a particular emphasis on helping application developers comply with the then-upcoming changes to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act.

## Reception

The ESRB has considered its system to be effective, due in part to initiatives by the Board to promote enforcement and consumer awareness of the system, and efforts by retailers to prevent the sale of M-rated games to minors.

In the year following its 1994 launch, the ESRB rating system had achieved widespread usage across the console game industry, although adoption was not yet as high within the PC gaming industry. Lieberman and Kohl also reported that some retailers were reluctant to the idea of removing older, non-rated games from their shelves, and that some retail employees lacked knowledge of the new system. By 2008, the Federal Trade Commission reported 20% of underaged mystery shoppers were able to successfully purchase an M-rated video game from a selection of retailers—a 22 percent reduction from 2007. By 2011, these numbers had dropped further to 13%. In its 2009 Report to Congress, the FTC recognized the ESRB for having "the strongest self-regulatory code" of all entertainment sectors because of its enforcement of advertising and marketing guidelines.

### Ratings accuracy

The ESRB has often been accused of not rating certain games, such as Manhunt and the Grand Theft Auto series, harshly enough for violence and other related themes, and for lacking transparency in certain aspects of the ratings process. Critics have argued that some games only received the M rating rather than the stricter AO rating because of the commercial effects of such a rating; console manufacturers and most retailers refuse to distribute AO-rated games, dramatically affecting their commercial availability. An ESRB representative stated that the Board uses the AO rating when warranted, even due to violence, and that in most occasions, publishers would edit the game to meet the M rating to ensure wide commercial availability instead of keeping the AO rating. The film classification boards of the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario respectively classified the M-rated games Soldier of Fortune and Manhunt as films due to concerns over the nature of their content, and gave them "Restricted" ratings, legally restricting their sale to adults.

There has been a correlation between the M rating and sales; a 2007 study by Electronic Entertainment Design and Research found that M-rated games "have both the highest average Metacritic scores and the highest average gross sales in the United States", and NPD Group found that 7 of the top 20 video games of 2010 (including the \#1 game, Call of Duty: Black Ops) were M-rated, even though only 5% of games released that year carried the rating.

In 2005, the National Institute on Media and the Family criticized the ESRB for seldom-using the Adults Only rating, arguing that because it has a vested interest in the video game industry, it did not want to perform actions that would affect their commercial availability. The organization stated that "study after study shows that ratings would be stricter if parents were doing the job. It took explicit porn to get Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas an AO rating, even though the original version, still rated M, rewards players whose on-screen persona had sex with prostitutes and then killed them. We have been calling for AO ratings for the Grand Theft Auto series for years—now it is clear why the ESRB has ignored our request." The ESRB disputed these claims, arguing that the organization "relies on flawed research and ignores any and all conflicting evidence", was "imposing its own narrow values and morality on the rest of the country, regardless that it has little evidence to show that parents agree with their point of view", and did not reply to the ESRB's request for comments following its report card in 2004. The board also pointed out that the NIMF's study and "report card" used data from PSVRatings, a for-profit competitor to the ESRB.

On the other hand, some have felt that the "Mature" rating is too broad; video game journalist Ben Kuchera noted that Halo 3—a sci-fi first-person shooter whose level of violence was, in his opinion, comparable to a Star Wars film, had received an M rating for "Blood and Gore," "Mild Language" and "Violence". He argued that "having a game like Halo 3 share the same rating as Saints Row IV, which carries the 'Blood,' Intense Violence,' 'Partial Nudity,' 'Sexual Content,' 'Strong Language' and 'Use of Drugs' descriptors was always silly, and it weakened the thrust of the ratings system." Likewise, he felt that the tone and content of the PG-13 rated film The Dark Knight was relatively harsher to children than that of the Saints Row series due to the latter's light-hearted tone, but still noted that "as parents we know what's right and what isn't for our kids, and being aware of the content they consume is a large part of our job as parents." Halo 5: Guardians received a "Teen" rating instead of "Mature". Microsoft Xbox division executive Aaron Greenberg argued that consumers had been "surprised" by the M rating on previous installments "given the style of the game and the lack of real graphic violence and things like that", but that the "Teen" rating would theoretically enable the game to reach a broader audience of younger players.

### Adults Only rating

The "Adults Only" (AO) rating has attracted a negative stigma among the video game industry—one which has been criticized for stifling the ability for developers to have creative freedom in their portrayal of certain themes in a game, at the risk of being commercially unviable due to publishers' objections to AO-rated content. AO-rated games cannot be published for major video game console platforms, and most retailers do not stock AO-rated games. ESRB President Patricia Vance argued that applying self-censorship to ensure marketability was a compromise that is "true in every entertainment medium", but still believed that the idea of the AO rating eventually becoming acceptable would be a good thing for the ESRB system. The stigma is primarily affected by a perception by the industry and other activists that video games are generally considered children's products; for example, the availability of a Wii version of Manhunt 2 was condemned by Senator Hillary Clinton over fears that children could use the game's motion controls to act out the game's "many graphic torture scenes and murders".

Attitudes towards AO-rated games have also been influenced by the types of games that have received the rating; Peter Payne, head of Peach Princess, a publisher of English translations of Japanese eroge visual novels, believed that the "Adults Only" rating had acquired a "smutty" and "tasteless" reputation since the majority of AO-rated titles were either niche pornographic titles such as eroge games, or immature titles such as Riana Rouge (which Polygon described as a game which had the quality of an adult movie, and "[aimed] to do nothing more than tell low-brow jokes and show nude women prancing around") and Lula 3D (whose packaging advertised the inclusion of "Bouncin' Boobs Technology").

By contrast, the ESRB has only officially issued the AO rating for extreme violence three times: Thrill Kill, a fighting game with heavy sexual overtones, received an AO rating with content descriptors for "Animated Violence" and "Animated Blood and Gore". Due to objections over the game's content, Thrill Kill was canceled by Electronic Arts after it acquired the North American operations of the game's publisher, Virgin Interactive. Manhunt 2 also received an AO rating for its extreme violence; while the uncut version would be released exclusively for PCs, the console versions were edited to meet the M rating criteria. In January 2015, Hatred, a controversial game whose plot centers around a character indiscriminately murdering everyone he encounters, received the rating for its extreme violence and harsh language; one of the game's developers disputed the rating, arguing that "its violence isn't really that bad and this harsh language isn't overused", but also acknowledged the rarity of their situation.

### Hidden content

In 2005, members of the mod community discovered that the PC version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas could be modified to unlock an incomplete sex minigame known as "Hot Coffee", which Rockstar North had decided to leave out of the final game. The discovery of the minigame caused California State Assemblyman Leland Yee to rebuke both Rockstar and the ESRB, arguing that the ESRB was not doing its job properly. US Senators Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman also expressed their disapproval. Rockstar initially claimed that the minigame was created by the mod community and was not a part of the original game. This was disproven when it was discovered that a third-party cheat device could be used to unlock the "Hot Coffee" scenes in console versions of the game. Following an investigation, the ESRB changed its rating from M to AO, setting a precedent that games can be re-rated due to the presence of pertinent content that exists on the game's disc, even if that content is programmed to not be playable without modification or unauthorized use of a third-party cheat device. Following the release of a version excluding the content, the rating was reverted to M.

In May 2006, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion had its rating changed from T to M due to "more detailed depictions of blood and gore than were considered in the original rating", along with a third-party mod for the PC version allowing the use of topless female characters. The game's publisher, Bethesda Softworks, decided not to re-edit the game or contest the new rating, but noted that Oblivion's content was "not typical" of games with the M rating, and that the game "does not present the central themes of violence that are common to those products."

In the wake of these two incidents, the ESRB changed its policies in June 2006 to account for hidden content; publishers must disclose information surrounding all unlockable or otherwise "hidden" content in the game as part of the ratings process, and publishers can be fined up to US\$1 million if they are found to have misrepresented the content of their game after further reviews. In response to the aftermath of Hot Coffee and the resulting policy changes, ESRB President Patricia Vance stated that in her opinion, "there is no other industry self-regulatory system willing or capable of imposing such swift and sweeping sanctions on its own members, which in this particular case resulted in the removal of a top-selling product from the market and a major loss of sales." However, several U.S. politicians, including Senator Sam Brownback, California State Senator Leland Yee, and Michigan Congressman Fred Upton (who was a major critic against Rockstar during the controversy), still felt that the ESRB had "lost" its trust of consumers, believing that video game developers were taking advantage of the board's conflict of interest with the industry to incorporate objectionable content into their products without the ESRB's full knowledge.

In late 2006, both Upton and Brownback tabled bills to place governmental oversight on aspects of the ESRB rating process, and make it illegal for publishers to misrepresent the playable content of a video game to a ratings board; Upton proposed a bill known as the Video Game Decency Act, explaining that developers had "done an end-run around the process to deliver violent and pornographic material to our kids", and that the bill would "[go] hand in hand with the mission of the industry’s own ratings system." Brownback proposed a bill known as the Truth in Video Game Rating Act, which would have also forced the ESRB to have full, hands-on access to games instead of just video footage, and have initiated a government study on the "effectiveness" of the organization and the possibility of forming a ratings organization independent from the video game industry.

### Microtransactions

In October 2017, in response to growing criticism of the loot box model for video game microtransactions (which grant chances at earning randomized items of various rarities, typically cosmetic in nature, in exchange for payment), the ESRB stated their opinion that they were not a form of gambling. They described them as a voluntary and optional aspect of a video game, and comparable to booster packs for collectible card games because their purchase guarantees that a user will receive items, but not necessarily high-value items all the time. The ESRB added that games that contain actual wagering of real money would hold the Adults Only rating.

On February 14, 2018, U.S. senator Maggie Hassan asked the ESRB to examine if games with loot box microtransactions were being marketed in an "ethical and transparent way" that "adequately protects the developing minds of young children from predatory practices." The ESRB subsequently announced on February 27, 2018, that it would introduce a new label for any games that contain "the ability to purchase digital goods or premiums with real world currency". The announcement was criticized for being overreaching and ambiguous, as it applies to not only microtransactions, but any purchases of digital goods in relation to a game (which includes downloadable content), and would thus apply to almost all modern video games. Patrica Vance stated that the ESRB avoided references to specific types of microtransactions, so that the advisory label could be understood by parents unaware of specific details. Vance added that the ESRB was "unable to find any evidence that children specifically have been [psychologically] impacted by loot boxes" or that they caused children to develop "some sort of tendency towards gambling." The new label "in-game purchases" was added to ESRB's standards by April 2018.

On April 13, 2020, the ESRB announced on their official blog that they are introducing a new interactive elements: "in-game purchases (includes random items)". This notice will specifically apply to "all games that include purchases with any randomized elements", which includes, but is not limited to, loot boxes, gacha games, item or card packs, prize wheels, and treasure chests. The original label will still apply for "other type purchases", such as additional levels, cosmetics, DLC, expansions, and other downloadable contents.

## Usage

The ESRB is officially recognized, implemented and used in the three major countries of North America: Canada, Mexico and the United States.

## See also

- Censorship in Canada
- Censorship in Mexico
- Censorship in the United States
- Video game controversies
- Video game rating system

North American self-regulatory organization

1994 establishments in the United States


Oregon State Capitol

The Oregon State Capitol is the building housing the state legislature and the offices of the governor, secretary of state, and treasurer of the U.S. state of Oregon. It is located in the state capital, Salem. Constructed from 1936 to 1938 and expanded in 1977, the current building is the third to house the Oregon state government in Salem. The first two capitols in Salem were destroyed by fire, one in 1855 and the other in 1935.

New York architects Trowbridge & Livingston conceived the current structure's Art Deco stripped classical design in association with Francis Keally. Much of the interior and exterior is made of marble. The Oregon State Capitol was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on June 29, 1988.

