Attorney: NY Game Law Could Mean a Lifetime Behind Bars for Retailers

To be honest, I've been trying to decide whether to even bother posting a comment, this bill is so obviously going to go down in flames at the first judicial challenge that it's not even funny, it'll give the politicians a 'feelgood' feeling for spending other peoples money on self-promotion, as usual, and then it'll die and everyone will forget it happened until the next attempt at legislation comes up.

Remember, just because a bill got passed quickly or even unanimously doesn't mean that it's sound, look at the drubbing that Louisiana got for their attempts, and that was passed unanimously.

The Anti-Game crowd will have you believe that there is no choice but compromise else a law WILL get through at some point, especially with the Anti-Gamers deliberately mis-quoting or downright lying about research. I say 'B*llocks', the game industry, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, is more than capable of defending itself, and this law is no exception, there isn't any need to compromise or really get worked up about all these laws until an ESA challenege fails, which I don't see happening, time and again this 'research' has failed muster in court.

So, whilst I can understand why this is being reported, I still don't think it is anything to be really concerned about, if anything, it will end up as more evidence as to why there's no point trying to censor peoples right of expression in a country protected by the First Amendment.

@ Father Time: "Hmm I wonder if this qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, let’s see it’s definitely cruel but jail time isn’t really unusual . . . unless it’s unusual in the sense that it’s very unusual for someone to be jailed/executed for selling games to a minor. Hmmm."

Don't quit your day job... you're not cut out to analyze law.

First, look up the 8th Amendment. Then look at the laws that have used the 8th Amendment, and the court rulings that have set the precedent. I'll even make it easy for you:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/

Look at the annotation for [i][b]Proportionality[/b][/i]. The essence is that the 8th Amendment prohibits punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. It can reasonably be argued that the closest comparable crime is a misdemeanor; labeling this one as a felony is disproportionate, as a Felony conviction can cause severe, dramatic harm to a person's life and lifestyle.

One thing is for sure, I bet Jack Thompson will be jumping and yapping in excitement after hearing this. And one thing is for sure, he will definitely join in the debate.

But don't worry folks, having a debate with Jack Thompson is like taking a candy from a baby, because in some debates, he doesn't even answer questions people ask him, he just keeps blabbering and nagging about the same idiotic thing: "VID30 GAM35 CAU53 VIOL3NC3 !n CHILDRIN!!! K33P 0UT!!!"

no no sir, I did not sell that 15 year old a 18+ video game, no really it was a hard core porn tape, yes thats what it was....

how stupid can American politicians get, All they wanted was to get this bill passed, not even THINKING about the possible effects...

that says "bad politician" to me...

[...] NY legislators taking crazy pills Link > gamepolitics. “While the law does give some leeway for the sentencing court, it theoretically allows a judge to put someone away for life for selling a copy of, say, Gears of War to a 16 year old who looks 18. Yes, selling a game could come with a life sentence under the new law.” [...]

hm... What i see happening is just like during Probation in the 20's. All i need to do is find somebody thats 18+ and have them buy me the game, no sweat. I'm sure that even if this law, and others, get passed, kids (about 98% of which are teens over 14) will still be able to get almost any game they want. i've read alot of these posts, and i agree with most of you guys.

In michigan though, 16 is legal age for sex, and statatory is more than a class E i'm fairly certain.

wow, there is so much i want to say, but now that i've actually taken the time to type it, i've forgotten most of it. In my opinion, video games make me get violent much less often, a way to blow off steam, but when i do get violent, it's worse than it would be without games. make any sense?

@Stinking Kevin

Good way of putting it.
While republicans and democrats have different logic paths to explain to their constituents why they voted the way they did, they ultimately do it for the same reason: votes.

(Obviously, some lawmakers feel that they really are doing the right thing, but at least one has admitted that he did it for his campaign.)

