backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 14 comment(s) - last by KristopherKubi.. on Jun 14 at 8:53 PM
The ESA has supported some game legislation proposed by several states -- Oklahoma is not one of them

Oklahoma is the latest state that has signed a game-related piece of legislation into law.  Oklahoma governor Brad Henry signed gaming bill HB3004 into law last week, which would add games that are deemed to contain "inappropriate violence" to a list of items that are harmful to people under 18.  The Entertainment Software Association plans to sue the state to try and get the law ruled unconstitutional.  ESA president Douglas Lowenstein believes the piece of legislation "will restrict the First Amendment rights of Oklahoma's citizens."     

The bill, authored by Senator Glen Coffee (No relation to "Hot Coffee"), was unanimously agreed upon (PDF) by the OK Senate after originally coming to a split vote.  Governor Brad Henry signed the bill on June 10, 2006.  The bill is described as:

An Act relating to crimes and punishments; limiting outdoor advertising of certain businesses; defining terms; providing for enforcement; amending 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1040.75, which relates to materials harmful to minors; modifying and adding definitions; providing for codification; and providing an effective date.

The ESA is not necessarily against gaming legislation in general.  The organization supports a Maryland gaming law that would approve of adding video games to a list of items considered obscene.  However the state of Minnesota is also being sued by the ESA because of a law that would fine minors $25 if they purchase rated M video games.  Judges in Michigan and California have stopped game-related legislation from being signed into law.  More states are expected to try and criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
hm
By WileCoyote on 6/14/2006 8:02:13 AM , Rating: 2
The ESA wouldn't be having these problems if they had as much money as the RIAA and MPA. They need to go out and bribe a few dozen congressman.




RE: hm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 8:22:52 AM , Rating: 1
Believe it or not, most of the nation's population still believes in property rights and that theft is immoral. My Congressmen vote in favor of upholding copyright law, and they do so with my full support...not because they've been "bribed" to do so.


RE: hm
By Topweasel on 6/14/2006 9:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
So??? That has nothing to do with topic at hand. Also are you sure that your Congressman wasn't convinced by a lobbyist to vote for that. Just because you agree with him doesn't mean he didn't have help making his decision. The fact is our Political policies allow for a varying degree of bribery, it won't get them to do a 180 but will convince them that its the right time to "act".


RE: hm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 10:35:15 AM , Rating: 3
If an elected official is voting for what's right, moral and ethical...and also what the majority of his constituents want, then you hardly need to suppose bribery to explain his actions, now do you?

Face facts. Claiming the government is being "bribed" simply because it doesn't support mass theft of countless billions of dollars of intellectual property is childish drivel.



RE: hm
By Crappuccino on 6/14/2006 11:31:28 AM , Rating: 2
How does this fit in with the original article?

It almost sounds as if you've been bribed to toot your intellectual property rights horn [/sarcasm] ^_^


RE: hm
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2006 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "How does this fit in with the original article?"

Its in direct response (and quite on topic) to the first post made to this thread.


yum
By WileCoyote on 6/14/2006 8:05:55 AM , Rating: 1
what a sexy phone. if it has 802.11, which the Q doesn't, I'll pick it up the first day




RE: yum
By WileCoyote on 6/14/2006 8:06:44 AM , Rating: 1
ok delete that last comment... that was for a different article... something didn't work right.


RE: yum
By Trisped on 6/14/2006 12:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you just hate that? I think it helps to refresh before you post.


RE: yum
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/14/2006 8:53:37 PM , Rating: 2
I have someone working on fixing it now. I don't have an ETA but it will get fixed.


ESA needs to update for reality
By Trisped on 6/14/2006 12:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
They wouldn't be having these problems if they would just use a system that in line with those already in place. We don't let minors see movies that are rated R for violence or excess of any other questionable content. Why would we let them buy games.

And if it hurts game makers, maybe they should learn to cut out the useless stuff and focus on making quality games instead. I have heard of more then a few games that have great blood, sexuality, and profanity which did very well, even though the game play sucked.




By bighairycamel on 6/14/2006 3:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I am against the ESA on this one. It's not unconstitutional to limit what age groups can view. Like you said, that's why there are movie ratings. I never understood what the point of the ratings systems were if any 6 year old could go buy an M rated game. It's SUPPOSED to be for there to help parents monitor the games their kids play, but in my opinion, it should also be disallowed for kids to get those games in the first place.

Maybe finally, us grown ups can play our games without listening to the griping of all those soccer moms.


The flaw is in the language
By The Blue Moose on 6/14/2006 8:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the whole statute. But, I'm guessing that the challenge will be based on the rather broad phrase "inappropriate violence".

By what standard will something be deemed inappropriate? Previous posts indicate that they will not be relying on ESRB ratings. As such, if they don't spell out exactly what standards will be used to rate the material, then there is a solid case to claim that the phrase "inappropriate violence" is too broad.

And if Scorpion is right about the culpability of parents who knowingly allow their child to play such games, then this will never stand. Games should be rated, and those ratings enforced, just like movies. An underage child cannot get into an R-rated movie on their own. But, if they are accompanied by a parent, they are allowed in. In that case the state assumes the parent is capable of deciding what is and is not appropriate for their child. Why should games be any different?

If my kid happens to see an R-rated movie at a friends house, I can't sue the parents, much less have them arrested. But, I can if it's a video game?

I believe what we have here is another clear case of the generation gap rearing its ugly head. Our elder leaders just don't get the whole "video game thing". It's human nature to fear or mistrust things we do not understand. Games are simply the latest victim. Much as Elvis and rock and roll were back in their time. Yet, that generation seems to have done ok despite their exposure to such vile material.




I have problems with this...
By Scorpion on 6/14/2006 3:41:01 PM , Rating: 1
I live in OK. And I've written Henry about my problems with this Bill.

1) Who decides what games are rated what? What constitutes a "mature" game? They aren't following the ESRB ratings so for all I know they can consider anything other than Disney and Bible games to be "mature" material.

2) I don't have a problem limiting the sale of the games to minors, however, this bill states that even a parent or legal guardian can be jailed and fined for showing a minor an "mature" game. Even just for showing them the box. This is an invasion of privacy. What happened to parents rights? I understand a lot of parents aren't parenting very well, but this goes too far. What if what the state considers an inappropriate game for my 17 year old, in my opinion I feel he's mature enough to view it. I'm breaking the law because I as a parent disagree with some ultra-conservative about the rating of a particular game? Now what happens if my child brings a friend over and they play this "mature" game that the state says they aren't old enough to play, and that kid goes home and tells his mom what he was doing and mentions the game. What if his mom is perhaps ultra-conservative, knows that this game he mentioned is "unapproved" for his age, now she can have me charged with a crime for allowing her son to view this game?

That just goes WAY too far into privacy laws.

This bill could have been something good if it weren't poorly thought out.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes










botimage
Copyright 2008 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki