I can't say I understand why there is so much objection to this law, it doesn't stop the distribution of games and it doesn't take money away from the industry.

I personally am quite happy to see a law that makes sure games only get to their intended audience, whats wrong with that?

I would hope this will lead to more freedom within the industry, if there are laws to stop minors getting the wrong games, then they will be more apprehensive in banning them altogether. I'm Australian, and I would be quite happy if similar laws were created here instead of banning every single game with questionable material.

I can't say wether the penalties are fair or not, but they still have to be decided by a judge anyway?

Oh, and it's in the paper itself so I'll say it, how do you "Education" Parents?

Cue Legal challenge in 5.

They might bitch and moan about it for a while, but in the end, it won't be the industry that puts a stop this moronic law, it will be someone else.

Sorry Jonathan but you are wrong. The game industry is always quick to fight the laws that states pass.

@GoodRobotUs

Really does show how much "education" those that put this bill together have, when they want to "education parents".

@Pandas

Consuming or spreading this material may be deemed subversive by the United States Bureau of Morality. If you or someone you know has engaged in subversive acts or thoughts, call: 1-866-445-6580

Be a Patriot!
Be an Informer!

So, How are they going to make this law constitutional? If they are going to put restrictions on pornographic materials in games (like it said in the article) that already fall under the legal definition of "obscene to minors" then this law is useless as those laws already exist. If they are targeting violence or material that is not obscene for minors then this law is just a waste of taxpayer's money as such laws have been ruled unconstitutional again and again.
Also some of the other requirments in the law seem to violate the equal protection clause (because they only target games) as well as the 5th amendment for vagueness.

@ Knight

Your right about him being wrong about the industry...the ESA has single-handedly wiped out over a hundred laws over the years. But..they never go for the coup-de grace, no real PR campaign.....As for the politicians, the destruction of their laws is only a minor setback..they continue collecting taxpayer money in preparation for their next assualt, all the while their popularity with soccer-moms(meaning impulsive "family-values" parents) skyrockets.

I'd agree with the ESRB being weak but not the ESA. Yea i know they are owned by the same folks but I just dont think they way the ESRB is set up is even an effective and fair way to rate games.

Know you all know why I keep politics and religion separate. It leads to this.

@Jonathan Brown

Of the course of 2006 and 2007 Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) passed thoruogh the State General Assembly a law again restricting the video game industry, the industry sued and the law was ruled unconstitutional. It cost the state a total of $1,000,000. Who says the Gaming industry doesn't fight back?

Wow, the ESRB and the major retailers are spending TONS of money to inform parents. I've been to Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and Gamestop, and they all have the ESRB ratings guide conspicuously placed, they have pamphlet versions available at the counter, and they tell you how to get more information.

Money down the drain!

Not to mention all the current-gen systems (xbox360, PS3, and Wii) have built-in parental controls that also work on movie ratings. I'm not sure it's the parents that need the education, it's more like the government needs it. You've got ESRB, GP, ESA, and now the ECA, and all are more than willing to let you know the contents of games. That's the funny part, if you asked me if Mortal Kombat was very violent, all of these groups AND Midway will tell you "YES!" None in the industry/customers are trying to hide anything.

Only the third options stands a chance of not being struck down in court.

Judging by some of the responses in this and the manhunt threads i think maybe we could do well to "education gamers" as well.

I wouldnt count on these kinds of laws being ruled unconstitutional forever. The courts are changing, mostly due to George Bush appointing alot of conservatives to the lower courts and the supreme court, and because of how the supreme court has changed over the past couple decades. Most of the old liberals that had a liberal interpretation of the 1st Amend have retired. And we're one vote away from a conservative block that could last decades and will have a more narrow view of free speech, and also give much more leeway to state governments to censor what they want. I could see them allowing these kinds of laws to stand for that reason (federalism/states rights), or imagine them adding violence to the definition of whats considered obscene. Im pretty sure many justices already feel that "entertainiment" doesnt deserve first amendment protection anyhow. Were still living under the rulings of justices that have long since retired, but the supreme court (and the lower courts) have changed and the law will eventually reflect that.

Well, there have been a good few cases where even highly dubious judges have still dismissed cases against computer games. Take Bully, for example, the judge in that specifically ordered T2 to provide a copy of the game there and then on the spot, an extremely unusual, and quite worrying thing to do, and yet still found in favour of the game.

Whilst, yes, if you keep throwing rocks at a mountain, it will fall down, even polticians can only bang the rattle against the pram so many times before they lose interest.

P.S - by the way, in case you didn't know those supreme court justices are the conservative wing of the court.
Forgot to add that.

