backtop

Print 42 comment(s) - last by Tupolev22m.. on May 19 at 5:08 PM
Somewhere in Florida, Jack Thompson is smiling

When it comes to children and video games, the government (and lawyers) seem to want at least one foot in the door regarding legislation. Florida attorney Jack Thompson has been lobbying for reform in the industry for years and has gone after game developers and even the jolly good fellas over at Penny Arcade. Now, it appears that Louisiana lawmakers want to add some more legislation to the table concerning children and video games.

The Louisiana House committee has passed a new bill that would set stiff penalties on retailers found guilty of selling M-rated video games to minors. Fines would range from $100 to $2,000. For more serious violations, up to a 12 month prison sentence could be instituted. It was not stated what constitutes a minor or major violation, but one must guess that it possibly centers around the number of repeat violations. gamesindustry.biz reports:

The bill was passed unanimously by a vote of 102-0, with Republican representative Danny Martiny claiming that the validity of the bill in terms of First Amendment protection was "for the courts to decide."

But as stated by officials for the ESA, the bill is unlikely to hold water in court as similar moves by California, Illinois, Michigan, Utah and others have all miserably failed.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
More Work for ACLU
By TomZ on 5/18/2006 3:37:51 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like another "to-do" item for the ACLU. I'm personally glad we have organizations like them around to help keep government from stepping over the line.




RE: More Work for ACLU
By ksherman on 5/18/2006 3:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
well, then who is going to enforce the rules of the game ratings? If a game recieves an M rating, and yet STILL gets sold to kids, there needs to be some kind of enforcment.

And dont say the parents are to blame, cuz thats crap. Its not all THAT hard to prevent your parents from knowing that you bought/did something...


RE: More Work for ACLU
By DigitalFreak on 5/18/2006 4:10:30 PM , Rating: 4
Then you are a pretty shitty parent, and should be sterilized to prevent you from having more children that you can't control or take care of.

'Nuff said, damn it.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By Shining Arcanine on 5/18/2006 5:00:41 PM , Rating: 3
If you are going to demean yourself, please do it offline. You do not need to make a public service announcement of it.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By Wwhat on 5/19/2006 9:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
Take your own advise


RE: More Work for ACLU
By TomZ on 5/18/2006 4:15:27 PM , Rating: 4
Your question presupposes that someone is responsible for enforcing the ratings system, which is not correct.

The government can't do it because of the First Amendment. This is pretty clear.

Yes, of course parents need to take responsibility at two levels:

1. If your kids buy games that you don't feel are appropriate, you need to be in a position to be aware of this and take the appropriate action.

2. If you realize that a local retailer is selling games to underage kids, then you need to get in contact with the store manager and let them know your views.

This is all you can do. It is not a perfect system. But it doesn't need to be perfect, since the potential impact of a younger kid getting hold of such a game is relatively minor. I mean, if kids can sneak a violent game into the house, what else is or could be going on that the parents are not aware of?

Finally, I would point to the movie industry as an example of a ratings system that basically works and has worked for many years. This is an entirely voluntary system worked out by that industry. Again, not 100% effective, but mostly effective with no government involvement.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By on 5/18/2006 4:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
who is going to enforce the rules of the game ratings?


Since the ESRB isn't a governmental body, the answer is and should be: nobody . The whole point why these laws in other states get shot down is because the essentially outsource binding legislation to a private group (the ESRB).

This kind of political pandering disgusts me. These politicos all know it doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving a court challenge, but they pass it anyway. Personally, I think their complicity in this legislation should be enough to remove all of them from office.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By igloo15 on 5/18/2006 4:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly does a kid buy a game without the parent knowing. The first time a kid can drive is 16 and 16 years olds are not really the problem the problem is 13,14, and 15 years olds getting these games. So how are these kids gonna get to a store buy a game and come back without the parent knowing. Seems like shitty parenting to me.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By littlebitstrouds on 5/18/2006 5:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's called a city... Wake up not everyone lives in middle America.

quote:
So how are these kids gonna get to a store buy a game and come back without the parent knowing. Seems like shitty parenting to me.


