[...] Also, Game Politics has had a lot of extensive coverage of legislation that would regulate video games. The latest news out of New York is that the state senate passed a bill in just four days, and the state assembly passed a bill (backed by the governor) in just one day. These would fine or imprison retailers for selling certain games to minors. They’re not the exact same bill, though, so the senate and assembly will be looking to compromise on a bill before the legislative session is up on June 21st. [...]

So how much will this cost them? $50K? $500K? Vegas, gimme the odds!

Reading the press release, I saw one thing that made me think that maybe, just maybe these people are getting a clue and realising what the real problem is here.
"The program will also seek to increase awareness of the ratings system on games, and the importance of appropriate parental supervision."
Exactly what a lot of us have been saying here for so long. It is up to the parents. Likewise games, if a parent buys Grand Theft Auto without knowing or caring what the game content is like (clue is in the name really!) and then lets their child play it in their room where they cannot see what is happening on the screen, then the parent is completely to blame.

However, aside from this one positive step toward actually helping the situation and promoting understanding, the usual foolish and unworkable notions are present.

"under current State law, there is no requirement that retailers place labels on video games sold in New York."
Call me stupid, but as far as I know, if you wish to sell your game through a retailer, it MUST have an ESRB rating? These labels are ALREADY on the games, the problem is that they are ignored.

"The panel, which will include parents, educators, experts in child psychology, child welfare advocates, concerned citizens and industry representatives"
Now this worries me. They claim they want to educate parents and teachers, which is good. But then in determining whether or not the ESRB is doing a good job, they are including the same parents and teachers who already don't understand it? Concerned citizens? This sounds like it's going to be Reverend Lovejoy's wife... I understand that they have to take into account the views of different people, but asking these groups to be involved in evaluating the ESRB rating system is like asking Fred Phelps to be on a comittee about gay marriage. It screams bias and appears to me to be pandering to these groups for publicity and approval.

"Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision, and we cannot sit back and allow them to be exposed to this senseless violence anymore."
Here he hits the nail right on the head about what the problem is. No adult supervision. Not the game content. Not the fact that if they wish, a company can make a video game containing adult or mature content. The fact that parents are sitting back and using video games as baby sitters, when they are completely out of touch with video games as a medium.

If Mr Lanza cut down this bill to just the educational part, I believe it would be a positive thing. All they have to do is instill a few facts in parents' heads:

Video games are not just for children.
For this reason, there are video games with mature content, like books, movies, music, etc.
Children should only pay age appropriate games, just as they should only read age appropriate books, watch appropriate movies, etc.
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to monitor your children's consumption of media and ensure they do not read/see/listen to/play anything they should not.
There are ways of finding out what games are appropriate and it is up to you to use these tools to make an informed decision.

That would be too much like laying the blame at the parent's feet (where it belongs), and that will not go over to well with voters. Henceforth, they have to castigate and condemn the video game industry, set up a comittee to ensure they are doing a good job, enforce a law which will lead to information being printed where it already exists and take the focus of the problem away from parents which is defeating the purpose completely.

Well, looks like my state is up...
the overall cost comes down to how quickly it gets shot down in court... the faster it gets shot down, then the less hours the game industries lawers get to work and be payed for... lets hope for a quick court death.

Y'know, times like these i can't help but wonder where all the gov't lawers are and what they saying; particularly the AG... are they just blindly nodding 'yes' to what the politicans want to do, or are they saying 'no' and then banging their heads against the wall as the politicans ingore them...

Kinda wish our AG was as active as the one in Utah...

Can't you just give the devs the money? That way they can make better games that you can complain about.

It's funny how this has never happend in Norway. In fact, the only time games have been mentioned in the media as something negative was GTA: Vice City (described as chainsaw murders on pregnant women). Other mentions have been netrual or positive, and murder has yet to be connected.

*sigh* Who DIDN'T predict that politicians would jump all over V-Tech Rampage?

@ Kentonio:
"we just end up looking hypocritical when we say we want to to keep these games out of the hands of kids, but then argue against measures that help solve the situation."

How will the creation of a comittee to investigate the ESRB help solve the situation? The ESRB is the most powerful and straightforward tool that parents and guardians have in determining whether or not a game is suitable for their children (outside of going on the internet and doing some research, but I'm talking about in a store when the kids brings you the game and says "I want this one!"). Criticising and casting doubt on the ESRB ratings (which I have no doubt this comittee will do, seeing as they intend to include people and groups who are either biased or ignorant about the subject of video games), will lower parents' trust in them, when instead they should be promoting the ratings system and explaining it to people.