I would think it most appropriate that retailers oppose this legislation. Essentially, the bill is mandating controls voluntarily developed by the industry.

The bill seems to impact retailers more than the industry itself with penalties for selling "violent and pornographic" games to minors. The description is ambiguous at best. As it is stated in this article, the description would appear to refer to 'AO' rated games, in which case this bill comes off as fluff, and only delivering the third promise of this article's summary of the bill.

If it does penalize retailers for selling AO games to minors, standardizes already industry policies/practices already in place, and sets up an education council for parents, then more power to this bill. Though it should be shot down on principle, as it is an attempt to boost a political career, this summary suggests it does no harm and only establishes a parental advisory council.

Rather anti-climactic.

Ya know, they could ask someone who actually knows or has a good idea on video games and maybe...just maybe, theres a successful bill out there.

So...

"* All video games sold in the state would have to include the industry-standard ratings label."

You mean like.. oh, I don't know, the ESRB ratings?

"* Selling a violent and pornographic game to someone under the age of 18 would be a class E felony."

An interesting question: Since most games are only violent *or* pornographic (not *and*). would this bill, if it contains the exact same wording, actually allow the sale of M rated games to minors due to a language hiccup?

"* An advisory council would be created to education parents and examine the current rating system."

Well, perhaps 1 out of 4 isn't bad...

"* All video game consoles would have to be sold with technology for parents to block certain games."

You mean like they already do?

out of curiosity is selling alcohol to a minor or ciggs to a minor alos the same class of felony? i dont see anything wrong with preventing AO sales to minors and even a fine for doing so but to charge with a felony?
this is bad now however the real poop will hit the fan when the first arrest occurs.

In response to the first point does this affect the sale of indie game over the internet or other non traditional retail channel? It would be impossible for small indie developers to have their games rated by the ESRB due to the expense.

WOW this is IRONIC they will make games that are M be 18 and over but not sell AO games in any stores ROFFLE.

I personally don't like any of this. 1 and 4 are redundant as the game industry already does these things. Why make them a law.

2 violates the eighth amendment as a felony charge for selling a game to a minor is a bit over the top. We have already pointed out that selling ciggs and alcohol to a minor is only a misdemeanor and both are proven to be harmful to the people using them. SO why are games so much worse?

As for 3, I only see this as NY getting an organization to help them find fault with the game industry. I also find it unsettling that out of the 10 - 15 people on the counsel only one is from the game industry while the rest are appointed by the government. So we will have little influence over the actions of the panel. I also see this as a waste, because if the panel finds nothing wrong with games or the ESRB, then NY government will just ignore it like they do the FTC.

BmK,

Those are not hard 1st amendment cases (flag burning and school speech). I mean, its not like its about porn or extreme violence. I remember reading some of Thomas' opinion about that internet case. It sounded half hearted to me like he'd be open to vote for the law if it was just changed a little. I am glad he voted the way he did though.

Alito or Roberts havent done anything yet to suggest they'll be good on free speech. Everything Ive read about them suggests they wont be, so I dont expect to be surprised. Like I said, 'free speech in school' is not that big a deal imo.

Kennedy I dont consider a conservative. He was forced onto the court by a liberal/democrat congress after they rejected Robert Bork. He's not even a part of the conservative block, he probably votes with the liberals/moderates more often, in many areas.

Scalia isnt good on free speech, regardless of his flag burning vote. He has vote against sexual expression in the past (nude dancing, internet...) and Ive read some stuff he's written that suggests he thinks pron is outside the protection of the 1st Amend. I get the impression that he'd be for censoring anyting up to about Playboy.

Its hard to know how conservatives would vote about violence. I dont know of any case about that. But their philosophy is to more narrowly interpret the Bill of Rights, and to give more power to the states, so I think its very likely that I/we would be disappointed. The liberal philosophy is the opposite of that, at least on 1st amend issues it is.

Bring it on Spitzer, and let's see you demonstrate exactly how out of touch you are with one form of mainstream consumer entertainment.

This makes about as much sense as the FCC saying they have the right to monitor cable content, which is something you have to pay extra for, and is not free...

@rps, the act of violence is not covered by Free Speech, you are correct.

The Depiction of violence, however, is, to within a certain threshold, which is defined by the ESRB ratings, which are already on the box.

I suggest we all watch V for Vendetta and put on our tin foil hats!!!

Also, i noticed that too Merc25:

* Selling a violent and pornographic game to someone under the age of 18 would be a class E felony.

The second bullet says violent AND pornographic. Meaning you can only go to jail if you sell a game that has violent and porn in it!!! Thats legal talk guys. :D Wow, what a waste of tax payer dollars.