How does the NY 3 strikes law work? I know in California, 2 of the 3 strikes have to be violent felonies at least. It's only because of a quirk in the way the law is written that people can be sent to jail for life for less violent things. Basically, only violent felonies count as strikes, but once you have a strike or 2, the increased punishment applies to ALL future felonies, not just violent ones. It wasn't really the way the law was intended, but that's the way it is, unfortunately, and attempts to change it in California have so far failed. (Last time it might have worked if they didn't add some other things to the bill. I at least would have voted for it.)

So how's New York's law? Does ANY felony count as a strike? Or is it like California?

what kind of sick joke is this ??? i want to kill them who made this law !!!
ok when people make laws like this they should be life sentenced to a prison or something like that!!!!! if u think i'm mad or angry u are wrong i just write what i think !!! LOL !!! when i was 15 i was able to buy grand theft auto san andreas and now i cant and i have some other games that are 18 + !!!! by the way older people will still buy for smaller children games what they want !!!! THIS HAS TO BE SICKEST JOKE EVER because i just cant believe a law like this so why people waste time doing this do they have nothing better do i guess not !!!! i feel sorry to people who made this law they are just (STUPID FAT AND FAT AND SICK)

Hmm I wonder if this qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment, let's see it's definitely cruel but jail time isn't really unusual . . . unless it's unusual in the sense that it's very unusual for someone to be jailed/executed for selling games to a minor. Hmmm.

Oh and to all people offering up situations on what might happen . . . most of you are overblowing it. They will still carry the same games they usually carry, they just won't sell ANY games (except for obviously kiddie games) to minor, if they're over 18 they'll still sale anything they ask for to them. Oh and there is no way that the same rule will apply to adults later, that hasn't been true for tobacco and alcohol (well Ok maybe for alcohol but it won't happen again since every historian will tell you it was a disaster). Also I can forsee a black market style way of selling games to kids in New York City (in fact I'd only be partially surprised if there wasn't a small one already).

@ooftygoofty and @scoops

It's even more ridiculous than that. In NY, if you have "sexual contact" (non-intercourse touching of the genitals for gratification) with a minor between the ages of 11 and 14, it's only a Class A misdemeanor, which is

ok now people who made this law listen to me if u need help making laws just email me and i will send u some ideas ok !!! but plz takes this law out or is this a joke i dont know it just seems so stupid ok cya !!!

My question is, under the three strikes crap, would selling three M rated games to 16 year olds be grounds for life imprisonment? If so, does that mean these politicians think selling a kid the GTA Trilogy (GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas) is just as bad as first degree murder or rape?
Even if you think these games are the most horrific things ever, a 'Felony' should be reserved for things like treason, murder, ect--things that actually harm someone, aren't subjective, and are provable in court.

Jesus Christ! Not even I would want to watch the movie Hostel. Sure, I'll play GTA, Gears of War, and any other game but the full length version of the Hostel II movie makes me shiver.

So, now I am sure this law will be shot down by the supreme court with the simple argument that the state of New York has labled selling videogames to someone a year or two under the age rating as worse that giving a minor Alcohol, Cigarets, or Films containing brutal torture.

Sorry to anyone here that may be a resident of that state but New York is Fail. I can't even bother to grammer check this post.

@ooftygoofty

I dunno about killing someone, but...

If you're over 21 and sold a 16 year old girl a copy of Grand Theft Auto, you could receive the same punishment as you would if you had sex with her. Third degree rape (which includes statutory rape) is also a Class E felony in New York.

@Jim F

The answer here is the simplest thing that can ever be said, but nobody wants to say it, "Parents, limit what your children are watching/reading/playing/listening to".

Politicians are affraid to tell parents to take responsibility because it's not what they get paid to do, they get paid to write legislation to make up for everyone's lack of responsibility. Same goes for parental controls on the TV and videogame systems. What did real parents do before the V-chip? They told their kids what they could and couldn't watch, and if they caught them watching something they weren't suppose to, the kid got punished.

You want a good example of the way things really are now, Jim? Look at all the "in depth" investigations from 60 Minutes and Dateline and such about the sales of Mature rated games. In every show I've seen them do, they have the kid (who's been playing the game for months already) sit down in front of the parents and show them why it was rated Mature. They parent's reactions? "I never knew this was in the game!"

So, after the kid having the game for months (sometimes year or more), you never asked your child what the game was like, or peeked in to watch them play? Even when I was 16, with my Playstation in my own room, my parent's wanted to see what the games I was playing were like.

This kind of legislation won't prevent young kids from getting their hands on games they shouldn't be playing, they'll get someone who can buy them to get the games for them. If you REALLY want to keep those games out of kids hands, make the parents be parents.

@Dan

The Illinois government spent about $1,000,000 total to come up with and pass the bill, pay their own legal fees, then pay the ESA's legal fees. I'm going to bet that it's not going to come cheap for New York to fail to defend their bill. Once the total cost to pass, defend, and eventually paying the legal fees of the ESA (and anyone else involved in the defense) gets out to the public, I doubt the "we're trying to protect your children" defense will work.

No, I'm going to say, "If TV is so bad for you, and we've known it for 40 plus years, then why don't parents step up? Don't let your kids watch it. The government is not raising your child."

I'd then follow on by saying, "Aggressiveness doesn't automatically equal crime. In fact, the author of that report very carefully tiptoes around saying that. He says that violent TV makes you more aggressive. he also says that a clear causal relationship is established, yet I know of many researchers who disagree with that statement."

I'd conclude by saying, "In fact, crime statistics in the US show that violent crime among juveniles is at a 30 year low. People who view violent media may commit a more serious crime, but they commit less crime as well."

Were I in the mood, I'd also say something like, "I also note that the report contains very broad, poorly defined statements. It's also written as an opinion piece by someone pushing his agenda."

I might also note that, "You seem to lack the knowledge of game content to sufficiently judge their overall artistic merit. From what you say, you seem to be judging the entire industry from outliers like Manhunt. Virtually every society since the dawn of man has been entertained by violence - see modern sports like football, hockey rugby and even NASCAR. Virtual reality, as in imagination, is also one of the primary forms of human entertainment. What is used to stimulate imagination has evolved over millennia. Video games are part of that evolution. If you think stimulating one's imagination is useless, I shudder to think how boring your world is. No games. No TV. No movies. No theatre. No books. No music."

By the by, here's a study that concludes in that viewing violent movies creates a short term decline in violent criminal tendencies: http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime06-07-31.pdf

Here's a report from Henry Jenkins, a noted gaming advocate and MIT professor, discussing several commonly held myths: http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

@Jim F.

Jimbo, it's clear to me here that need to do some research on video games. You seem to be slapping around platitudes about games without doing any sort of research into games. This is best stated here:

So far….lot’s of garbage

If you continue reading in the hearing you sent, you would see on page 3, paragraph 3 that the good Dr. Eron says:

"Of course, media violence alone cannot account for the development of all serious antisocial
behavior. It is, however, a potential contributor to the learning environment of children
who eventually go on to develop aggressive and violent behavior."

Even Dr. Eron shies away from deliberately saying media violence is the only factor, and he even won't give definitive terms of what the contribution is, only that it is potential.

Also on pg. 3, Dr. Eron states:
"The best estimate of these meta analyses is that 10% of all youth violence
can be attributed to violent television."

At best, violent television influences 10% of the all youth violence. That implies that the other studies found less conclusive results.

We run into the same issues when dealing with aggression and violence: how did they determine increased violence? What kind of violence were they exposed to, etc. The hearing gives virtually no information about the study, and therefore we are unable to evaluate its veracity.

Also, nota bene, that this hearing was originally held in 2000. It can easily be argued that things have changed since then.


Also, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm ; States clearly and definitely that violent crime has been on the decline since 1994, which would stand to reason that media violence has an unknown or palty effect on overall violent behavior.

Similarly, (sorry, I hit submit before I was done heh) What evidence do you have that states:

Is it useful for any society to be entertained by violence and be living in a virtual reality, as a lot of gamers do?

A lot of gamers live in a virtual reality? Where did you determine that? What manner of exploration did you use to arrive at that said conclusion? Where there polls involved? Interviews? Discussions with "gamers?" If you have any of that to back up the fact that "a lot" of gamers enjoy violence and enjoy living in a virtual reality, I would love to see it.

@Miraba:
I didn't know Democrats were that way before, oy. I know about the Lieberman and Clinton cases, yeah, but to me they seemed like exceptions.
Uguu~ William Blake's poems of innocence and experience strike again, oy.

Indeed, television has an effect on you:

“Since 1960, a body of evidence coming from both laboratory research and survey studies based on real life experience has confirmed that there is a causative relation between the observation of aggression and violence on television and subsequent aggressive and violent behavior on the part of the observer. This is especially true for young children, and for them, the effect is not just temporary, but is sustained over the years. For example, one study conducted by my colleagues and me in 1960 in Columbia County, New York, shows that the amount of violence youngsters watch on television at age 8 is related to their aggressiveness 10 years later…” Leonard D. Eron, Ph.D.

Look it up: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0518ero.pdf

Now, you’re going to say: “He only worked on this for 40 years, that’s not a proof!”

That a good hint though, don’t you think?

N.B. The subject is not the video games per se, but what’s the content of them. So far….lot’s of garbage. Is it useful for any society to be entertained by violence and be living in a virtual reality, as a lot of gamers do?

The part that bothers me; in fact, the part that has always bothered me about discussions regarding what content is appropriate for "children", is that those who wish to promote repressive content laws shamelessly raise the specter of "children" being exposed to objectionable content without defining clearly what they mean by "children", and the definition changes.

Do I think 6-year-olds should be watching R-rated movies or looking at naughty pictures on the Internet or playing extremely violent video games? No! Of course not. And I do not allow my own children to watch said movies or look at said pictures or play said games. (Not that we really play a lot of violent first-person games anyway - we're more strategy types. (i.e. we wipe out whole Civilizations, not just individual people ;-) ))

And that's the picture they're painting when they're pushing these "Protect the children" laws. The problem is, 6-year-olds accessing these kinds of media are not really the problem. Most 6-year-olds don't access these kinds of media, either because their parents won't permit it, or because it simply hasn't occurred to them to try, or both.

The "children" in question for most of these laws....aren't really children. They're teenagers. And it doesn't take a degree in psychology to figure out that there is a world of difference between teenagers and actual children. Things that are not appropriate for a 6 year old may well be appropriate for a 16 year old, and I think our society makes a grave mistake by lumping them all into the same category and trying to impose one-size-fits-all rules. It just doesn't work.

And raising the spectre of children accessing certain forms of media by implying that you're talking about 6 year olds, when you're really talking about 16 year olds is the worst kind of demagougery.

In short: If we want to start fighting stuff like this, 1) we need to demand that people define their terms. Are we actually talking about children? Or are we talking about teens? and 2) We all need to act like grownups, even (especially!) the teenagers. If you come across as rude, whiny teenagers, no one is going to take you seriously. If you come across as mature, thoughtful, intelligent people with logical, well-reasoned arguments (as opposed to "That's so unfair! I want to play that game! Wah!) you are far more likely to be taken seriously. At the same time, you will be demonstrating that all of this media has not, in fact, had a deleterious effect on your ability to be a reasonable, productive member of society.

Regardless of the outcome of the bill, I have to admit the whole idea makes me squirm; both that something like this even has the potential to get past those who are supposed to uphold the Constitution? When even the layman can see it's unconstitutionality; the prospect that they can put this through with a clear conscious is daunting, and thats not even considered the potential for copy-cat with the legislature and the legislative process.

It's one of those: "If they are capable of this kind of travesty of government, what else might they be capable of ..." kind of thoughts that is truly chilling, even if the bill gets struck down.

"Methenitis also points out that providing alcohol or cigarettes to a minor is generally only a misdemeanor usually resulting in a fine. And selling a DVD copy of violent films like Saw or Hostel to children? No fine whatsoever."

So...
Giving kids smokes and beer is not a felony.
Giving kids gory and disturbing movies not a felony.
But giving violent video games to kids is a felony.

Oh yeah, your doing one hell of a job, New York government.
Bravo for your hypocritical double standards!