[...] Read more here and here… Tags: news Be first to rate this video/post :  Loading ... Relevant Videos:Gaming news June 1, 2007Gaming news May 31, 2007Gaming news May 30, 2007Gaming news May 26, 2007Gaming news May 25, 2007Gaming news May 24, 2007Gaming news May 23, 2007Gaming news May 22, 2007Gaming news May 20, 2007 | 1 Views [...]

@Gameboy

If the news does pick up on the NY story, the only way the "true" story will be told is if they get someone other than the members of the NY government to show why the bill was shot down. Otherwise, all you'll hear is "Heroic bill preventing the sale of violent videogames to kids shot down by big evil game industry". They not only have to show why it was unconstitutional, but why some of the examples and measures in the bill made no sense in the first place.

They need to show how the bill would have had no bearing on the V-Tech or Columbine games, how game stores are already taking measures to prevent selling Mature rated games to kids, how ambiguous the rules for judging the game content were, and how any kind of bill like it would be unconstitutional.

It still wouldn't stop a gung-ho state government from passing the same bill, but it sure would make the voting public think twice.

I was just thinking that this might not be all bad. Yes, making selling of video games a Class E Felony is wrong. Requiring parental controls is redundant. What would this council actually do, and why does a state need it? And the Salvage Claus is retarded.

But, it just hit me, this is happening in New York. Everyone pays attention to New York, even if they mostly watch the city. This could turn into a high profile case. I've still not seen a mention of video game legislation in my state paper. It hasn't covered any of the past attempts. But maybe that will change soon. Perhaps as these New York law(s) go to court, the news will pick up on it. And people across the nation will see the true story here. With a high profile defeat of this legislation, we may no longer see these stories here.

I know I'm being naive. We WILL see more. There's no escaping that fact. But maybe, just maybe, there's a chance. And hope springs eternal.

@ Thefremen

Hey don't be so hard on EvilJez. He just has a different point of view. It's not a terrible, insulting, and completely biased view like USA Hater's was. He seems completely willing to discuss the topic on this forum. Rather than run him off, feel free to debate. Otherwise, all you do is prove the senators in New York and elsewhere right.

Iv read both sides of the coin. Some people say its totally wrong. Some people say well, its not censorship, they are just trying to prevent minors from getting their hands on violent games. Noble indeed....

I'm sorry, but this bill is wrong. First off, millions of people play violent video games in the US alone. I know for a fact a decent amount of them are under 17. Now, with that understood, how many kids under 17 have shot people up? VTech and Columbine are not arguments because in BOTH shootings video games were ruled out as a leading cause.

So, ok little timmy gets that M rated video game from wal mart. Fine. Little timmy brings home said video game to play. Now, wouldnt you think timmy's mom would find out what her son was playing? Any decent parent that gives two shits about their child would know what their kids are into.

Gentlemen, we have here a failure for our politicians to understand what a video game is and its effects on people. They do not do research on their topic and they go PURELY off of EMOTION. That, is DANGEROUS. Not only do they not know much about video games, they are also using shock and fear factors to get it passed. This is scary.

If your not scared of this bill because its not censorship then be scared shitless of this bill because its just another step the government is taking into become a parent to the whole country. A big brother so to speak.

"Those are governed best who are governed least."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Excessive punishment is constitutional to some degree. See Ewing vs California, where a man was given 25 to life for shoplifting golf clubs and the Supreme Court upheld it.

I guess things like this are going to have to happen before there can be a constitutional ruling in favor of the industry, no?

...stop me from posting on your board...

I will proofread someday...

Now, the whole ’severability’ clause is what has me puzzled and concerned. Does that mean the whole bill itself cannot be declared unconstitutional? Does it mean that if it’s declared unconstitutional when a specific game is called into question, that game is let off the hook but the bill stays in effect for anything else? How can it be ’selectively unconstitutional’, as it were?

It means that if one part of the bill gets declared unconstitutional, the rest survives. So in theory you'd have to kill the monitor committee and the make store clerk felons parts separately.

BTW looking at some of the ratings issues with BIoshouck over AO for killable little sisters it leads to think that if Fallout was made today it would get a auto AO rating because of the hookers and the ability to kill kids.

because a mature game can not have that and a AO rating can kill a game its tant amount to censorship, the same can be said for smoking being a automatic R rating however R movies sell and unrated DVDs at wallyworld now a days thus its not a issue......

" Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R, left) has called for a conference committee of members of both chambers to find a compromise before the scheduled end of the legislative session…

[NY Gov. Eliot] Spitzer announced in Wednesday’s leaders meeting that an agreement was reached between the majority and minority leaders of the Assembly and the minority Democrats in the Senate to restrict the distribution of the videos to youths.

Conservative Republican upstaters and New York City liberals alike
showed a rare, broad-based support for some action on the issue."
--------------------------------
We pass bill we get votes tax payers pay the court costs we pander abotu the evils of it again and get more votes....to pass it again...for the tax payer to get waped once more.....

Don't you love politicians !

Wait... if eavesdropping by technological means is a felony... why haven't they arrested the President yet? No one should be above the law.

Seriously though, this law is probably going to fail on so many levels.

[...] Lightning Round for NY Assembly: Video Game Bill Passed in a Day Yesterday GamePolitics broke the news about a new video game bill under consideratin by the New York State Assembly. Now comes word that the measure, A08696 has already been approved by the Assembly. Last week the New York Senate passed its own video game bill, sponsored by Sen. Andrew Lanza (R). Legislators in both houses are moving quickly because the current session ends on June 21st. So what will happen to the two bills? The Associated Press is reporting that:Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R, left) has called for a conference committee of members of both chambers to find a compromise before the scheduled end of the legislative session

Nekojin:

How about the fact that a 17 year old can go into Wal-Mart and purchase unrated versions of pretty much any movie out there. Unrated movies being advertised as the stuff too bloody for the theaters. Hostel, and the like.

...yet you don't see politicians making it illegal (through threat of jail time) to sell that kind of stuff, do you?

~ Adding: There are other dishonest debating tactics in that post, especially in the first and second paragraphs, but the two I cited should be enough for now.

@EvilJez
“Regarding this ‘Chilling Effect’… All the precident outside of America say’s your wrong!”

what your not taking into account is the difference in politicans and the kind of activism there is in this country... From what i've heard, most other countries with such laws don't have many politicans railing against vidoe games, the fight out there is very weak. Furtharmore, other countries have video game laws that reflect the same laws that have had for other media for years; the retailers in those countries are well adapted to dealing with such laws... hell, because those laws are common place, i'd imagine that not too many minors would actually try to buy such games or movies cause they know they would probably get caught; some might, but alot less... with less minors trying to buy such things there is less for the retailers to look out for, the retailers of which have been watching these things for years...

However, america is different... this is the first of this kind of law, retailers are not used to having to maintaining perfect performance, watching every single solitary customer that walks in; worried that when one of their minimum wage emploees (who may not care too much) doesn't check for id it could result in harsh penalties... they do what they can, but that are not used to keeping a that close of an eye on things... to make matters more different, our politicans would be highly active in this area. For the sake of "save the children" they would be conducting stings on retailers and watching them like hawks... the moment they screw up is the momnet they become an example for everyone else... unlike retailers in other countries, they have more reason to worry about one of their employees making a mistake and actually getting caught... since politicans in other countries don't watch things as closely, if an emplyee makes a mistake is very likely the mistake will go unnoticed, thus the retailers have little to worry about; their just not being watched... In other coutnries, it's probably like how achohol sales are done here... alchohol has laws that prevent the sale of it to minors, but the issue and activism over alchohol is very weak these days... stings done to actually check that the laws are being upheld are rather rare; hell some bartenders don't even bother to check for ID because they know the chances of cop walking in the day a minor buys a drink is very slim... unfortunatly, because video games have a big target on them, politicans will be stinging retailers often to catch them breaking the law... eventurally it will get to the point where retailers may want to stop selling such games so that it becomes litterly impossible for some minimum wage teenage employee to screw up (no offense to the good teenage employees out there)

hell we don't only have politicans, but we got plenty of activist groups and poeple who would love to do the job for the politicans... groups like the Eagle Forum, NIMF, and Jack Thompson... these poeple would be stinging retailers until they stopped selling such games completely... it would be a serious blow for the industry if someone like wal-mart stopped selling many of their (a company that is a leading seller of games, but yet makes most of it's profit selling other junk and thus doesn't need to sell games that could cause it trouble),games...

@cybrsage

"There are a myriad of laws preventing children from obtaining things they need to be older to obtain. Why is this one so evil? Could it be those railing against it are children themselves or people who profit off selling things to children?"