What did you pop out of your mother at a ripe old age of 18? You're telling me that you never got away with anything as a kid? And you're saying that if I did... my parents are "shitty" parents because I did? Well excuss me but you have no right to call them "shitty." They were great parents and I have great morals because of it, but I, and every kid have gotten away with some things because that's life.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By toyota on 5/18/2006 8:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How exactly does a kid buy a game without the parent knowing. The first time a kid can drive is 16 and 16 years olds are not really the problem the problem is 13,14, and 15 years olds getting these games. So how are these kids gonna get to a store buy a game and come back without the parent knowing. Seems like shitty parenting to me.
well you must be one stupid parent if thats what you believe. maybe when little Johnny does something wrong the police will let you know what a "shitty parent" you are.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By rushfan2006 on 5/19/2006 9:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
Why is this stuff so hard for some folks to grasp, they make this big huge to-do about it and its really simple. Its called having open and honest communication between parent and child. Should go down like this "Child: Hey Dad, saw this awesome game I'd like to get but there is lots of violence in it, but the store says this new law prevents them from selling the game to me. Parent:Well describe what the game is about {insert personal views in here..like if you are against games depicting cop killing, etc.}. child: {explains game}. Parent: Oh that's fine. We can go and pick it up tonight if you want. [this is something called trust]. Child: Cool. Thanks Dad(or Mom)."

And that's pretty much the end of it. Its called respecting each other, being responsible and talking casually about it. No big deal here folks.

The above example is how my brother deals with his 15 year old for buying games. Works well.



RE: More Work for ACLU
By Shining Arcanine on 5/18/2006 4:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
Generally, the ACLU is the one who has the government step over the line. Tens of millions are now dead in the United States, much less the entire world and every murder was done with their support and blessing.

P.S. The state government in Florida is not putting restrictions on what people can do but to who retailers can sell what. That is hardly stepping over the line, or do you mean to tell me that you are also against the bans on marijuna and underage alcohol sales in the United States?


RE: More Work for ACLU
By littlebitstrouds on 5/18/2006 5:05:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That is hardly stepping over the line, or do you mean to tell me that you are also against the bans on marijuna and underage alcohol sales in the United States?


^ That is the point. I am shocked so many people have something wrong with program. THEY'RE KEEPING VIOLENT AND LUDE GAMES OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN. You guys argue like they're taking your cookies away. Jesus do you want it to be possible for your kid to see that crap? I certainly don't.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By TomZ on 5/18/2006 5:55:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Generally, the ACLU is the one who has the government step over the line. Tens of millions are now dead in the United States, much less the entire world and every murder was done with their support and blessing.

What are you saying, that ACLU is reponsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Americans? Huh?


RE: More Work for ACLU
By Devil Bunny on 5/18/2006 6:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
What he meant to say was that while all these organizations are bitching about small things, there are alot worse things going on out there that they could focus on. Im not saying that putting a regulation on what age you can buy certain video games is a small thing. Its a controversial subject that many people fight over, personally Im for it.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By TomZ on 5/18/2006 8:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more - the government should focus on what is crucial - eliminating poverty, building a strong economy, defending our country, helping all citizens get health care, etc. - and the government should stop wasting time and money on things like trying to regulate the video game industry.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By toyota on 5/18/2006 9:55:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I couldn't agree more - the government should focus on what is crucial - eliminating poverty
the ONLY way to eliminate poverty is to eliminate the people in poverty. the more you feed the poor the more poor you will have to feed. the poorest people in the world are the ones that reproduce the most.


RE: More Work for ACLU
By wiiz3rd on 5/19/2006 3:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you eliminate all the poor, that makes you that next poor. Should we eliminate you as well?


RE: More Work for ACLU
By littlebitstrouds on 5/19/2006 11:22:49 AM , Rating: 1
Why do people bring up this arguement? It's like saying, sorry your dad is an alcholic but at least he's not beating you. We're not going to deal with you until we fix the dads that beat their kids... You don't ignore one problem because there are worse. You try and fix them all in whatever capacity you can. Sorry but next time you are robbed we'll ignore it completely because we nee ALL our policemen at a murder case. I could go on and on but I hope you get the point.


Not going to be viable
By peternelson on 5/19/2006 1:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
Even if passed, I don't see how this will prevent young people gaining access to this material.

Maturity varies with individual not just age.

In any case restricting the retailer from selling items will simply mean their older brother can go and purchase it then give it as a birthday present. Or even the parent can still buy it for "family use". Some parents have very different ideas on what is acceptable material for kids. I could see it only serving to inflate black market prices for the games and making them more desirable.