The federal government's Public Works Administration partially financed construction which was completed during the Great Depression in 1938. The building was erected at a cost of \$2.5 million for the central portion of the building, which includes a dome of 166 feet (51 m). The wings, which doubled the floor space of the building to about 233,750 square feet (21,716 m2), were added later for \$12.5 million. The grounds outside the capitol building contain artwork, fountains, and flora, including the state tree (Douglas fir) and state flower (Oregon grape).

## History

Before the creation of the Oregon Territory in 1848, the Oregon Country provisional government, through legislation on June 27, 1844, and December 19, 1845, selected Oregon City as Oregon's first capital. J. Quinn Thornton described an early capitol building as 20 by 40 feet with a platform at one end for the president. One of the private buildings this government used was constructed by John L. Morrison in 1850; it served as a capitol until the government moved to Salem. Governor Joseph Lane affirmed Oregon City's status as capital by proclamation. In 1850, the legislature passed an act designating Salem the capital. However, Governor John P. Gaines refused to relocate, on the basis that the same act located the university in Corvallis and the penitentiary in Portland; he declared the act unconstitutional, on the grounds that the authority to locate those institutions was his, and the Territorial Supreme Court concurred; the governor and most of the Supreme Court remained in Oregon City. Justice Orville C. Pratt, who had dissented, relocated to Salem; on May 14, 1852 an act of the United States Congress settled the matter in Salem's favor.

On January 13, 1855, the Oregon Territorial Legislature passed a bill moving the seat of government from Salem to Corvallis. Governor George Law Curry and many others objected to the move, since public buildings in Salem were already under construction. Curry sent the matter to the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington, D.C., where Secretary James Guthrie declared the move invalid unless acted on by the United States Congress. Thereafter, Curry and Oregon Secretary of State Benjamin Harding moved back to Salem.

On December 3, 1855, the legislature convened in Corvallis and quickly introduced legislation to move the capital back to Salem. This bill passed on December 15, 1855. Three days later, the legislature re-convened in Salem. However, the statehouse burned down on the 29th, and the legislature re-opened debate about where to seat the capital. They decided to ask the people of the territory to vote on the question. A vote was to be held in June 1856, after which the two cities receiving the most votes would have a runoff. The initial vote set up a runoff between Eugene and Corvallis, but after some ballots were invalidated due to not being cast in accordance with the law, the two winners were Eugene and Salem. An October runoff gave Eugene the most votes, but the earlier vote-tossing led to a low turnout. With such low public participation, the election was ignored, and the capital remained in Salem.

A permanent resolution of the capital location issue came in 1864. In 1860, the legislature put the question once again to a popular vote. On a vote in 1862, no city received the 50 percent minimum required by law. In an 1864 election, Salem received 79 percent and was declared the state capital. The Oregon Constitution lists the seat of state government in Article XIV as Marion County, of which Salem is the seat.

### First capitol (1855)

The land developed for the permanent capitol buildings was Salem block 84, sold to the state for this purpose by pioneer and Salem founder W. H. Willson. Construction of the first capitol building began in 1854, shortly after Congress confirmed Salem as the capital city. However, with the capital moving to Corvallis the next year, construction was temporarily halted. After the capital's return to Salem, the building was nearly completed by late 1855. This territorial capitol, of Greek Revival-style, stood 50 feet (15 m) wide and 75 feet (23 m) long (15 by 23 m), with a stone facade and a 10-foot (3 m) portico. Built of native ashlar blocks, the exterior walls, two stories high, ranged in color from a deep sky blue to white. The first floor was 19 feet (5.8 m) tall and the second 15 feet (4.6 m) tall with an eight-foot (2.4 m) entablature. The building was decorated with four Ionic columns on the front (west) end. The building housed a variety of rooms, including a federal courthouse with a chamber measuring 20 by 27 feet (6 by 8 m) and an executive office of 18 by 20 ft (5.5 by 6 m) on the first floor. Also on the first floor was the House chamber, measuring 36 by 46 feet (11 by 14 m) and having three entrances. The first floor also held the main hall, which included an entrance 15 feet (5 m) wide. On the second floor was the Senate chamber, 26 by 36 feet (8 by 11 m). Additionally, the Territorial Library was housed in a room that was 20 by 36 feet (6 by 11 m). The second story also had a gallery viewing area for the House, three committee rooms, and several rooms for government clerks. The capitol was designed by Captain Charles Bennet, who participated in the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in 1848, and construction supervised by William H. Richter at a total cost of \$25,000.

#### Fire

On the evening of December 29, 1855, a fire destroyed the first capitol building and many of the territory's public records. Starting in the unfinished northeast corner of the structure, still unoccupied by the government, the fire was not discovered until around 12:30 am. Arson was suspected, but no one was arrested.

The site of the burned-out capitol building remained a pile of stones for several years after the fire. A downtown building, Nesmith's Building (later named the Holman Building), served as a temporary capitol from 1859 until 1876. The legislature met on the second and third floors of that building, which also housed the other state offices.

### Second capitol (1876–1935)

Plans for a new building began to take shape in 1872 when the state legislature appropriated \$100,000 (\$  as of 2023) towards a new capitol building. This second capitol, built between 1873 and 1876, was a two-story structure with an additional first level that was partly underground; the total cost was \$325,000 (\$  as of 2023). The cornerstone for the building was laid on October 5, 1873, during a ceremony that included a speech by Governor Stephen F. Chadwick and the music of several bands. Construction, on the same site as the 1855 building, was partly accomplished with convict labor from the Oregon State Penitentiary. Architects Justus F. Krumbein and W.G. Gilbert designed the building.

Built of stone and five million bricks, Oregon's new capitol measured 275 by 136 feet (84 by 41 m) with a dome of 180 feet (55 m). The ground story was of native Oregon sandstone from the Umpqua region. The structure had a square rotunda on the interior that was 54 feet (16 m) tall. Also inside was a Senate chamber measuring 75 by 45 feet (23 by 14 m) and a House chamber of 85 by 75 feet (26 by 23 m). On the top floor was the Oregon Supreme Court with a courtroom measuring 54 by 45 feet (16 by 14 m) and the Oregon State Law Library, 75 by 70 feet (23 by 21 m). Also on the top floor was a viewing gallery for the House. On the exterior were ornamental pilasters and two-story porticos on the east and west ends. The building included a lunch counter. Additionally, the building had mullion-windowed wings. The large copper-clad dome was constructed with an iron and steel framework. This dome rose 54 feet (16 m) above the rest of the building and was 100 feet (30 m) tall. The building was of Renaissance style with Corinthian columns on the front entrance and was patterned after the United States Capitol. At that time, the capitol faced west toward the Willamette River. The government began using the building in August 1876, before the dome was built. Originally, plans called for towers on both sides of the dome (a tower on both ends of the building with the dome in the middle), but they were left out to save money. Oregon's second capitol building stood from 1876 to 1935.

#### 1935 Fire

On April 25, 1935, at 6:43 pm, a custodial engineer called the Salem Fire Department to report smoke. Citizens helped to remove items from the smoky building, but when firefighters arrived, they ordered everyone to leave the structure, which was soon engulfed in flame. Among the helping citizens was twelve-year-old Mark Hatfield, who later became governor of Oregon. The fire was determined to have started in the basement of the east wing and quickly spread to piles of old records stored there. A strong updraft in the hollow columns enclosing the dome's eight supporting steel lattice girders rapidly pulled the flames through the rotunda to the upper stories. The heat was so intense it destroyed even the copper dome and brightly lit the night sky.

The flames could be seen as far away as Corvallis, 40 miles to the southwest. One volunteer firefighter, Floyd McMullen, a student at Willamette University, was killed by the fire, which drew firefighters from as far away as Portland. Salem sent seven fire trucks to the scene; three more came from Portland. Only the outer walls were left standing after the fire was extinguished. Losses were estimated at \$1.5 million (\$  as of 2023), and the state did not carry insurance. The losses, which included historic artifacts such as the portraits of the previous governors, could have been worse had the state not used fire-proof vaults in the basement to store valuables such as more than \$1 million (\$  as of 2023) in stocks and bonds. During the blaze, firefighters poured water on these vaults to help keep them cool and prevent the contents from disintegrating. Years earlier, the state had turned over many historical documents to the Oregon Historical Society in Portland for preservation, and those records were preserved. Although the Supreme Court had moved to the Oregon Supreme Court Building in 1914, the two buildings were connected by tunnels used for electricity and heating. At the time of the fire, the Oregon State Library was in the basement and first floor of the Supreme Court Building. Many books and documents in the basement suffered water damage when water used to fight the fire flooded tunnels and seeped into the Supreme Court Building. Offices previously housed in the capitol were moved temporarily to other government buildings and to leased space in downtown Salem until a new building was built.

### Third capitol (1938–present)

Construction of the newest building began on December 4, 1936. The third state capitol was completed June 18, 1938 and is the fourth-newest capitol in the United States. The capitol was dedicated on October 1, 1938, with speeches from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Leslie M. Scott, Robert W. Sawyer, and Oregon Governor Charles Henry Martin. Chosen from 123 entries in a countrywide competition, the design of the new building deviated from the normal design of state capitol buildings. The design was labeled a combination of Egyptian simplicity and Greek refinement. Overall it is Art Deco in style, and is one of only three state capitols in the United States constructed in that architectural style.

Controversy occurred before construction began when Governor Martin suggested the new building be sited on a hill south of downtown (Candalaria Heights) and away from the busy center of town. Another proposal called for the purchase of the Willamette University campus and relocation of the capitol to that site. However, downtown merchants were able to keep the capitol building in downtown at the original location, though some Victorian homes were subsequently leveled to make way for the building. Another early complaint about the structure was that the cupola resembled a "paint can" rather than traditional domes on other capitols, including the earlier Oregon structures. It was even called a "squirrel cage", lacking in majesty. Additionally, the public was slow to admire the gold Oregon Pioneer atop the dome. Installation of the statue began on September 17, 1938, and took several days and heavy-duty equipment.

The building cost \$2.5 million (\$  as of 2023), of which the federal government paid 45 percent through the Public Works Administration. Upon completion, the new capitol was 164 feet (50 m) wide, 400 feet (120 m) long, and 166 feet (51 m) tall (50 by 122 by 51 m) and contained 131,750 square feet (12,240 m2) of usable space. The exterior was finished with Vermont marble. The lobby, rotunda, and halls were lined with a polished rose travertine stone quarried in Montana. The rotunda's staircases and floor used Phenix Napoleon Grey Marble quarried in Phenix, Missouri, and had borders of Radio Black marble that, like the exterior stone, is from Vermont. There are 158 names of notable Oregonians inscribed on the walls of the legislative chambers; of these, only six are women. The original cost estimate for the building was \$3.5 million (\$  as of 2023), but the state legislature only appropriated \$2.5 million; committee rooms were subsequently removed from the plans. These rooms were added in 1977 as part of a \$12.5 million (\$  as of 2023) expansion project to add new wings containing legislative offices, hearing rooms, support services, a first floor galleria, and underground parking. This addition doubled the space of the capitol building. In 2002, the wings were remodeled at a cost of \$1.3 million (\$  as of 2023) to upgrade items such as antiquated wiring and to install new carpeting and lighting.

On March 25, 1993, the magnitude 5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake damaged the dome, requiring closure for repairs. The rotunda area remained closed for approximately two years for these repairs. This "Spring Break Quake" shook the building enough to shift the statue on top and crack the dome. Additionally, the quake created a three-foot (one-meter) bulge on the west end of the building. Repairs cost \$4.3 million (\$  as of 2023) and included reinforcing the structure with additional concrete and steel bars.

In April 2002, the building became the first state capitol in the United States to produce solar power through the use of 60 photovoltaic panels generating 7.8 kilowatts. One-third of the power is used to light the Oregon Pioneer at night; the remaining electricity is sent into the power grid.

On December 31, 2007, the Oregon State Capitol hosted its first authorized wedding between Oregon State Representative Tobias Read and Heidi Eggert. At Read's encouragement, the Legislature created a policy authorizing up to four public events a year. On August 30, 2008, the building caught fire around 12:30 in the morning and was quickly extinguished with damage to the Governor's offices on the second floor on the south side. The governor was forced to relocate some of his offices, including some time at the Oregon State Library across the street.

During a special session in December 2020, armed protesters demonstrated at the capitol against health restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic in Oregon. In January 2021, a security video was released showing Representative Mike Nearman allowing protesters to enter the Capitol Building. As a result of his action, Nearman pleaded guilty to one count of official misconduct in the first degree and the Oregon House of Representatives voted 59–1 to expel him on the grounds of "disorderly behavior."

## Exterior and interior

The Oregon State Capitol is home to both branches of the state legislature, the House and Senate, and has offices for the governor, treasurer, and the secretary of state. In its center, the floor of the prominent rotunda features an embedded Oregon State Seal sculpted in bronze by Ulric Ellerhusen. Ellerhusen also sculpted the Oregon Pioneer that rests atop the capitol dome's exterior. The dome rises 106 feet (32 m) above the state seal. The interior of the dome was painted by Frank H. Schwarz and features 33 stars, symbolizing Oregon's place as the 33rd state to join the Union. Eight medallions are painted near the top of the walls of the rotunda that represent the eight objects in the state seal. An inscription on the rotunda south wall, facing the entrance from the north, reads:

> In the souls of its citizens will be found the likeness of the state which if they be unjust and tyrannical then will it reflect their vices, but if they be lovers of righteousness confident in their liberties so will it be clean in justice bold in freedom.

Also encircling the interior of the rotunda are four murals depicting moments from Oregon history. One mural depicts Captain Robert Gray's exploration of the Columbia River in 1792, another shows the Lewis and Clark Expedition, and two others portray covered wagons from pioneer times. These four murals were painted by Schwarz and Barry Faulkner. Other murals include the Provisional Government of Oregon's salmon and wheat seal, the Oregon Territory's seal, and depictions of Oregon's industries, all located in the rotunda's wings along the grand staircase. The capitol's galleria area on the first floor includes hearing rooms, display cases, and the visitor information area.

Oregon's House chamber floor is covered with a custom carpet; the carpet's pattern incorporates a depiction of the state tree, the Douglas-fir, representative of forestry. The furniture and paneling of the chamber is made of golden oak. A large mural painted by Faulkner, depicting the 1843 Champoeg Meetings at which the provisional government was formed, is behind the desk of the Speaker of the House. The Senate chambers use black walnut for the paneling and furniture. Another custom carpet lines the floor, featuring Chinook salmon and wheat, representative of fishing and agriculture. The Senate's large mural was painted by Schwarz and depicts a street scene showing news of statehood reaching Salem. Lining the walls of both chambers are 158 names, inscribed in friezes, of prominent people in Oregon's history. On the second floor of the capitol is the Governor's suite, consisting of a ceremonial office and private offices for the state's chief executive. As in the Senate chamber, the paneling is of black walnut. The ceremonial office includes a fireplace with a painting by Faulkner. In the suite's reception area is a table made of 40 tree species. This table is inlaid with a replica of Oregon's second capitol building, the state flower (Oregon-grape), and the state bird (western meadowlark).

A variety of artwork is displayed on the exterior of the building. Sculptor Leo Friedlander used Vermont marble for the large relief sculptures on both sides of the main entrance. One sculpture depicts Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and Sacagawea, with a map of their expedition's route on the reverse (Lewis and Clark); the other (Covered Wagon) shows pioneers and a covered wagon, with a map of the Oregon Trail on the reverse. Additionally, Ellerhusen created five marble relief sculptures on the exterior, and a metal sculpture by Tom Morandi sits above the south entrance. Ellerhusen also cast six bronze sculptures arranged above the building's main entrance, three on the inside and three on the outside.

The building measures 693 by 259.5 ft (211.2 by 79.1 m). The older main portion of the building is 53.5 feet (16.3 m) tall, while the newer wings added in 1977 are 68.7 feet (20.9 m) tall. Inside, the building has approximately 233,750 square feet (21,716 m2) of floor area and 3.2 million cubic feet (90,600 cubic meters) of volume.

In 1997, the Legislative Assembly established the non-profit Oregon State Capitol Foundation in order to "create a living history, enhance the dignity and beauty of the Capitol, and foster cultural and educational opportunities." In 2005, the foundation completed the Walk of the Flags project, a display in Willson Park on the capitol grounds of all 50 flags of the U.S. states.

In 2007, the capitol wings closed for a restoration project to upgrade items such as furniture, plumbing, and electrical systems. The \$34 million project became an issue in the 2008 Senate campaign between Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley when Smith used the price of the project in ads attacking Merkley who was the Speaker of the Oregon House when the remodel was approved. Part of the attack involved the cost of new desks for legislators and staff that were manufactured by Oregon prison inmates. Renovations were completed in November 2008.

## Grounds

The capitol grounds cover three city blocks and include Willson and Capitol parks. Near the west entrance of the capitol is a replica of Philadelphia's Liberty Bell. This bell is one of 53 full-sized replicas made in France and donated by the United States government to each state. Oregon received its copy on July 4, 1950. Throughout the grounds are native trees and shrubs, including blue spruce, Oregon-grape (the state flower), giant sequoia, coast redwood, Japanese maple, dogwood species, Bradford pear, cherry tree species, English holly, rhododendron, and magnolia tree species. One Douglas-fir tree was grown using a seed that rode aboard Apollo 14 to the Moon in 1971 and was transplanted to the capitol in 1976 from Oregon State University.

### East Capitol Park

On the east side of the building is Capitol Park, which includes a bronze equestrian statue by A. Phimister Proctor called The Circuit Rider, statues of Jason Lee (Jason Lee) and John McLoughlin (John McLoughlin) by Gifford Proctor, and portions of the Corinthian columns of the second capitol building. Lee established the Methodist Mission and what would become Willamette University. McLoughlin, of the Hudson's Bay Company, was proclaimed the Father of Oregon. The Circuit Rider was added in 1924 as a monument to early preachers. During the Columbus Day Storm in 1962, this statue was knocked over and damaged but restored in 1963. There is also a memorial to Oregon's recipients of the Medal of Honor, dedicated on September 18, 2004.

