Game Retailers Say No Sale to NY Video Game Bill
Game Retailers Say No Sale to NY Video Game Bill
May 31, 2007
As expected, video game retailers are not pleased by a New York Assemby bill which would make the sale of games containing "depraved violence" a Class-E felony.The Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), which represents video game retailers, issued a stinging criticism of the NY Assembly following passage of A08696 yesterday by an overwhelming 130-10 vote.
Said EMA President Bo Anderson (left):
This bill is ill-conceived and unconstitutional. The proposal to jail retailers and clerks for up to four years for selling certain video games to persons under age 17 is apparently based on misunderstandings about what retailers are doing currently.
The requirement that video game consoles include parental controls ignores the fact that the new generation of consoles include them already...
This bill is impermissibly vague. A8696 seeks to apply real-world standards of violence to the fictional and fanciful world of video games, an environment in which they have no meaning. As a result, retailers and clerks will not and cannot know with certainty which video games could send them to jail under A8696. It was depressing to hear members of the Assembly note the constitutional problems with the bill and then state that they were voting for it.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:44am
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:40am
JDKJ: We can sit here all day and debate the relative merits. However, I think the events of recent days suggest that an FN Five-Seven ain't exactly the same as that Daisy BB gun you got for Christmas when you were a kid.
JDKJ: We can sit here all day and debate the relative merits. However, I think the events of recent days suggest that an FN Five-Seven ain't exactly the same as that Daisy BB gun you got for Christmas when you were a kid.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:38am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: tumbling can be quite dangerous. However, the rounds that commonly tumbled were variants of the SS90. Civilian ammo tends to tumble far less commonly.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: tumbling can be quite dangerous. However, the rounds that commonly tumbled were variants of the SS90. Civilian ammo tends to tumble far less commonly.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:33am
JDKJ: I understand that while they don't have much expansion effect, they tend to "yaw" on impact. Yaw can be almost just as damaging as mushrooming.
JDKJ: I understand that while they don't have much expansion effect, they tend to "yaw" on impact. Yaw can be almost just as damaging as mushrooming.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:30am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: Except when one considers the lack of expansion for the 5.7, it basically ends up leaving a far smaller hole.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: Except when one considers the lack of expansion for the 5.7, it basically ends up leaving a far smaller hole.
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:29am
JDKJ: But if the latter's travelling at close to twice the speed of the former, there's a compensatory effect on the weight difference.
JDKJ: But if the latter's travelling at close to twice the speed of the former, there's a compensatory effect on the weight difference.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
It's almost genious too because politicians supporting the law can simply say that game retailers want to sell games with 'depraved violence' to children and that the gamers who are against the bill are simply just desensitized from all the 'depraved violence'.
I do hope this law is shot down before it goes into effect.
What this shows me is that every single lawyer in the legislature are signing a vague bill with a HUGE GAPING LOOPHOLE that a non-lawyer can find. It's not simply unconstitutional, it's clearly unenforceable.
What I hope happens, is that the newspapers around New York will pick up on this, and blast the legislature for wasting a ton of money to milk more votes. That should get most of them out of office.
They did the same thing here in Pennsylvania, when the the state legislature voted to give themselves an undiserved and un-necessary pay raise that would've cost the state a ton of money. The newspapers picked up on it, the pay raise was repealed, and most in the legislature either opted not to run for another term, or lost the elections.
I realize that the stores like EB and Gamestop would be screwed, but like I said, if this were to happen, I can't see it lasting more than a day or two before gamers and parents of gamers raise hell and force them to overturn the bill. I think they could live without selling games for a day or two and giving the employees a few days off. As soon as they reopened all the fuss would probably increase sales for a few days to make up for it.
It would certainly send a message to politicians that restricting video game sales is a problem for their constituents, not just the people who make them.
Good point, considering "depraved violence" is a rather difficult thing to measure. Even if it said "to minors below the age rating," at least it would be clearer. There is one fallback, it does say punishment only comes if the clerk sells the game (in the annoying all caps) "WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENT." Perhaps it's possible to claim you didn't know what was in the game.
The thing with that is that stores like Gamestop, EB World, Game Crazy, etc. only sell games and related materials. If they stop selling games period, the profits for hundreds if not thousands of stores state-wide dry up to zero. That hurts them more than it does the state government.
Simply threatening to do so, with statements from EB/Gamestop, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, and members of the EMA and ESA would probably be enough to create enough commotion to scare the bill out of committee.
It will not effect parents unless they work in a retail outlet and sell the game to their own kid. The bill only effect retailers who sell the game. A parent giving the kid a game is not considered retail.
It is not ex post facto either. If a retailer wishes to sell ultra violent games to kids now then they can do so. But once this goes into effect, it will have no affect on prior sales.
It might make a recall of current new consoles with out parental guidence controls happen though.
Want an example of the assembly men acknoledging it as unconstitutional?
From the original story:
4.) The measure contains a severability clause, which states that if any portion of the proposed law is found to be unconstitutional, such a ruling would not invalidate the other sections.
http://gamepolitics.com/2007/05/30/another-ny-game-bill-democrat-proposa...
What more do you need? I've been hoping that the politicians would learn their lesson on this issue soon. It seems they have, but it was the wrong lesson. Has anyone ever heard of a severability clause? This just sounds unconstitutional.
Oh. I also seem to remember a story on Joystiq in which they name and quote a senator who admits that they are aware that game legislation is "bad law", but he's going to vote for it so it can't be used against him when he goes up for reelection. Makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy.
Essentially, the bill would be "ex post facto," something that is unconstitutional. Article One of the United States Constitution, section ten says: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Is this the whole press release?
"
Nuff said.
I wonder how long it will take before this is shot down.
Does anyone have a solid example of this? In my opinion, an assemblyman saying, "This is unconstitutional, but I'm going to vote for it anyway," is about as dangerous as it comes. Any assemblyman who fully believed the bill was unconstitutional and passed it anyway should recalled (though I don't recall NY actually having a recall system; I thankfully didn't live there long).
anyways, what Bo Anderson is saying is probably almost exactly the same thoughts that all of us had about the bill, just put into well-thought-out words. good job Bo, way to go.
a severabilility clause is a very common thing in legal contracts and in other legislative actions. It is not necessarily an acknowledgement that the legislative action is unconstitutional at the outset. A clause of that sort is used to preserve parts of a statute or enactment so that if a particular element of the legislation is later deemed to be unconstutional by a court, then the rest of the legislations still stands.