Are you going to mandate that every PS/2 has to have a locked safe where the "mature" games must be kept. So when someone plays on your console they have access to your stack of game disks EXCEPT the ones you locked away? The issue of access isn't really in the control of the stores, but at the point of gaming.

I don't think this proposal can succeed either on a legal basis or on the basis that it will be impotent legislation in terms of actually keeping material restricted.

The content ratings are there to provide an indication of the kind of content before buying or playing the game.

You decide whether you want to watch/play and whether that material is appropriate for you (with parental guidance if necessary in making that choice). If someone decides they want to play something I think it is very difficult indeed to prevent this happening. eg friends could swap disks or put them in the mail.




RE: Not going to be viable
By littlebitstrouds on 5/19/2006 11:26:43 AM , Rating: 1
I want to sell your 13 year old kid cigarettes to smoke while you're taking a nap or running to the store and when you find out it was this one store owner who just didn't care because it's your kids right to smoke, I wanna see if you still write this crap


RE: Not going to be viable
By Tupolev22m on 5/19/2006 1:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's not your kids right to smoke because they don't make decisions about their health, thats your affair. However, it should be your responsibility to make sure they can't play this without your approval, not the courts responsibility to censor what can be sold to the. Also, video games don't cause cancer, and despite what you think, limiting exposure to video games doesn't blind children to the realities of the world.


RE: Not going to be viable
By littlebitstrouds on 5/19/2006 2:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
It's not censorship... figure out what that word means before you throw it around. It's limiting and age group. They can see it if their parents buy it for them. I take it you all think kids should be able to get into a theatre and see rated R or NC-17 movies. And there should be no regulation. After all it's up to you to stop them.


RE: Not going to be viable
By littlebitstrouds on 5/19/2006 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clarify. This is age discrimination not censorship. censorship would be not allowing anyone to ever see/use something.


RE: Not going to be viable
By Tupolev22m on 5/19/2006 5:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's about it, it isn't the governments responsibility to control what your children do.


*edit*
By SilthDraeth on 5/18/2006 3:52:03 PM , Rating: 2
"in the industry from years and"

I do not disagree with the bill. It is sort of like checking identification when selling alcohol and tobacco.
Though obviously there is a difference between all three, and the effects they have on individuals.

The rating is in place for that reason, just as it is on movies, and it should be enforced. On that same note so should the selling of mature rated movies to minors.




RE: *edit*
By on 5/18/2006 4:24:40 PM , Rating: 3
Enforced by whom? The ESRB, since they create the ratings?

The only reason booze can be restricted is because the government itself regulates it. The only way to make "game ratings" legally binding would be for the government to take over responsibility of becoming the ratings board. On top of all that, there is still the first amendment issues.


RE: *edit*
By SilthDraeth on 5/19/2006 6:33:36 AM , Rating: 2
I read a few of the other comments, and I was not aware that the movie industry ratings where enforced basically by the distributor and retailer.



RE: *edit*
By TomZ on 5/19/2006 2:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
The ratings system, and assignment of ratings to movies, is done by MPAA. Admission to movies is limited by movie theatres and movie rental stores based on the movie rating and the customer's age. Pretty simple system that has been in effect for as long as I can remember. I'm not aware of any direct government involvement.


Won't hold water
By NesuD on 5/18/2006 3:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
The legislature tried the same thing in Michigan. ESA went to court over it and won. Now Michigan is stuck with ESA's legal bills as well.




RE: Won't hold water
By Shining Arcanine on 5/18/2006 5:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
How? The judicial branch does not exercise control what is is legislated. It simply interprets what is legislated and whether or not it is compatible with the Constitution. It has no powers beyond that, despite however much it might try to exert authority on the legislative process that it does not have.


RE: Won't hold water
By TomZ on 5/18/2006 5:54:55 PM , Rating: 2
What are you saying - that a judge doesn't have the power to force one party in a lawsuit to pay the other party's legal expenses?


Yeah but the MPAA ratings are legally enforced.
By sotti on 5/18/2006 3:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
You don't see governments falling all over themselves to mandate the MPAA ratings as law.

That's because movies clearly fall under the first ammendment and are clearly non-pornographic.

By arguing that video games should be treated differently denies them the status of art.




RE: Yeah but the MPAA ratings are legally enforced.
By sotti on 5/18/2006 4:00:28 PM , Rating: 2
I mean that movies that are not pornographic, clearly fall under the first ammendment.

and I believe that games should too.