### West Willson Park

To the west of the building is Willson Park, named for Salem founder William H. Willson and sited roughly at the center of his former landholdings. From 1853 to 1965 it was a Salem city park. After the park was turned over to the state, Lloyd Bond and Associates were asked to redesign the park. Willson Park features the Oregon World War II Memorial, the Waite Fountain, a gazebo built in 1982, and Peter Helzer's sculpture, A Parade of Animals (1991), which was designed as a play structure. Waite Fountain was donated in honor of Oregon businessperson E. M. Waite in 1907 by his wife. The Breyman Fountain, added in 1904 as a memorial to Werner and Eugene Breyman, is at the far west end of the park. It was originally decorated with a statue of a soldier from the Spanish–American War and also served as a lamp post and horse trough. Today the statue holds no water and is sometimes planted with flowers. In 2005, a Walk of Flags feature was added that displays the flags of every state in the Union. In 2009, the nine flags of Oregon's federally recognized Native American tribes were added to the Walk of Flags.

Other features on the capitol grounds include Sprague Fountain and the Wall of Water. The Wall of Water is located across Court Street from the main entrance. It was added in 1990 and has 22 nozzles shooting water 12 feet (3.7 m) into the air in a plaza that also has slabs of stone with information about Oregon's history. Added in 1985, the Capitol Beaver Family sculpture represents the state animal. Additional features of the grounds include a peace pole donated by the Society of Prayer for World Peace, a large boulder that once lay along the Oregon Trail, a planter that spells out "Oregon" using shrubs, and a rose garden maintained by the Salem Rose Society.

## See also

- List of state and territorial capitols in the United States
- List of capitals in the United States for information on the other locations of the Oregon capital
- Government of Oregon

State capitol building of the U.S. state of Oregon

Buildings and structures in Salem, Oregon

Government buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Oregon

National Register of Historic Places in Salem, Oregon


Italia-class ironclad

The Italia class was a class of two ironclad battleships built for the Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy) in the 1870s and 1880s. The two ships—Italia and Lepanto—were designed by Benedetto Brin, who chose to discard traditional belt armor entirely, relying on a combination of very high speed and extensive internal subdivision to protect the ships. This, along with their armament of very large 432 mm (17 in) guns, has led some naval historians to refer to the Italia class as prototypical battlecruisers.

Despite serving for over thirty years, the ships had uneventful careers. They spent their first two decades in service with the Active and Reserve Squadrons, where they were primarily occupied with training maneuvers. Lepanto was converted into a training ship in 1902 and Italia was significantly modernized in 1905–1908 before also becoming a training ship. They briefly saw action during the Italo-Turkish War, where they provided gunfire support to Italian troops defending Tripoli. Lepanto was discarded in early 1915, though Italia continued on as a guard ship during World War I, eventually being converted into a grain transport. She was ultimately broken up for scrap in 1921.

## Design

Starting in the 1870s, following the Italian fleet's defeat at the Battle of Lissa, the Italians began a large naval expansion program, at first aimed at countering the Austro-Hungarian Navy. The Italias were the second class of the program, which also included the Duilio class, designed in the early-1870s by Insp Eng Benedetto Brin. The Italia class was ordered by Admiral Simone Antonio Saint-Bon, the Italian naval minister, who envisioned an improved version of the Duilio class that also had the ability to carry large numbers of soldiers, as the Navy had been given the responsibility of defending Italy's lengthy coastline.

Brin prepared the initial design in 1875. The need to keep the size of the ships under control, coupled with developments in armor-piercing shell technology, forced him to make significant alterations compared to the Duilio design to incorporate Saint Bon's requirements. It had come to be realized by naval designers in Italy and abroad that armor plate could no longer effectively resist the latest shell designs, so Brin reasoned that the great weight of an armor belt was unwarranted. Armor plate also tended to fragment when struck by shells, creating damage beyond that caused by the projectile itself, further militating against its use. Additionally, fitting belt armor on a ship the size of Italia would cause a prohibitive increase in displacement, and so he discarded it completely in favor of a thin armored deck, unlike foreign capital ship designs.

Brin originally planned for the ships to displace 13,850 long tons (14,070 t), to have a main battery of two 450 mm (17.7 in) guns in individual barbettes, a secondary armament of eighteen 149 mm (5.9 in) guns, and to carry 3,000 long tons (3,000 t) of coal for increased range over that of the Duilio class. Brin opted to use open barbettes over the heavy, enclosed gun turrets of the Duilios to save weight, which permitted the addition of a full upper deck. This, in turn, provided the space to carry a division of 10,000 soldiers according to Saint Bon's requirements.

As the design evolved, developments in related technologies prompted changes to Brin's design. The development of slow-burning propellants led General Rosset, an artillerist in the Italian Army, suggested that slightly smaller, 432 mm (17 in) guns could be built with longer barrels for the same weight as the 450 mm guns. The longer barrels could take advantage of the slow-burning propellant to increase muzzle velocity, giving the guns better penetrating power. After the original guns were bought by Britain during a war scare with the Russian Empire in 1878, Brin altered the design to incorporate Rosset's ideas. The single 450 mm guns were replaced with pairs of 432 mm guns. By that time, he had made other changes, including reducing the 149 mm armament to eight weapons, and the coal capacity to 1,700 long tons (1,700 t), on 15,000 long tons (15,241 t) displacement. The number of 149 mm guns was reduced because it was found that the additional guns could not have been manned when the 432 mm guns were in use.