None of those laws however go against what the consitution states... Porn, is not considered protected speech and therefore it does not violate the 1st amendment to restrict it too children... laws for substances, like drugs and alchohol? nothing in the constution that protects these things... restrictions on R-rated movies? there is NO law preventing the sale of R-rated movies to children, for the same reason these video game laws all fail; violation of the 1st amendment... unlike all other laws that restrict minors and not adults, this one actually does violate the 1st amendment... also i believe it has already been ruled that minors do have the same free speech rights as adults

In order to make an exception to free speech, such as yelling "fire" or porn, a person must prove that these things should be restricted. the 1st amendment is very strict, so it takes alot to show that something should not be protected as a form of speech... so far, lawmakers have tried everything in the book to show that violent video games should not be protected as free speech, however the courts have so far unamisouly agreed that such arguements are far too weak to constitute and exception to free speech. The problems that video games can cause are just about as small as every other form of media; other media which ofcourse is protected

and as if actually visited this site regularly, you would know that the majority of commentors on this site are adults, not children, and don't actually have anything to profit from getting rid of such laws... some maybe minors, and some may work in the industry, but most do not...

@cybersage

You are talking about the only few instances where freedom of speech is restricted (but not without good reason) and acting like it's a real issue. First off shouting fire in a crowded theatre trying to get everyone to panic is inciting a riot. Shouting this is a robbery I have a gun is a threat to the bank and the customers, (unless it's immediately obvious you are joking). The only other times free speech is understandedly restricted (that I can think off the top of my head) is divulging military secrets (treason) and slander.

I always read stuff in here from some portion of people who say something along the lines of 'I'm in favour of keeping M rated games out of the hands of minors, but..' etc etc. Well i hate to be incendiary (i do respect that some people reach that conclusion) but i think that the contrary opinion does not get enough exposure.

I am absolutely NOT in favour of keeping M rated games out of the hands of minors, except for my daughter (2.5 yrs right now). And when shes older and i feel she can handle them or T games then i fully expect to revise that prohibiton on a game-by-game basis. (We had a very fun time playing Bully over the weekend together, although i am still just at the level of trying to work on basic profciency at controlling the key functions of the dual shock with her right now)

But i have no interest in tryign to keep M rated games out of other kids hands, it shoudl be fully up to the parent (and also to a certain extent the kid) so of course netiehr am i in favour of trying to put M games into the hands of minors either. Thats because there is no legitimate societal interest in doign so, its not my business to be telling other parents they should be doing a good job parenting, im busy enough just parenting my own progeny. And I am fully confident that video games have little or any harmful effect on kids anyways (and tho the evidence is not conclusive either way, so far the courts agree that it is correct based on the current available evidence to take a skeptical view) so it should be fully up to the parent what they do, as opposed to things where we do tell people how to parent (such as they have to send their kids to school, kids cant drive on public roads until age 16, cant smoke/drink, etc) where there are obvious and clear social interests in those strictures (such as sending them to school so that the younger generation is more likely to be productive members of society armed witht he knowledge they need to contribute, or the fact that 12 year olds driving cars around would be a public safety hazard, etc).

Fact is that i can't see any other basis for the statment to the effect that one agrees with keeping M-rated games out of the hands of other people's kids than that one is already granting that there is presumptively a long-tern harm that is happening to these kids if they are playing these games (perhaps somebody could enlighten me as to an alternate justification). Which, although its a fine hypothesis for scientists to do more primary research to test the validity of, i think given current state of the evidence on both sides is an idiotic principle to base any sort of decision making on absent some future evidence that will actually show some tangible real world harms.

Freedom of speech has always been restricted. Try shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is not a fire and then claim you are exercising your freedom of speech.

Try walking into a bank and shout "This is a robbery, I have a gun, give me all your money" and then claim freedom of speech and see how far that gets you.

I will assume everyone has no problem punishing people for selling Adult movies to children.

Since we agree there has to be a limit somewhere, and there should be punishements for breaking the rules, we just need to determine where to put the limits.

This law would not prevent a parent from buying the game for a child (unlike the laws about adult movies), just prevent the child from buying it themself.

There are a myriad of laws preventing children from obtaining things they need to be older to obtain. Why is this one so evil? Could it be those railing against it are children themselves or people who profit off selling things to children?

To be clear, eavesdropping in the context of the NY law isn't merely overhearing a conversation. It refers to electronic surveillance, primarily - wiretapping, bugging and the like.

Here's an idea why not the ESA show up during the bill's next step and remind all those present that they will challenge it on consitutional grounds and that will make the NY government pay for legal if/when the bill is declared unconstitutional. If that doesn't work then there is no hope left.

@Namrepus221:
You realize that the game industry doesn't "get" a cent of anything they win. It all goes to the court fees they paid to fight against the bill. There is no "positive" in this, only wasted tax payer money.

I was also kinda curiouse, and I found a few other Class E felonies for New York.

"Riot in the First Degree"

"Criminal anarchy"

"Aggravated harassment in the first degree"

"Eavesdropping"

"Bigamy"

and "Incest"

Just a few other class E felonies, and yet, they want to lump in selling M rated games to minors in with these, yeeeah again.

This is so going to get shot down, and honestly, it should, I mean, a felony for selling a M game to a minor, especially compared to some of the things that Scoops just posted, yeeeeah.

Sorry, 4 to 16oz of pot.

So, I googled around... here are some other Class E felonies in New York State:

- Possession of up to 16oz of marijuana..

- Leaving the scene of an accident involving serious injury or fatality...

- Burning a cross in public....

- Third degree rape......


Seriously: What the hell?

[...] Lightning Round for NY Assembly: Video Game Bill Passed in a Day [GamePolitics.com] [...]

How can they review the subject of videogame violence and still not know anything about it?

I was going to respond to several of the posts in this thread, but I just realized something even more chilling.

This is a law being passed in the State of New York. That means that it only applies to New York. If other states want the same treatment, they have to pass similar laws.

What does this mean? It means that the ESRB would be subject to oversight by up to FIFTY different state-sponsored groups. Talk about death by committee.

If that were to happen, the ESRB would be functionally dead in the water, as it would be impossible to get full, completed games rated in anything approaching a reasonable time frame. What happens to our game industry then?

That said, that's a worst-case scenario; smart money says that this bill is a lame duck that won't ever get to enforcement.

- - - - -

One last point: "WHiel draconian penalties are not unconstitutional, vagueness is."

Actually, there's constitutional protection from penalties that are out of line with the infringement - the Eighth Amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." There are ample case files for precedent for similar items - why should the penalty for selling a violent video game to a minor be more severe than selling alcohol or tobacco to one? It is a Class 1 Misdemeanor to distribute alcohol to a minor; this bill makes the sale of a violent video game a [b]Felony[/b]. That would be a textbook case of an 8th Amendment violation.

There doesn't need to be any laws. If you don't think kids should play specific games, then don't let your kids play those games. What makes you a good parent is rasing a well adjusted child. Just because someone else may have a differnt parenting style than yours does not make them irresponsible. Stop letting the government influence parenting styles. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not. Be a better adult and take care of your kid.

@Serenity

"Why do we need laws to do this? Why does there need to be punishment for this? Why exactly can’t parents take some initiative to learn what their kids are playing and have meaningful discussions with them? Oooh right, because parent’s don’t want to think anymore. They want eveything handed to them on a platter as opposed to actually *learning* about anything."

All I said was that I would be fine with the laws, not that I would support it. To me, a minor fine for selling the video game to a minor isn't that bad, as long as it has clear-cut defenitions of what is and isn't acceptable, as well as it applying to all media sold in stores. I'm only refering to situations where the child buys the video game, not in situations where Little Timmy's mom buys it for him, then bitches to the video game store because she was too lazy to do a little research *and by research I mean flip the box over.* And not all parents are like that, after all.

There's more to this. New York has a 3 Strikes law:

http://lawofthegame.blogspot.com/2007/05/3-games-and-youve-got-25-to-lif...

@Randalor and Serrenity

I'm was not making precident in terms of having the law or not having the law.

I was trying to point out that no where else where it is illegal to sell games to minors, has it stopped retailers selling mature games (in very high volumes)!

Before anyone mentions Germany, that situation is different as they are actually legally prevented from selling games that don't recieve a classification.

Last and final point before I'm off... Randalor makes a fair point that a 4 year jail term is harsh and I'd agree. I'd expect however that in reality though jail terms would rarely given out as to imprison people is expensive, and fines tend to be effective against businesses.

And this is WHY we have an %8.75 sales tax in NY state (thankfully I have amazon.com for tax free shopping), when they waste taxpayers dollars on crap like this everyone in the state has to pay for it. Every time I shop online and do not put money into the community where I live I feel good about it!

The whole reason they are doing it is because of this whole "video games are the devil" and "protect the children" mentality and that if a politician is doing something to regulate the devil (video games in this case) and to so called "protect" the children, then it looks good to a very mis-informed public, which in turn gets them more support and more votes down the line. Most people will look at this and say, oh good politician x is FINALLY doing something about those darn video games that those kids play all the time that turns them into nothing but fat couch potatoes that grow up to be tomorrow's murderer and serial rapist...