By littlebitstrouds on 5/18/2006 5:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why are pornographic films not under the first ammendment? Aren't you now saying you are the governing body on what "art" is? What if I think it is freedom of speech? Be carefull on the issue.

BTW Devils advocate here, not my opinion, just don't like to see bad arguements.


I'm on the juice, I might shoot you!
By Tupolev22m on 5/19/2006 12:12:28 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know where everyone comes from thinking that all violence is bad for children, but I know that as a 17 yr old gamer who has been playing fairly violent video games for the last 6-7 years I am horribly offended.

To suggest that Video Games are a threat to children despite the fact that parents of the children it would most affect (the 13 and under crowd) should have complete control over their childrens purchasing decisions is ridiculous. I have rarely seen stories on the news about gamers going insane because they shot too many zombies in Resident Evil and attacking a mall, but I've seen plenty of stories about adults with no particular reason doing the same thing.

Many studies actually show that video games decrease aggression in most of the audience by letting them relieve stress, and very few show a significant increase in violent activity. I have play GTA4 and felt no compunction to go out grabbin hoes, dealin dope and capping cops, in fact I thought it was a fun game precisely because it allowed me to do things I would NEVER EVER consider doing in real life.

Allowing people with no knowledge of video games or their affect on people (the current generation of lawmakers) is tantamount to legislation without representation. They also leave the games censored entirely up to interpretation, which means any party that takes control of the organ responsible for enforcement has carte blanche in banning games, since the ESRB can't technically be made a legal standard.

I honestly expected a more considered, less socially conservative viewpoint from the people who should actually know something about the issue.




RE: I'm on the juice, I might shoot you!
By littlebitstrouds on 5/19/2006 11:36:29 AM , Rating: 1
So let me get this strait real quick... so it's not harmful for my kid to play GTA Vice City grab a prostitute to get his health back and kill her to get the money? Cause I certainly don't need a study to tell me I just don't want my child even knowing that stuff is available.

Do you think that your 13 year old child, not to mention everyone elses should be able to make the decision to rent say Silence of the Lambs? Or even American Pie with Stiffler teaching them what cool is? It's a matter of general concensus. Most americans don't want this, so we vote and put people in office that will limit the sales. Not ban the sales, this is not censorship. If you want your kid to have it you can go out and buy it. Most people don't.


By Tupolev22m on 5/19/2006 1:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Do you honestly think your 13 year old child doesn't know what all of that stuff is already?

If so, you're either extremely deluded, lying to yourself, or shelter your children to a ridiculous extreme, because if they've gone to a day of middle school they will understand more than you will about these topics even without Vice City.

In answer to your question, no it isn't harmful, its just innocent fun.


Things I can't sell
By ancient46 on 5/19/2006 12:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
Under 21: Handgun ammunition
Under 18: Rifle ammunition, paintballs and guns, BB and pellet guns, and a kit with large fingernail clippers for cutting fishing line, just to name a few.

If I sell tobacco products to someone under the legal age I can be fined up to $1000, terminated from my employment and possibly serve jail time.

Seems to me this law is based on other laws in place and being used in the US today. I wonder what makes video games so different that restricting age sales would be unconstitutional.




RE: Things I can't sell
By Tupolev22m on 5/19/2006 12:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
Guns can cause spontaneous death and or serious injury if misused.

So does ammunition.

Tobacco causes death more slowly, but nearly as surely.

Alchohol causes death when misused.

Video Games may cause feelings of aggression, but so can anything else out there, I've yet to seen the person executed with a copy of Grand Theft Auto.

The differences are obvious, and if this is legislated then it would be very easy to insititute sweeping bans on any objectionable material reaching young eyes and ears, completely eliminating the possibility of developing effective minds that know how to critically evaluate things for themselves.


worry
By Wwhat on 5/19/2006 9:36:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's a bit peculiar that I now read a story every week about locals passing a law with 100:01 that they KNOW is against the constitution and yet they try.
If I were an american I'd find that trend rather worrisome, especially since the president is also ignoring the constitution, I gues the plan is to ignore it until it's forgotten?





RE: worry
By Tupolev22m on 5/19/2006 1:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Some of us do find it worrisome, but most Americans feel that its better to throw the consitution out when dealing with anything they find personally objectionable. They'd much rather the government do the responsible parenting and destroy the ideals of our country than have to exert some effort to find out what's going on in their kids life and understand technology they don't use.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki