May 31, 2007
Yesterday GamePolitics broke the news about a new video game bill under consideration 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...
[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.
GP: It's clear that video game legislation enjoys bi-partisan support as well as the backing of the Governor. New York will have a video game law this year, as well as the inevitable video game industry legal challenge.
Comments
shouldn't it be up to the parents do tell kids wat they cant do and do
as a teen ive wanted so many M rated games but do i get them...no i dont because my parents are smart enough to say no
and we should be talknig about the false words spoken about video games Like the army uses video games to desense a tize the recuits from killing(FALSE)
the army uses video games to simulate wat might actually happen so the recuits can learn wat to do if a situation happens to occur to save as many lives as possible
Yes I know, but it's odd. Ben Franklin already explained to the British people our way of thinking two centuries ago. We hold these truths to be self evident: all men are created equal and censorship is wrong. A cat is fine too.
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.
Agreed with above, awesome quote from Jefferson.
I can see big brother looking over my brother's shoulder and nailing a random store because they sold him World of Warcraft /sarcasm
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.
Yes indeed. And nice quote of Thomas Jefferson. Blaming the evil actions of those insolent and violent teenagers' on movies and games is just totally sick and disgusting.
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
"Go British? Hasn’t the UK had been under government-enforced censorship of entertainment media, at least since the “Video Nasties” of 20 or 30 years ago? (Maybe I missed the sarcasm — sorry if so!)"
That's long time ago, now the "Video Nasties" have been unbanned and released uncut. One prime example will be our favorite zombie movie, err I mean almost favorite, "Zombie Flesh Eaters" (Zombi II in Italy).
If you want to REALLY troll, post a game on newgrounds about some horrific (inter)national tragedy. It doesn't even have to be good. Something like "darfur mass killings" or "v-tech shootings 2: the vengence".
Your time will be better spent and people will pay more attention to you.
I swear, the industry should go to SPitzer and tell him they are gonna sue him directly for there legal fees if he signs this, and make it a public event to show his constituents just how he's wasting all there money.
I will proofread someday...
Just to be clear: The First Amendment doesn't necessarily let you say whatever you want, whenever, however. It limits what the government can do to stop you from saying something. Private citizens, corporations, etc. can all still do things that are "tantamount to censorship". You see this all the time on forums around the internet. Someone gets told to STFU and comes back with "I have the right to free speech." The government can't stop you from making a message board. You can stop me from posting on my board. The same applies to the ESRB and the retail outlets. They can say they don't think God of War is okay for 15 year olds. It's up to them. They can tell me that I can't buy a cordless phone because I look shifty, if they want to. It's their private business. This is part of the reason that, in the U.S., private ratings systems can't be given the force of law. Then the government would be advocating something that is tantamount to censorship.
Just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean I have to give you the tools to broadcast it.
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.
Not only violence, but *any* nudity and *any* sexual content included in games would become outlawed. Which, okay, most games I can think of that have those have the whole depraved violence option covered (I'm lookin' at YOU, God of War...), but still.
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?
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......
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."
Okay, stop right there. You're directly comparing violent video games to adult movies, which is a False Premise, a standard dishonest debating tactic. No such similarity exists; basing an argument against the former because of the restrictions on the latter is totally invalid.
"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?"
And there's another dishonest debating tactic: Questioning the motives of the opposition (or perhaps Name-Calling, depending on how you look at it).
The simple fact is that the law is bad from the ground up. Do we need to protect children from violence? The jury is out on that one - there seems to be evidence that sheltering the children from violence can cause greater harm than allowing it. But a vague, overreaching law like this is definitely going to be harmful if it gets passed into law, to retailers at the very least.
[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 !
Sexual abuse in the second degree (non-intercourse sexual contact with a minor under 14) [Penal Code 130.60]
Bestiality [Penal Code 130.20]
Necrophilia [Penal Code 130.20]
Forcible touching (i.e, sexual groping) [Penal Code 130.52]
That's right, if A8696 were to be enacted as drafted, perpetrators of these crimes in New York would be punished less severely than a clerk who sold a 16-year-old a video game that contains depictions of “depraved violence” and “indecent images.”
Seriously though, this law is probably going to fail on so many levels.
@Starsmore: Are you sure you're responding to something I said? =^_^=
Varies for parent, however pornography is illegal to display to a minor regardless of parental discretion.
"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."
Yeah, some retailers already have punishments in place (gamestop has the pink slip response). Why do we need to make it a felony which results in jail time. Jail time will harm a person, and of course a fellow inmate will probably ask, "what're you in for?" They'll laugh at the truthful answer, and that person will be looked upon as fresh/weak meat. Why should we subject someone for selling a videogame to basically be scarred horribly in jail?
"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."
True, but I guess you don't understand how parents may simply deny such a claim that they bought such "trash" for their child. They'll lie and say the game box was switched or something. Or even worse, they'll place blame upon the retailer to look good in front of her "tea friends."
Then an unlucky clerk may be subject to jail time for simply doing his job.
"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? "
See above scenarios. Just because that may "not" happen, it does happen a few times. Why allow such a chance at such a scenario. Some people are just simply irresponsible.
What if the child just simply said they got it from a friend (who looks innocent) and the parent doesn't buy it and then eyes the retailers?
Putting laws like this doesn't save ANY lives. It is a pointless law (such as the 'can't kiss in public' law that we have here) and this law is dangerous since it allows for a serious offense to be put on record which will take away some rights from the convicted.
It is worse that it was passed without a hearing, they _KNOW_ it is unconstituional. They just want to pass it to look good in front of the public, and not have the "you've been warned" from the commitee.
The difference in what harms a child is that video games do not harm a child. In fact, they may benefit with greater reflexes and responses.
Some may get addicted to games, but that's another issue altogether, as it is the parent's responsibility to teach their child about management of time. That is why it is understandable that a child should be older in order to handle the material, it doesn't mean it should be a law that'll use up more money to enforce government involvement in a material object that does no harm to a child. Drugs, which alter the mind do harm a child, and that's why there are laws against it.
I also wouldn't be surprised if there are some children that view this website and despise the law making it illegal for them to obtain it. It is an understandable situation. Were you not a child and "wanted" something but couldn't get it? It is a natural human instinct.
The difference is, a child may think differently upon how they interpret this. They aren't harmed in any way, however they may have friends that are retailers, and wouldn't want to cause them harm at the sole expense of them wanting a simple video game.
I think the children that can get ahold of $50 for a video game must've got it by either working, or from their parent. What kind of idiot parent would give a child $50+ and not ask where it is going?
Minors that are working would also be subject to these laws. What if they bought it themself? Would they be subject to felonies?
It is silly how they make up laws like this [especially vague language], and that is why we have a problem with laws like this cybersages.
I'd go on, but I think I will just sound like I'm reiterating what everyone may have already mentioned.
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?
TOTAL VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY EMBARGO ON THE STATE OF NEW YORK
hear me out, and the industry will have to move fast to make give this threat some teeth. Upon signing the bill, all specialty retail shops close (just pack up the stores and re-distribute the merchandise to other stores in other states), all game studios begin relocating out of the state, an import ban on all video games and systems to the state, including on-line retailers like Amazon and eBay. The embargo will stay in effect until such time as the law is repealed and ALL the legislators who voted for the law AND the Governor are replaced. In order to enforce the ban, stores in the states surrounding NY will have to check ID before purchases ("In order to protect our employees from potential criminal charges in the State of New York we can NOT sell any game or game system to any resident of New York").
The full impact of such an embargo would not be felt until the Holidays, but once it has re-election will be the LEAST concern for the politicians...
Personally, I would not want to have to face a mob of angry parents who cannot get their children the toy they want most for the Holidays, no matter how much money they are willing to spend...
There's an extremely large difference here. The government cannot ban theaters or make laws preventing certain classes of people from entering them because somebody might shout "fire" there. See also: Prior Restraint.
“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...
Generally, those of us here who say we're in favour of keeping M-rated games away from kids mean that we're in favour of two things: Stores not selling to kids and parents giving their own approval for their own kid. I believe most of us are fine with a parent saying it's saying it's okay for their child to play a game that's "out" of the given age range. In fact, that's really what most of us want - parents to step up and act like parents, as opposed to relying on the nanny state. As I was saying, just because something is a good idea, it doesn't mean you need a law for it. Laws make things overly complicated. Sometimes they need to be complicated. Sometimes they don't. Here they don't.
If you think your daughter can play whatever Teen game when she's 10, or 8, or whatever, more power to you. The point is that you're making the decision on what is appropriate, not the government.
The idea is that we generally agree some stuff is probably not appropriate for most kids of a certain age. That's why ratings and descriptors are nice. However, we also know that there are exceptions to every rule. Metal Gear Solid might be to complex for most 15 year olds, but it might be perfect for mine. That's fine, it's now become my decision as a parent.
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 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.
Games are no worse than movies, books or TV. Outside of porn, there is no law that keeps those things out of kids hands. Why single games out? Why do you need a law restricting games?
Do I think some media should be kept away from children? Yes, I do. Do I need a law to do it? No, I don't. Just because you agree with an idea doesn't mean you automatically need a law to enforce it. Brushing your teeth is good for you, it doesn't require a law.
Be a parent. Do your damn job. Can't be around the kids all the time? Use your v-chip. Use your parental lockout. Stop trying to force other people to raise your children.
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.
Anyway, this law will need to fail, and then they need to pass some measure to bite the politicians in the ass that stupidly passed this law.
There needs to be instant reprecussions for idiots that try to pass things like this, instead of "next" election day.
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?
Evaesdropping? EAVESDROPPING? Are you kidding me? People do that all the time, it is wrong but that doesn't mean they should make it a felony. Maybe it's one of those laws that they never enforce.
The difference between the United States and England, Australia, Canada and the rest of the world is that the First Amendment of our Constitution states that there will be no laws passed abridging our freedom of speech whereas no other country has such a thing. Over the years, there have been numerous cases in our courts that further define the limits of that freedom, and laws like this from other jurisdictions have already been struck down by American courts. The "chilling effect" argument has been used specifically against laws like this, so there is precedent in U.S. courts.
Why would an Amercian court try to interpret an American law by looking at precedent set in another country?
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'm betting $2 million.
"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.