Adding another superfluous sticker/rating to the game only serves to muddy the water even further.

No-one is arguing against keeping violent video games out of children's hands, we are only pointing out that the way they are trying or suggesting to do it is at worst based on lies/bias/self promotion, or at best unenforcable. Will they have a little squad going into every single video games store in New York, checking every single copy of every single game to make sure this unnecessary rating label is present?
How will a comittee of biased and uninformed people working to "recommend additional steps that can be taken to curb children’s access and exposure to such “adult-only” material" be helpful or constructive in any way. We ALREADY know what steps can be taken to curb kid's access to inappropriate media, the problem lies in the fact that parents will not take, or do not understand this responsibility!

@Yuki

I do kind of understand how you feel, and as a natural libertarian myself, I can sympathize with the desire for not wanting government interference. However when it comes to artistic freedom, over here we have it appears more license than many forms of media in the US. Television here for instance, is far more provocative than American network TV, and as Sidewinder from Norway said, we dont really get games being attacked by our media, except in certain extreme cases. The fuss in the US over a few very poorly animated sex minigames in the Hot Coffee mod (a mod for an already mature rated game, lets not forget) was pretty much incomprehensible over here.

As for the legal angle, I do see your point, but I think the crux of my question is 'why is it the industry that is defending these actions?'. As the law is so firmly on our side, we probably never will lose one of these cases, but why are we taking sides on this, when it gives us nothing but bad publicity, and more importantly, stands in the way of something that could not only help protect youngsters, but also help the industry legitimize in the process.

@Yuki

Here in the Netherlands, our "first amendment" has only one exception, and that is on discrimination. You can say almost anything, yet you can't discriminate someones race, sexual orientation, religion, age, sex (male/female). Basicly, you are forced to make an opinion about the whole of the person on his/her actions.

Violence in media is still protected. Goverment control is only AFTER something had happened (No pre-emptive banning on any media). And even then, tons of regulations must be met before anything gets banned.


The goverment still does not have control, even though it looks at first glance that it has. But it only can sort control on "decency" (mainly sex) and discrimination and only about specific elements at a time .
The whole concept of "tolerance" pretty much comes from this. The only thing we absolutely do not tolerate is intolerance.

The irony is that the US has more (self)censorship then the Netherlands have, even though in theory the US should have less censorship. A big pain in the Firs Amendment in the US is the FCC. A government controlled entity that controls content on public TV (?). This is directly against that little First Amendment line: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.

@Shoehorn

Sorry if I wasnt clear, i'm not talking about the specifics of this bill in particular, but rather the resistance to the measures designed to make it illegal for stores to sell games to underage gamers. If you consider section S614..

"No person, partnership, or corporation shall sell or rent or attempt to sell or rent at retail a video game in contravention of the rating affixed thereto"

..what exactly is undesirable about that? Thats what I dont understand.

@Kentonio

It all comes down to the snowball effect. If the government comes in and says what can and cannot be sold to children, they will use that legislation as a tool in the creation of another more strict law governing video games, until they have complete control of games that can be created. They will be able to stop the distribution of games that they feel threatens their position or their control.

These politicians like Lanza, do not want to stop with this law. They want to get rid of games completely, unless it depicts their perfect little world.

The game industry is not against stopping kids from getting these games. That is never what they have a problem with. We are making efforts to give parents the information and tools that will help them pick appropriate games, not just for the kids but for themselves. We are making more stides in this fight than any politician could ever make.

Games are not just for kids. Until politicians and the anti-game activists realize this, these laws will keep coming. These games they want to ban are desinged and marketed toward adults. It is not our fault that little Jonny's parents bought him "Sex and Murder Simulator 3". It is their fault. We have given them every thing they need to know about a game, but it is up to them.

Game legislation is bad. IT is not just bad for video games, but for all media. If they pass these laws, nothing will stop them from making more strict laws involving other forms of media. That is what we want to stop.

If you want to see more of what we want to prevent, pick up Fahrenhiet 451 by Ray Bradbury. That is a world we do not want to live in.

It'll get shot down like the others.

Can someone please direct me to a source that demonstrates for sure that Cho was an avid gamer? I still don't understand how the VT incident is causing so much anti-game attention.

With some lawyer skill, the constitution and the usual amount of luck, hopefully, this will cost New York plenty, financially. Spitzer, choose to play with fire, and you'll get burned, not that I would expect you to acknowledge the constitutional facts concerning this matter.

@Gameboy

I understand the situation with games, however the comparison with movie theatres is interesting. Is the age restriction on R movies law, or is it an agreement between the theatres?

If it's law, why is putting an age restriction on purchasing games such a huge jump?

Also what about drink, or cigarettes?

Personally I consider a failure of 42% pretty appalling by the way, that's a huge number of game being purchased by children who (it's recommended) shouldn't be playing game of that nature.

In the UK of course people find a way to circumvent the age checks (as with everything else) but I for one feel a sense of satisfaction every time I see a retailer refuse to sell a 10 year old kid GTA (which is more often than you might think)… but then I’m prematurely a grumpy old man :)

@~the1jeffy

If 85% of sales already adhere to a voluntary code, what harm does making it law?

Since games are politically under siege why not conceed the point, let them have thier law and take the heat out of the fire.



"And where is the parent in your scenario?" - In my experience, usually at the counter buying the 18 rated game for their children... but that's a lack education thing

Heh, a sad part of me went 'Hey! if NY passes crazy game laws and becomes hostile to the industry, maybe all those NYC companies will move down to philly!'

Well, I can dream.

@ EvilJez

"Is the age restriction on R movies law, or is it an agreement between the theatres?"

It is an agreement between the theaters. There are no laws regulating movies, books, comics, or music.

eventually, one of these bills will become law, and the video game industry will fail to block it. It might be this bill, with the memories of V-Tech fresh in our minds, and with support from a guy who thinks VTR is part of the Industry itself, and other lawmakers who dont know anything about the industry, it's only a matter of time. I'll meet you all in the 51st state if that happens, all hail Governor Whizzer of West Dakota!

To add to my percentages from before.

The ESRB is at 42% in 2006, down from 65% in 2003.

The movie industry is at 72% in 2006 and is down from 73% in 2003.

Do you not see the success in that for the ESRB and the failure in the MPAA?

@EvilJez: "If 85% of sales already adhere to a voluntary code, what harm does making it law?"

You're asking the wrong question. The question should be, "If 85% of sales already adhere to a voluntary code, why does there need to be a law?"

Our entire legal system is overburdened as it is. As long as the ratings are industry-controlled, it keeps stupid laws from being passed, such as criminalizing (IE, fines, jail time, etc.) the act of failing to enforce an arbitrary standard. If the ESRB becomes a government-controlled or overseen agency, it paves the way for such bills.

You look at the above paragraph and think, "Why would fining someone for selling Porn Star Model Session 13 for XBox be a bad thing?" Well, you see, there's already laws regarding selling pornographic materials to minors that seem to be doing their job; there don't need to be any more.

"Okay, but what about super-violent games?" There aren't any studies that show any sort of genuine harm from violent media. That alone should be enough to keep us from criminalizing the sale of them. However, that doesn't seem to be enough for politicians, who keep listening to flawed studies and biased groups who insist that there is.

While I do agree that parents should be in control of what their children are doing, enforcing that becomes difficult. Look at the following scenario:

Mom finds Little Jimmy playing Grand Theft Chariot: The Roman Years, and asks where he got it. Jimmy got it from his friend Ralph, but doesn't want to say that, because then he might not be allowed to play with Ralph any more, so he points the finger at the game store. Mom goes ballistic and accuses the game store to the police, and they get fines or jail time when they didn't do anything wrong.

Does that seem right or just to anyone?

Let's not forget the 70's/80's Dungeons and Dragons scare, epitomized by the Jack Chick publication, Dark Dungeons, published in 1984:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

@Miraba

Thank you for the explaination... The 1st amendment seems to make the situation in America very complex.

There is clearly a political desire to control the distribution of inappropraite media to minors (and games are clearly the focus at the moment)

All I can say is that in the UK, the most noticable effect of making the age rating enforcable is that it has improved education of the ratings.

As retailers can get fined for selling rated games to minors (evidence is needed Nekojin), they tend to take the time inform parents of the content of games if they think they are buying them for their children.

There has been no censorship of games, and we don't have the same controversy over game content.

I love games as a medium, and I hate to see it coming under so much unjust attack. It seems from this side of the pond that allowing game rating would restore some level of reasonable debate, without anyone having to really give up anything.

@Kentonio: "It doesnt work like that. A store has to be proved to have sold the item to a minor, something that can usually be checked with either store security camera, till registers and the like. Noone in countries that already have these laws get sent to jail at the word of a lying child."

You're right; that was overblown hyperbole on my part. But should retailers even have to be in a position to be taken to court over something like that in the first place?

"Its interesting however that you mention the laws regarding ‘pornography’ and yet think violent games are suitable viewing for children. It sums up many US attitudes that we in Europe find confusing; mild nudity a big no-no, but extreme violence acceptable."

Please don't put words in my mouth; I never stated my opinion on the matter, simply the law. Personally, I'd rather that kids had a better understanding about sex - pros, cons, preventative measures, and so on - at a much younger age, and I think the American culture as a whole has a really bipolar attitude on sex in general. Likewise, I think there's a little too much glorification of violence. But that doesn't change the fact that, as a culture, we do like violent media.

I personally view violent video games as a modern replacement for older children's games like Cops & Robbers and Cowboys & Indians - a possible outlet for the violence that children are inherently capable of, with less chance for broken bones. If I had children, I certainly wouldn't be putting Grand Theft Auto in their hands until I was sure that they were capable of dealing with it with a mature outlook... but then, we get back to that whole, "parental responsibility," angle.

To be perfectly Frank, it sounds like this bill, like most other video game bills, isn't really about correctly controling the undustry but about doing 'something' anything, not necesarily productive. Let's face it, Congress has shows hundreds upon hundreds of times (slight exageration there) that their knowledge of the video game industry, and by extention technology, is non-existant at best. What this bill will do is waste everyone's time so that nothing can get done but at the very least some congressman can claim that they tried and it becomes difficult to castigate him especially after the V-tech shooting. Where are checks and balanced when you need them?

@Nekojin

If you're referencing the Dungeons and Dragons scare, you really ought to include something about ol' Patricia Pulling. Her rhetoric is remarkably similar to Thompson et al.

@ Gameboy

The FTC only tested M rated games, R and Unrated movies and music with PAL labels.

PG-13 movies and T rated games do not suffer this burden, because they are made for and targeted at kids. M and R are made for and targeted at adults but many parents and many retailers do not enforce it.

The FTC does state that the line between PG-13 and R is getting blurrier every year, but do not make any statement about T games. You can see a clear difference in the content of a T rated game and a M rated game.

I am sure that if they did a test with T rated games and PG-13 movies using 9-12 year olds, they would get close to a 100% failure rate for both movies and games, because there is no reason to enforce those rating because they are not under fire.

But these laws are not based on the rating, they are based on a vague deffinition of "intense violence" and some people fnd Kingdom Hearts 2 to violent for their kids. So would we stop it from being sold to kids?

BmK's got it exactly right. The First Amendment is absolute, UNLESS there's proven evidence of said speech harming people.

Although as I understood it, it's about the video game maker's free speech rights more than about the kids'. I may be mistaken though.

But the lack of evidence of any harm is primarily why these anti-video game bills have all been struck down.

And that's why I, as a New York State resident, will end up paying Eliot Spitzer's and Andrew Lanza's re-election campaign costs as soon as the courts strike this law down. Because that's ALL that this law is.

If there was a way for me to sue Lanza for this fraud, I would.

@ E. Zachary Knight

Thank you for clearing that up for me. What you said about there being no reason to enforce those ratings is precissely the reason I asked that. It'd be like saying, "99% of kids can buy chocolate without parent consent." Why would they regulate that?

[...] However, as GamePolitics.com reports, since the bill also goes on to criminalize the sale of mature rated video games to minors, it will be struck down as unconstitutional by the courts. Lanza and Spitzer must’ve been aware of this before the bill was introduced, I have absolutely no doubt about it. As such, they would’ve known it would be fruitless to introduce and pass the bill as far as making it a law goes. Therefore they must’ve had other reasons for introducing the bill. I wonder when Lanza is up for re-election again… [...]

@ Brokenscope

Actually, the Illinois bill ended up costing over $510,000, money the state paid to the video game industry. This figure doesn't even include the money the state paid for their own lawyers and legal fees, which may have put it well into the million dollar mark.

Anyway, the governor and his administrators are still being hammered about it. Check this recent article which was in the Chicago Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-legis17may17,1,4135633.stor...

[...] NY Video Game Bill Is On Fast Track to Becoming Law [GamePolitics.com] [...]

From the Chicago Tribune article:

"Matt Ryan, the governor's deputy general counsel, agreed that Blagojevich advisers knew in advance the proposed law raised constitutional issues, but Ryan said they believed their version could withstand court scrutiny."

enough said

@EvilJez: "There has been no censorship of games, and we don’t have the same controversy over game content."

Forget much? Remember Manhunt?

Nekojin, this is New York State, not New York City. The Mayor doesn't sign anything.

Eliot Spitzer is the Governor. He WILL sign it, since he's one of the architects of the bill.

@Miraba

the 1st amendment does not guarantee that your right to freedom of speech is protected. there are exceptions.

below is a part of a wikipedia article

"Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another"

this is the loophole and counter argument against the 1st amendment that polititions are trying to use in order to get these games either banned or subject to regulation by the governtment. jack thompson tried to use this on that game bully that he tried to block the sale of. not only did he say it would incite violence, which that type of speech is NOT protected, but he tried to denounce the articistic value of the game as an attempt to convince people that the game had no constructive qualities and that it was just going to be a "public nusiance" and harmful to minors.

GP: "Speaking in support of his bill, Sen. Lanza apparently couldn’t resist drawing on the shock value of controversial amateur game V-Tech Rampage (which he mistakenly refers to as V-Tech Massacre), even though his legislation would have no effect at all on this non-industry, non-retail, non-rated, non-professional Flash game"

Are you sure about that? The law apparently also covers games distributed over the internets. Granted, they surely wouldn't extradite the V-Tech Rampage guy for criminal prosecution. But given Spitzer's record of litigation, 'tis likely they would try to bury sites like Newgrounds in civil "nuisance" suits..

If anyone has ever seen "12 Angry men" then you can see how 1 person can turn around a argument to the other side. What im trying to say is that if, and i mena a BIG IF, some one come up with an actual arguement to help the anti-gamers there acualy could be a turn around and might even get it passes.

If that happens we get the snowball effect we all know and fear. But theres a way to make sure this dosent happen. If gamers actualy stood up, and I mean US and not the gaming industry, and spoke out. I mean we do now but not as strong as we should. As a gamer and future soilder i really believe in the symbol of banning together for somthing. And it needs to be done so we can finly get this dang attack on games (stupid or not) over with. It's really geting on my nerves when they keep attacking us and losing and then using the same arguments just reworded in a way.

And as for the selling of games to kids we should have a class in elementery. And even as a high school class to educate future adualts and kids. Obvously the ESB rathings are ignored more than should be, expecialy in my city (Lacey, Washingtion if you wanted to know).And its mostaly parents who pay for it. So the stupid anti-gamers shoudl stop blaming the stores and focus on the dang adaults that are the real problem

[...] Game Politics (un blog que sigo hace tiempo y que es realmente un aporte) a escrito algo bastante aterrador: Despues de mucha discusion en el senado Norteamericano, parece que las cosas van bien para el señor Andrew Lanza, el cual en cuatro dias mas haria firmar un nuevo proyecto de ley de codigo “S05888″ la cual entraria en vigencia y que, en parte, constituye a un ataque “contra los videojuegos violentos” y sus diferentes ramas. El documento ya esta publico en la legislacion de Nueva York y lo pueden leer aqui, la cual incluye entre sus puntos la ilegalidad total de vender juegos de mayor calificacion a menores de edad (como “M”) lo cual, personalmente, me parece bien y respetable, sin embargo lo que NO me gusta para nada es el hecho de que esta ley quiere obligar a hacer una revision TOTAL de la ESRB en conjunto con “el centro de padres” de Nueva York… ¿saltaran todos estos cambios a nivel continental? ¿que tan terribles podran ser? ¿afectara o mejorara el catalogo actual de los videojuegos en USA? dentro de estas semanas se vendra, tal vez, un intenso debate dependiendo de que tan grave se vuelve la situacion… ojala no mas solo sea un control sobre los pequeños para que no jueguen cosas violentas y que, de hecho, eso deberia ser solo regulado POR SUS PADRES, los cuales los conservadores de la moral y las buenas costumbres Norteamericana nos estan “haciendo pagar el pato” a todos nosotros. [...]

@ Pixelantes Anonymous: "Nekojin, this is New York State, not New York City. The Mayor doesn’t sign anything.

Eliot Spitzer is the Governor. He WILL sign it, since he’s one of the architects of the bill."

I meant Governor. I even THOUGHT Governor (had to think of Arnold Schwarzenegger, our own Governor, to remember the title of the post), but apparently my fingers have a mind of their own today. =^_^=

@Morkoa: "If anyone has ever seen “12 Angry men” then you can see how 1 person can turn around a argument to the other side. What im trying to say is that if, and i mena a BIG IF, some one come up with an actual arguement to help the anti-gamers there acualy could be a turn around and might even get it passes."

That assumes that it's going to go before a jury, which civil trials rarely (never?) do. Most likely, it will simply go before a judge.

FOR RELEASE: Immediate, Monday, May 21, 2007
http://www.senate.state.ny.us

SENATE PASSES LEGISLATION TO CRACK DOWN ON VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE
Bill Would Establish Advisory Council On Interactive Media and Youth Violence

The New York State Senate today passed legislation, sponsored by Senator Andrew Lanza (R-I, Staten Island), that would take steps to crack down on video game violence, and combat and reduce children's exposure to violent and inappropriate materials within these games.

The bill (S.5888) would establish the Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence to review the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) rating system and its effectiveness, and recommend additional steps that can be taken to curb children's access and exposure to such "adult-only" material. The advisory council would consist of nine members and six ex-officio members.

The bill would also require New York State's retailers to place ratings labels on all video games, and establish a Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games and seek to increase awareness of the ratings system on games.

"The recent release of 'V-Tech Massacre,' a sick game which exploits the Virginia Tech University tragedy, is a painful reminder of the culture of violence which has severe consequences on our youth and society," said Senator Lanza, Chairman of the Senate Task Force on Youth Violence and the Entertainment Industry. "The emotions and behaviors of our children are far too often shaped by the virtual reality of violent movies and video games. It is imperative that we find a way to prevent these virtual realities from continuing to fuel and teach the violent behavior which is corrupting our youth. My bill will provide parents with important information about violent video games so they are better able to make informed decisions."

"Everywhere we look, violence surrounds us and it is unfortunate that our children are exposed to this explicit material, whether found in video games, movies or on television," said Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno. "Our children our spending too much time watching television and playing video games without any adult supervision, and we cannot sit back and allow them to be exposed to this senseless violence anymore. I applaud Senator Lanza for his leadership and we will continue to push the Assembly to take action against these issues."

"No child should be playing 'games' that involve mutilating people with chain saws, having sex with prostitutes, or dealing drugs," said Senator Martin J. Golden (R-C, Brooklyn), Chairman of the Senate Critical Choices Task Force. "This hyper-violent material is mind-boggling in its brutality, and our kids should simply not be exposed to it. These commonsense proposals will better inform and empower parents throughout our State, while also helping to prevent our kids from gaining access to these video games."

Currently, video games are rated "E" for everyone, "T" for teens, "M" for mature, and "AO" for adults only. A study by a group of Harvard University researchers published in 2004 reviewed a random sample of 81 "T" rated video games and found that 48 percent contained violence, sexual themes, substance use, gambling, or profanity that was not noted on the game box as it should have been. In addition, a recent study published in Applied Developmental Psychology found that only twenty-five percent of parents surveyed said that they "always" check the industry rating of computer and/or video games before renting or buying them.

This legislation would establish the following:

> Advisory Council on Interactive Media and Youth Violence -- would establish a new Advisory Council on Media, Entertainment Software and Youth Violence, which will review and make recommendations on the effectiveness of the current Entertainment Software Ratings Boards (ESRB) ratings system in keeping violent video games out of the hands of youth. The panel, which will include parents, educators, experts in child psychology, child welfare advocates, concerned citizens and industry representatives, will also develop policies relating to public education and advocacy against youth violence, examine efforts being undertaken in other states, and develop recommendations for additional ways of regulating the exposure of youth to these games.

> Rating System Labeling Requirement -- under current State law, there is no requirement that retailers place labels on video games sold in New York. To address this shortcoming, would establish a new requirement that every video game sold in New York by a retailer or over the Internet, whether new or for resale, must have a clearly displayed rating indication on the game cover or elsewhere (such as on a website). Individuals who violate these provisions will face fines and penalties.

> Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program -- would also establish a new Parent-Teacher Anti-Violence Awareness Program, which will empower parents and teachers to work with students and children on issues related to violence in video games. The program will also seek to increase awareness of the ratings system on games, and the importance of appropriate parental supervision. The Anti-Violence Program would be funded through fines on retailers who violate the new labeling law.

The bill was sent to the Assembly.

Hey independent game developers! I hope you have several thousand dollars lying around to obtain a rating from a government-approved institution! If not, you better not sell your art to anyone in New York, or you could be in for hefty fines, you silly corrupter of youth!

Actually, I am so totally not a lawyer, but the text of the bill doesn't seem to specify that the rating come from any particular organization. It just has to be "a rating" that "informs the public about the content", no? You could make up your own system. "Zombie Chainsaw Babes is rated XS for Extremely Sweet."

Unfortunately, I know NYS too well. I used to live there up until 5 years ago. And if anything, if the State Senate has to pay for the legal fees when this goes to the SCOUS, they will just pass the fees onto the citizens to pick the f**ing tab. Like they pay for the Thurway twice. Once when you use the stupid road, and a second time through highway funding coming from the tax payers pocket as taxes. :) God, I really don't miss that state of taxation anymore. :)

Learn the names of the game and who made them.

I have a question for someone of the legal knowledge.

If this law passed and made it past the constitutional challenges.. would it give someone a leg to stand on when arguing that a videogame dev/pub could be liable? The government felt that it was somehow harmful to minors and felt the need to restrict it, wouldn't that allow for a lawyer to argue that it somehow caused the events surrounding a wrongful death suit?

to me... thats stretching that quite a bit... but u get a (D) judge and i think it could happen...

[...] About a month ago, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer said pushing an unconstitutional ban on selling certain video games to minors through the state’s legislature was one of his top priorities. State senators there are doing their part, taking just four days to get the bill passed after it was introduced. Perhaps in their haste, the senators missed the fact that, as written, the law is certain to get struck down by the courts, just like they have everywhere else that’s passed them. The measure moves on to the state assembly for consideration now, and hopefully lawmakers there will realize that all passing it will do is set taxpayers up for a big legal bill. But with so many brownie points on offer, and the memory of the Virginia Tech tragedy still fresh for bastardization in people’s minds, that seems pretty unlikely. [...]

@ Nekojin

""The “Rating System Label Requirement” is impossible to enforce. It would, in essence, make it impossible to sell used games unless you had the original box. Because the language includes online sales, that would mean that in order to do business in New York, eBay would have to block all used game sales, if not all sales of video games, to New Yorkers, or suffer fines and penalties""

Now really, the answer is so simple that it is done everywhere, where ratings are compulsory, the rating is printed on the disc itself. (Over here at least) Very few laws are enforced retropectivly, so existing games would not be covered by the requirement.

@brokenscope

IANAL, but AFAIK this law would have little to do with liability in a wrongful death suit. What would be needed is a strong correlation between game violence and real-life violence. There would also need to be a convincing link between the killer's behavior and the game(s) in question. That still might not be enough to prove liability.

Calling all lawyers...

@ Nekojin

"As one of the others posted: Read the law looking for the the most abusive context possible, because it will eventually be used in that fashion if it passes into law."

I completely agree with that sentiment. People are always saying what a law is meant to do, but they never look at what the law CAN do. The sad truth is, that given enough time, someone, somewhere will take advantage of the law.

Just look at what happened with Katrina. How many people took advantage of the massive amounts of money that the government was giving away without really looking into the project they were giving money to?

Look at what Jack tried to do with the Florida public-nuisance law.

I've once heard a guy saying we should limit Freedom of Speech. I tried to explain how that could be abused. He wouldn't hear it as his intention was of good-will and to "protect the children" (ugh..). Ignorance is the greatest weapon our opponents have.

If parents don't care enough as it is to actually pay attention to what their kids buy, play or watch, how will this bill do anything different?

What frustrates me about this bill is the fact it's only targeted at the video game industry. It should apply to all media industries if any.

[...] GamePolitics.Com has been tracking this in a series of articles. NY Game Law Could Mean a Lifetime Behind Bars for Retailers… Lightning Round for NY Assembly: Video Game Bill Passed in a Day… NY Video Game Bill Is On Fast Track to Becoming Law. The headlines say quite a bit, but the details are even more disturbing. [...]

Don't you think someone is absolutely screwed in the head to depict something so tragic yet spontaneous! The guy who created V-Tech Rampage is a sick fuck somebody should sue him big time!

Watch horny women do live cam show, free chat...

...