The ships were authorized in 1875, with funding allocated to begin construction the following year, though design work continued even after they had been laid down in 1876. They were faster and more seaworthy than the preceding Duilio class, owing to their higher freeboard. They were very large and fast warships for their time, displacing over 15,000 tons at full load; Italia could make 17.8 knots (33.0 km/h), while Lepanto could achieve 18.4 knots (34.1 km/h). Other ironclads of the era could not make more than 15 knots (28 km/h). Their high speed, powerful main battery, and thin armor protection has led to some naval historians to characterize the ships as proto-battlecruisers. Designed at a time when the primary threat to capital ships was a slow-firing gun equipped with cast iron shot, the Italias had the poor luck to enter service after quick-firing guns with explosive shells had been developed, rendering their protection scheme useless.

### General characteristics

The ships of the Italia class were 122 meters (400 ft) long between perpendiculars and 124.7 m (409 ft) long overall. Italia had a beam of 22.54 m (74 ft), while Lepanto was slightly narrower, at 22.34 m (73.3 ft). The ships had a draft of 8.75 m (28.7 ft) and 9.39 m (30.8 ft), respectively. Italia displaced 13,678 long tons (13,897 t) normally and up to 15,407 long tons (15,654 t) at full load, while Lepanto displaced 13,336 long tons (13,550 t) normally and 15,649 long tons (15,900 t) fully laden. The ships' great size allowed the designers to use very fine hull lines, which gave them high hydrodynamic efficiency and contributed to their speed.

Both ships' hulls had a ram bow and were constructed of steel, which offered a significant weight savings of 15 percent compared to iron hulls. Below the waterline, Italia's hull was sheathed in wood and zinc to prevent biofouling, but Lepanto was not similarly fitted. They had a double bottom that extended for 77.55 m (254.4 ft), a distance that spanned the propulsion machinery rooms and the ammunition magazines. The hulls were divided into sixty-nine watertight compartments below the armor deck and another eighty-four in the double bottom. Steering was controlled by a single rudder, which was steam operated aboard Italia and hydraulically driven aboard Lepanto.

The Italia-class vessels had a minimal superstructure. Both were fitted with a single military mast with fighting tops placed directly amidships; a small hurricane deck connected the ships' funnels and the mast. The deck was placed highly enough to allow the main battery guns to fully traverse, even with their barrels at maximum elevation. Atop the deck, a small bridge was placed. Italia had a crew of 37 officers and 719 enlisted men, while Lepanto had the same number of officers and 656 enlisted men. The ships had 25 feet (7.6 m) of freeboard. They each carried a number of small boats, including two second-class torpedo boats aboard Italia and three three picket boats aboard Lepanto.

### Propulsion machinery

Their propulsion system consisted of four compound steam engines each driving a single screw propeller, which were 20 ft 6 in (6.25 m) in diameter. The engines could be run either in compound mode for greater fuel efficiency or in direct-acting mode for higher speed. Steam was supplied by twenty-six coal-fired, oval fire-tube boilers aboard Italia, while Lepanto received eight of the oval boilers and sixteen locomotive boilers. The ships' engine rooms were placed amidships, each engine in its own watertight compartment, with three boiler rooms on either end the engines. Italia's boilers were trunked into six funnels, placed in two sets of three all on the centerline. Lepanto only had four funnels in two pairs; during Italia's refit in 1905–1908, her funnels were reduced to an identical arrangement.

The ships' propulsion system was projected to produce 18,000 indicated horsepower (13,000 kW) using forced draft to reach the intended top speed of 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph). On her initial speed trials, Italia's engines produced a top speed of 17.5 knots (32.4 km/h; 20.1 mph) from a maximum of 15,907 ihp (11,862 kW), and she could maintain this speed for about an hour. Lepanto was faster, with a top speed of 18.38 knots (34.04 km/h; 21.15 mph) from 16,150 ihp (12,040 kW). The ships had a coal storage capacity of 3,000 long tons (3,000 t), though in practice likely carried 1,550 long tons (1,570 t). Figures for the ships' cruising radius vary; Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships reports that they could steam for 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km; 5,800 mi) at a speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph), while the historian Sergie Vinogradov states that they had a range of 8,700 nmi (16,100 km; 10,000 mi) at the same speed.

### Armament

Italia and Lepanto each carried a main armament of four 432 mm (17 in) breech-loading guns. Italia received three 26-caliber guns and one 27-caliber gun, while Lepanto was equipped entirely with 27-caliber guns. The former guns were the A model, and they fired a 2,000-pound (910 kg) shell at a muzzle velocity of around 1,811 feet per second (552 m/s), significantly better than the older 432 mm guns' 1,550 ft/s (470 m/s) for the same weight shell. The longer 27-caliber weapons produced an even higher velocity of 1,903 ft/s (580 m/s); armor penetration at the muzzle was 960 mm (37.6 in) and 1,000 mm (39.4 in) of wrought iron, respectively. Both caliber guns' rate of fire was very slow, taking eight minutes to reload after each shot, though they were still faster than the muzzle-loading 432 mm guns.

The guns were mounted in pairs en echelon amidships in a single, large, diagonal, oval barbette, with one pair of guns on a turntable to port and the other to starboard. The port pair was mounted aft of the starboard pair. The magazine was below the armored deck, and ammunition was brought up to the main guns via an armored trunk. They had to be returned to a fixed loading position after every shot: the forward guns pointed 45 degrees off the bow while the aft guns were 45 degrees from the stern. Records of ammunition storage vary; contemporary British sources report that Italia carried forty-five shells per gun and Lepanto was fitted with forty, while a Russian source reports fifty shells per gun for both vessels. The ships' high freeboard allowed the main guns to be mounted 33 feet (10 m) above the waterline, and the design and location of the barbette and turntables gave the guns good fields of fire. Their elevation ranged from −10 degrees to +15, which allowed them to engage targets as close as 55 m (180 ft).

The ships carried a secondary battery of eight medium caliber guns in single pivot mounts. Italia carried the originally-intended 149 mm 26.7-caliber guns, while Lepanto received newer 152 mm (6 in) 32-caliber guns. These guns were distributed along the length of the ships; one was on the upper deck forward as a bow-chaser, four were on the broadside forward of the main battery, another pair were astern of the main guns, and the eighth gun was on the upper deck as a stern-chaser. These were supported by a battery of four 120 mm (4.7 in) guns, also in single mounts. The ships also carried a pair of 75 mm (3 in) mountain guns and two machine guns for use by landing parties ashore. As was customary for capital ships of the period, they carried four 356 mm (14 in) torpedo tubes. These were placed on the broadside above the waterline. The torpedoes carried a 125 kg (276 lb) warhead and had a range of 600 m (2,000 ft).

### Armor

Instead of belt armor the ships were protected by a mild steel armored deck, the details of which are unclear. Vinogradov notes that contemporary sources report a range of thicknesses from 3 to 4.7 in. He suggests that the most likely explanation is that the ships were not identical. British intelligence reports credit Italia with a deck thickness of 102 mm (4 in) in the central portion of the ship and reduced to 3 in at the bow and stern. The same reports state that Lepanto had a uniform 3 in deck. The armored deck sloped downward to meet the ships' sides at a point 6 feet (1.8 m) below the waterline and combined with two bulkheads that ran the entire length of the ships, set back several feet from the side, and numerous other bulkheads interspersed among the two main bulkheads to create a hull extensively divided into watertight compartments. The resulting "cellular raft" of small compartments was designed to detonate shells before they could penetrate very far into the ships; confining the resulting explosion and flooding to limited areas, dampening and containing the effect.

For rest of the ship's protection, recently developed compound armor was selected for Italia, which was manufactured by the British firms Cammell Laird and John Brown & Company. Lepanto received an improved steel that had been developed by the French company Schneider-Creusot. The ships' conning tower was armored with 300 mm (11.8 in) of plate on the sides. The barbettes had 480 mm (19 in) on the sides to protect the guns, back with a layer of teak that was 521 mm (20.5 in) thick. The tops of the barbettes had two layers of 15 mm (0.59 in) to protect the gun crews from small arms fire from enemy fighting tops. Each ship had armored tubes connecting the barbettes to the magazines below; these had 400 mm (15.7 in) thick sides. The bases of the funnels, where the boiler uptakes connected to them, also received 15.7 in of armor.

### Modifications

Their secondary batteries were revised over the course of their careers. During a refit in the late 1890s, the ships were given a tertiary battery for close-range defense against torpedo boats. Each ship received twelve 57 mm (2.2 in) Hotchkiss guns and twelve 37 mm (1.5 in) Hotchkiss guns in individual mounts. In another refit completed by 1908, Italia had her 150 mm guns replaced with seven 152 mm weapons, and her anti-torpedo boat armament was reduced to six 57 mm guns and two 37 mm guns. The historian Sergei Vinogradov notes that some sources report that two additional torpedo tubes were fitted to Italia at this time, but states that "this seems unlikely." The refit also saw the removal of the central military mast and the installation of two light pole masts.

By 1911, Lepanto had had a second refit as well, which removed all of her 152 mm guns and torpedo tubes and reduced her tertiary battery to nine 57 mm and six 37 mm guns. While serving as a floating battery at Brindisi during World War I, Italia had all of her secondary and tertiary guns removed, and in 1918, when she was converted into a grain transport vessel, her main battery was removed as well, though she received two 120 mm 32-caliber guns for defense.

## Construction

## Service history

Italia and Lepanto spent the first decade of their careers alternative between the Active and Reserve Squadrons of the Italian fleet. Italia served as the flagship of the Active Squadron after entering service in 1886 but was reduced to the reserve the following year. She resumed flagship duties in early 1888, and was joined in the unit by Lepanto later that year. Italia was again laid up in late 1890 and Lepanto was similarly deactivated the next year. Over the following five years, both ships alternated between active and reserve status. During their active careers, they were primarily occupied with training exercises. As Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance at the time, the simulated opponent in these maneuvers was typically France; during the 1893 annual fleet maneuvers, both ships served in the squadron simulating an attack on the Italian coast.

In 1896, both ships began to serve in auxiliary roles, Italia as a gunnery training ship and Lepanto as a training vessel for signalmen and helmsmen. The following year, in June 1897, Lepanto steamed to Britain to represent Italy at the Fleet Review for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. The ships continued to alternate between the squadrons for the rest of the decade, with 1897 and 1898 in the Reserve, and 1899 in the Active Squadron. During this period, the Italian Navy considered rebuilding the ships along the same lines as the ironclad Enrico Dandolo, but the project proved to be too costly, and by 1902 the plan was abandoned.

Lepanto was removed from front-line service in 1902 and converted into a gunnery training ship; to aid in this task, the ship received a variety of light weapons that trainees would go on to use in the fleet. During this period, she also took part in annual training exercises with the rest of the fleet. In October 1910, she was reduced to a barracks ship. Italia was modernized in 1905–1908, losing two of her funnels and several of her small-caliber guns; from 1909 to 1910, she served as a torpedo training ship. She was then used as a barracks ship in 1911. Both ships were reactivated in September 1911 after the outbreak of the Italo-Turkish War, initially assigned to the 5th Division. After the capture of Tripoli in October, Italia and Lepanto were intended to be sent to the city to provide gunfire support for the soldiers defending it, but the plan came to nothing and they remained in Italy.

Lepanto was stricken from the naval register on 26 May 1912, but she was reinstated on 13 January 1913 as an auxiliary. Italia, meanwhile, had been reduced again to training duties in December 1912, this time for non-commissioned officers and engine room personnel. Lepanto did not remain in service long, being stricken again on 1 January 1914 and being sold to ship breakers on 27 March 1915. Italia was stricken from the register on 4 June 1914, but was not discarded before the start of World War I the following month. In April 1915, as Italy prepared to enter the conflict on the side of the Triple Entente, Italia was towed to Brindisi to be used as a guard ship, and she was restored to the naval register on 23 May. In December 1917, she was taken to La Spezia, where she was converted into a grain carrier, serving briefly with the Ministry of Transport in June 1919 before being transferred to the State Railways in July. The ship returned to the Navy in January 1921, but was stricken in November that year and sold for scrap.

Ironclad warship class of the Italian Royal Navy