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.

Comments

One day? How can anyone trust a bill that became law so abruptly? I would prefer to go in depth as to why this bill is wrong, but said reasons have allready been stated multiple times.

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.

any fool that spouts this nonsense of supporting such a failed and flaw bill should be forced to pay part of his wages so the taxs payer dose not have to....taking money from the rich assemblymen would help make their trains of thought run a bit wiser....

@E. Zachary Knight Thanks for the correction! I missed the monetary part. Do you realize that in Korea, companies disseminate for money any "game" they want. The game is "given" for free. The license is what costs the money via subscription.

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.

This will go to court, be struck down as unconstitutional, and a lot of taxpayers money will be spent to defend a bill that should never have been created in the first place.

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.

@E. Kolb

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.

I hope Michael Gallagher will come out and visibly support the retailers. Obviously, such a law would affect the publishers as well.

[...] Well that was fast. The Democrat sponsored video game bill I wrote about yesterday has been weighed, measured, and found perfectly peachy by an overwhelming majority of the NY Assembly. This is of course the bill that would make it a felony for game store clerks to sell games depicting scenes of brutal violence to children, which as you can imagine has game store owners sh***ing kittens. [...]

"As a result, retailers and clerks will not and cannot know with certainty which video games could send them to jail under A8696."

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.

@Malhavoc

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.

I think the best solution to this issue would be for the industry to just not sell any games in NY as long as the bill exists. Can you imagine the outrage when thousands upon thousands of New Yorkers realize they are going to have to travel out of state to pick up Halo 3, Madden, etc? The politicians would have to overturn the bill almost overnight.

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 seems like some assemblyman is taking the stance that "video games are the devil"....

@ Robb

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.

@Robb again

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.

@ AM

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.

I am glad that the EMA is standing up for their rights. It is unfortunate that they had no real amount of time to give their objections before these bills were blasted through the legal process.

A chilling effect of this bill is that, as a felony, it is not up to parental guidance to allow your children to play a game that you do not find offensive. For example, if The Adventures of Cookies and Cream were deemed "violent," every single parent who had the game would subject to possible jail time.

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.

@ Dennis:

Is this the whole press release?

"The requirement that video game consoles include parental controls ignores the fact that the new generation of consoles include them already…

"

Nuff said.

I wonder how long it will take before this is shot down.

"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."

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).

yay 1st post =)

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.

[...] Thanks to GamePolitics.com for the heads-up. [...]

To GameBoy -
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.

hi i enjoyed the read

[...] Thanks to GamePolitics.com for the heads-up. [...]

As both a parent and a video game store owner in another state, I can appreciate the intent of the New York Assembly, but ultimately "depraved violence" is on tv, the internet, movies, schools and in homes -- this bill will not protect the children. Although everyone in my store is bound to abide by the ESRB ratings or face termination, it is ultimately the parents' role to instill the values that would make them not want the game in the first place...
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you usually divide up your Humble Bundle payments?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonthe lose of nn would not be good for us, but it will not be good for verizion/comcast/att in the long run ether.04/24/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonsadly yes. it would take another sopa day to achieve it.04/24/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoI am also confused. Are you saying NN would only become law if Google/Netflix pushed the issue (against their own interests)?04/24/2014 - 2:10pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, you are saying a lot of things but I am still unclear on your point. Are you saying that the loss of Net Neutrality will be good in the long run?04/24/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew WilsonOfcourse it does I never said it did not.though over time the death of NN will make backbone providers like Google, level3 and others stronger becouse most isps including the big ones can not provid internet without them. they can peer with smaller isps04/24/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, and that still plays in Google's favor over their smaller rivals who don't have the muscle to stand up to ISPs.04/24/2014 - 1:45pm
Matthew Wilsongoogle wont pay becouse they control a large part of the backbone that all isps depend on. if verizon blocks their data, google does the same. the effect is Verizon loses access to 40% of the internet, and can not serve some areas at all.04/24/2014 - 1:14pm
Neenekolack of NN is in google and netflix interest. It is another tool for squeezing out smaller companies since they can afford to 'play'04/24/2014 - 12:57pm
Matthew WilsonI have said it before net nutrality will not be made in to law until Google or Netflix is blocked, or they do what they did for sopa and pull their sites down in protest.04/23/2014 - 8:02pm
Andrew EisenGee, I guess putting a former cable industry lobbyist as the Chairman of the FCC wasn't that great of an idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=204/23/2014 - 7:26pm
Andrew EisenIanC - I assume what he's getting at is the fact that once PS3/360 development ceases, there will be no more "For Everything But Wii U" games.04/23/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Yes, obviously developers will eventually move on from the PS3 and 360 but the phrase will continue to mean exactly what it means.04/23/2014 - 5:45pm
IanCAnd how does that equal his annoying phrase being meaningless?04/23/2014 - 5:09pm
Matthew Wilson@Andrew Eisen the phrase everything but wiiu will be meaningless afer this year becouse devs will drop 360/ps3 support.04/23/2014 - 4:43pm
Andrew EisenFor Everything But... 360? Huh, not many games can claim that title. Only three others that I know of.04/23/2014 - 3:45pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/23/another-world-rated-for-current-consoles-handhelds-in-germany/ Another World fulfills legal obligations of being on every gaming system under the sun.04/23/2014 - 12:34pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-do-strong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/?comments=1 Here is another data driven article using sales data from steam to figure out if reviews effect sales. It is stats heavy like the last one.04/23/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenI love RPGs but I didn't much care for Tales of Symphonia. I didn't bother with its sequel.04/23/2014 - 11:21am
InfophileIt had great RPGs because MS wanted to use them to break into Japan. (Which had the side-effect of screwing NA PS3 owners out of Tales of Vesperia. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)04/23/2014 - 10:52am
RedMageI'm still disappointed the 360 never broke into Japan either. It had a bevy of great RPGs in the late 2000s.04/23/2014 - 9:48am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician