Overall, I like her. But not on this issue. I mean, she's brought NC the lottery. And while the lottery has suffered it's own controversies, it's still a welcome addition, to me anyway. And it's true that she's led a number of fights when it comes to justice and the legal system.

But her idealism has been misused, as so many others have been, by sychophants who wish to dictate their personal, religious, and/or political agendas upon other individuals and other people's children.

Had I the eloquent oral communication skills that I believe many here to have, I would ask to speak when hearings on this bill begin here in NC. And my focus wouldn't merely be on Freedom of Speech issues, but the issue that such laws violate Parental Rights by denying Parents the Right to make their OWN decisions as to what is or is not appropriate for their OWN children, as opposed to being dictated to by other individuals, organizations, and/or government officials.

I've written long posts in the past regarding my beliefs regarding this, as well as long posts regarding the intentional misinformation and outright lies and deceit that have been spread regarding the facts of the overall issue of video games. Many of us have.

We know that this bill, drafted by the same individual who drafted, at the least, the bills in LA (which proved to be a failure constitutionally) and the Utah bill (see recent previous articles), will also fail. And as such, will cost NC a significant sum of money. Money which could be put, at the least, to more useful purposes, such as educating Parents about resources available to help them make informed decisions as to what is or is not appropriate for their own children.

Maybe the same person who drafted the NC bill should do the same thing they put to Utah: That they defend this bill themselves when it goes to court (if it even passes to begin with), with the additional requirment, as put to them by myself previously, that THEY be the one solely responsible for ALL court costs when the law is deemed unconstitutional, at all court levels they wish to take it. And, as before, it must be a BINDING CONTRACT, actionable if that individual fails to follow through. And I still feel the additional requirement of that individual publically taking SOLE responsibility for their failure. But, as before, we know that said individual is too cowardly to take "individual responsibility" for their failures. As proven time and again.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

"Surely one would think that these politicians might open up their tiny little eyes and see that these worthless, unconstitutional bills are being shot down by the courts as violations of free speech and creative freedoms"

Problem is when those tiny little eyes open, they can't take in much and we have some idiots who jumps in front sign to get the politicians on their side.

I don't suppose the fact that she's blonde might tie in with her stupidity? Hmm.....

"“We think we can reduce the conflict with constitutional issues,” she said."

No, you don't think, much less know, how hard your bill will fall, just as all the others before it have. Please die in a fire, and have a nice day. :)

How about she doesn't refile the bill and we put the money into our road system. The roads in NC are horrible.

We think we can reduce the conflict with constitutional issues

Brokenscope has it right. "Reducing" the conflict doesn't make it legal, you have to "eliminate" them. Otherwise there's still a constitutional issue that allows the court to throw it out...

I'd love to hear exactly HOW she's going to "reduce" it, while still not really dealing with the overall constitutional issues...

@ Jabrwock
Thanks. I didn't know it was only store policy.

@EvilZombie

When I was under 18 I wasn’t able to buy M rated games unless my mom was there. What’s so different about these bills?

Unless you are living outside the US, you weren't able to buy M rated games because it was store policy. These bills want to make it legally binding, which can't be done in the US. There's too many constitutional protections for both minors and artistic expression.

“We think we can reduce the conflict with constitutional issues,” she said.

Nope. Legal precedent heavily favors the industry, as does the First and Fourteenth Amendment, so there is no 'conflict with constitutional issues', other than her own stupidity.

@Jquilty - my friend, if you post another comment like that I will IP ban you...

See our comments policy.

Darth_Toxic, I know how you feel. I too reside in NC. I'm not much happier about Boseman's bill than you are.

The bill didn't succeed the first time. What makes her think it'll pay off this time around?

They do know similar bills across the country failed too. I wonder when -- no wait, make that IF -- people like Boseman will ever get the message?

“We think we can reduce the conflict with constitutional issues,”

A little advice for you Julia: You won't succeed at this, so DON'T EVEN TRY.

when will they realize that these games are rated 17+ and age 17 falls under the category of 'minors'?

Yes... I have a grand idea - legislate social stupidity right out. See, the issue isn't the video games, nor is it the retail stores... its the parents. As someone who managed a retail store for 5 years, I can't count how many times I'd get a 12 year old with $200 from mommy and daddy in the store unattended. If someone sold them the game, then mommy and daddy would come back and complain.

Here is how one conversation went with a customer who had given their kid enough money to buy 4 new games. They bought GTA: Vice City, Bully, Manhunt, and God of War on PS2

Parent: "HOW DID MY SON GET THIS GAME?!"

Me: "I assume he bought it"

Parent: "Who sold my child this graphic game?"

Me: "I'm sorry sir, it seems one of our staff sold these M rated game to your pre-teen"

Parent: "Let me talk to your manager"

Me: "you are"

Parent: "How can you guys continue to sell these kinds of games to kids?"

Me: "We dont set out to do this, sometimes an associate doesn't think about what they are doing. I'm sure you can understand though, I mean sometimes a parent gives their 12 year old kid roughly $200 to free-roam a mall, completely unattended where any number of predators could claim him, to buy whatever he wanted."

Parent: "How do you know he was unattended?"

Me: "Well... either your entire line of questions have become illogical on your implication that you WERE there, or you weren't there and aren't taking responsibility - which is why you're here to begin with... to make us take responsibility. Funny.... in an ironic sort of way"

I didnt stay employed there much longer, but not because of that... I moved shortly after, and I'm not returning to retail because the whole job class caters to "stupid" as if it okay.

The point is that legislating stupid out of society isn't a good plan. It doesn't do anything to promote personal responsibility an as such, serves to allow people to find bigger and better ways at being stupid. For now, I think a simple fine should good enough, however, it will "inconvenience" customers and then they'll get mad asking why they have to show an ID for a game...

If you want to contact your Senator - you can go to www.ncga.state.nc.us
and send them an email.

“We think we can reduce the conflict with constitutional issues,”

Running afoul of only one amendment instead of two amendments still results in an automatic failure. You need to eliminate the conflict, which you can only do by gutting the bill to pointlessness. You'd be much better off with just not pushing it again.

Here's one way to avoid stepping on the toes of the constitution: Stop writing bills to supress creative freedoms!

@Zerodash

It will certainly strengthen the industry's case that it is doing a reasonable job of allowing parents to do the deciding... That's the whole state's case, is that parents are overwhelmed and need the government to step in, right?