[...] 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. [...]

@EvilJez

Then again, how much of that precident makes it a felony to sell M rated games to minors? We're not talking a slap on the wrist, we're talking 4 years jail time for either:

A)Making a simple mistake and selling an M rated game to a 16-year old
B)Selling the game to someone who's able to play it, but legally can't because they're 17, or
C) Going to jail because Little Timmy's mom was an idiot and bought him the game without caring what was in it, then after seeing what was in it, said the game store sold it to her.

3 guesses on how much they would investigate C before believing her >_>

Er… just to point out that retailers won’t be obliged to stop selling games with “depraved violence”! They’ll just be obliged to not sell them to minors.

So is your scenario really likely?

Yes it is. Since the store clerk will be charged as a felon if they sell a game that happens to contain the rather vague "depraved violence" stores will not carry it at all. Not to mention that minors do have free speech rights in this country and this is an infringement on those rights.

So is your scenario really likely?

Yes it is. Look at this: Already major retailers refuse to carry anything that holds an Adults Only rating; with this law in NY, I can guarantee similar things will happen.

Instead of risk a felony and potential lawsuit(s), the stores will be more inclined just to not carry the games in question.

On a lighter note, I just had a thought of minors standing outside of GameStop trying to convince someone over 18 to buy them a game hahah

Video games will be like the new Cigarettes.

I was trying to point out that no where else where it is illegal to sell games to minors, has it stopped retailers selling mature games (in very high volumes)!

That would be because of unambiguous government approved age ratings for all media, games, movies, etc. This is too ambiguous, thus it would cause a chilling effect. We do not have government approved age ratings here in the US to use to avoid chilling effect causing ambiguity.

Our free speech protections would make the establishment of such government approved ratings very difficult at best. Nor can they simply use the ESRB or MPAA ratings for the purposes of regulation. They can't give a private organization governmental authority like that.

Also, you forgot about Australia banning various games they didn't like.

[NY Gov. Eliot] Spitzer announced in Wednesday’s leaders meeting that an agreement was reached between the majority and minority leaders of the Assembly and the minority Democrats in the Senate to restrict the distribution of the videos to youths.


It's okay, we understand that because you are politicians you are completely without intelligence.

we the people understand that you have just made a law to restrict videogames and called it a law to restrict "videos" (even thought they are obviously two different items)

we the people also understand that because you have no intelligence, you cannot understand the first amendment in the united states constitution. therefore we forgive you as it's not your fault your so stupid.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with bringing in laws that try to help cut down on the selling of M rated games to young teens and younger

@Randalor

Why do we need laws to do this? Why does there need to be punishment for this? Why exactly can't parents take some initiative to learn what their kids are playing and have meaningful discussions with them? Oooh right, because parent's don't want to think anymore. They want eveything handed to them on a platter as opposed to actually *learning* about anything.

In my mind, these types of laws are not only unconstitutional and redundant, they remove responsibility of the child from the parent. It makes the parent do less and less actual parenting and instead just cruise along till the most convenient law suit presents itself ...

@Gray17 and E. Zachary Knight

Regarding this 'Chilling Effect'... All the precident outside of America say's your wrong!

@EvilJez

In what way does this bill censor anything?

Chilling effect. Any game that might result in a store clerk being charged as a felon will not be carried by retailers. So Metal Gear Solid 3 for example likely wouldn't be carried because of the torture scene. The end result is that developers will not make any games that depict torture even if it's in a negative light. Thus video game developers are prevented from using some things in their plots for fear of penalties. Which is censorship.

@ E. Zachary Knight

The definition does need a bit more clarification, I'll agree with you on that. With a couple of clarifications, it would make a reasonable bill that makes sense. Being vague is often the solution for lawmakers so they can have something to add to later on.

If the video games industry can get an amendment to that part of the bill, I don't see why it'd be a bad thing to have around. But then again, I don't live under American law so I can't really say much about the process.

@Zachary

Normally there is time to respond to legislation. However, the standard deliberative process seems to have been intentionally ignored here. This is normally reserved for "emergancy" legislation (generally responding to critical funding needs or some major problem with the law that has to be delt with immediately; arguablely there is no such emergancy here, but legislatures are allowed to run their proceedings as they see fit). When I saw this, my first reaction was "WHOA! Wait a minute! Where's the committee hearing?" As a general rule when something like this occurs the legislature and their constiuents live to regret it (see U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, passed under similiar conditions).

The Gamer Community, manufactures, etc need to get to the members of the NY State Senate and find one who will pull every parlimentary trick in the book to stop this. Just run down the clock.

I am just amazed by this. This is the second time in a week I've wanted to move out of this state, both because of the State Government.

This is just ridiculous. It's like the logic here is "No one else has really successfully done anything on this topic, but I'm sure we can." Politicians bother me more and more lately. Although I guess it's true what they say: voters get the politicians they deserve.

Well, the population is only as smart as its dumbest member. There's always gonna be stupid mistakes to be made, there's always gonna be people who'll make said mistakes but moral panic is always going to be something that gets my hackles up, whether it's politicians, the media or just regular people causing it.

However, after reading the contents of the bill...I don't see why (aside from the classification of the sale of violent video games to minors as a felony) it would go to court. It all seems fairly straight forward and isn't meant to govern the content of video games, just the sale of said video games to minors.

It does look like what they're trying to do is equate violent video games to pornography. Porn is restricted content, they're trying to make certain video games fall under the same category.

The part about the video games consoles to us seems like what the companies are already doing and also is pure common sense. But there's nothing to say some new company will come out with a console other than the big three makers, so they look like they're trying to put something in place there for the future.

The advisory council also seems fairly straight forward and they want someone from the video games industry on it to give their point of view when the recommendations are put forward. That part does seem like it's been glossed over in favour of the ESRB rating review duty of the board. To me, it looks like they're looking for a full scope rather than a group of people like Jack Thompson who'll just throw tantrums about video game violence.

If this one manages to get past with few problems, I honestly would like to see other governments adopt something similar. Purely because they're not trying to restrict the content, just trying to restrict who gets hold of it. And they're making steps towards really educating the public rather than yelling at the industry for not doing enough.

Oh!! A Lightning Round!! Does that mean they got extra points? They know how we gamers love points! I just love earning points for running over pedestrians, killing cops, raping prostitutes and chickens, and torturing helpless little lemmings! For Joy!

/sarcasm

@ nightwng2000

Don't you mean the Louisiana Governor? I know he took some 510 thousand dollars from various government programs. And it caused a bit of a stink there. Or did they do that in Illinois, too.

"Give it 20 - 30 years and the people in government will have grown up with video games, watched this trash talk with amusement and will be approaching the issue sensibly rather than kow towing to the lowest common parental denominator who doesn’t want to take responsibility for their children in today’s society"

==============
And then watch us make these same stupid mistakes with some other, now unforeseeable issue. It's a pattern that is doomed to repeat itself again and again until we treat the root issue, not the symptoms.

As to what the definitive issue is, I'm not entirely sure ... but I have a few ideas strongly related to theory placed forth in Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." Using fear to control the populace.

Try up here in Canada, last time I checked we only had laws that enforced the ESRB ratings standards.

To Althrun,

"This makes me a sad panda.

Is there a country out there I can move to that doesn’t do this kind of crap?"

Or you can go British.

Holland.

I guess this means war... A war between the gamers or the entertainment industries and the anti-game activists. We have no choice but to revolt!

I hope New York taxpayers like their tax dollars spent on passing useless laws and paying the legal fees of the very industry they're trying to kill.

This makes me a sad panda.

Is there a country out there I can move to that doesn’t do this kind of crap?

Hey, maybe the NY Gov. can even take a page from the IL. Gov.'s book and syphon off funds from other important areas (maybe even from 9/11 health benefits for police officers?) to get this bill passed and/or defend this bill which is expected to fail in the courts.

What? You don't think he would? Why do you think they're really shotgunning this through? It's so that any misinformation that is spread in the rush can't be questioned or investigated because they aren't giving anyone any actual time to research the information being spread.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I could see it now...
Mr. Bruno: Mr. Spitzer, this video game legislation could save...
Spitzer: PASSED, next bill please.

With all these anti gamers in office, the entire legal process is going to be turned upside down.

/New York will have a video game law this year, as well as the inevitable video game industry legal challenge./

As well as inevitable striking down by the Supreme Courts of NY.

See how lightning fast this bill gets struck down.
*Puts up Queens: "Another one bites the dust"*

[...] 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. [...]

100% FREE see this pages.
anime girls celebrity cumshots /%/ Dont delete this links, its very useful for :) [@multi_txt.txt||2||r||1||