March 17, 2008
The Massachusetts legislature will hold a hearing on Tuesday to consider House Bill 1423, a video game measure introduced last year but not acted upon.In its current form the bill closely resembles the Jack Thompson-authored Louisiana video game law, which was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Court judge in 2006 (see: Judge Trashes Louisiana Govt. Over Failed Jack Thompson Law, Orders State to Pay Legal Fees). Indeed, Thompson was involved in drafting the original version of the Massachusetts bill, as GamePolitics reported in January of 2007.
Although Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has been an advocate of HB1423, the main legislative sponsor is Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (D, left).
HB1423 is a "games-as-porn" bill which would seek to restrict minors from buying violent video games under the same rationale used to block them from buying sexually explicit materials. That is, HB1423 would define violent games as harmful to minors in the same legal sense as pornography. From the bill:
Matter is harmful to minors if it is obscene or, if taken as a whole, it... depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors; is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
Given the history, it is unclear why Massachusetts is pursuing a bill of this sort. Last year an aide to Mayor Menino told GamePolitics that officials were aware of the failure of the similarly-worded Louisiana law, but would were hopeful a Utah bill - also authored by Jack Thompson - would succeed.
It didn't - after contentious deliberations in which Thompson called for Utah's Attorney General to be impeached, the Utah legislature dropped the bill over concerns about its constitutionality.
At this point it is unclear whether Thompson has been participating in the recent activity surrounding HB1423. In an e-mail sent to GP following the publication of this story, Thompson writes, "Of course I'm involved, today even."
UPDATE: The Entertainment Consumers Association has issued an alert regarding the Massachusetts legislation to its members via the ECA website. By way of disclosure, we note that the ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.com.
UPDATE: This morning's Boston Herald has more, including comment from Larry Mayes, Mayor Menino's human services director:
Children aged 17 and under should not be sold this stuff, so they are not getting into the hands of 9- and 10-year-olds. Is it going to be an uphill battle? Sure. But it’s absolutely a battle that the mayor feels he should take on.
Comments
Re: Massachusetts Will Consider Video Game Legislation This Week
Governor David A. Paterson signed a package of bills, many of which are focused on public safety and protecting the rights of New York residents. Among the more than three dozen bills signed into law by Governor Paterson, some will enhance protections for children and adults in residential care, revoke teaching certificates for educators who are convicted of sex crimes and ensure the State will explore the negative effects of violent video games.
-------------------------
Brukewilliams
Massachusetts Treatment Centers
I'm tired of f***ing
Which is impossible to define in my opinion. And that's the reason why...my opinion.
In my opinion something such as X-Men or Batman comic books have serious literary (great stories) artistic (often amazing visual art work) and political (X-Men started as a statement about racism, and Batman touches on too many topics to name right now. And yet for all that someone else is gonna look at those and say "Pfft, thos are just comic books and nothing more". And to use a video game as an example (or rather a series) Metal Gear Solid. The storylines in those games are incredible (if not a little hard to follow at times) so that takes care of your literary value. It's one of the best looking games, that covers artistic. And the plots cover anything from political conspiracies to philosophical ramifications. Yet it would probably be banned, simply for the violence, under this "law".
Who are these to people that think they can decide for me what holds literary, artistic or political value?
/end rant
i agree and you know i wish people would start taking the context of the way the content in games are used into consideration. yes there are some rather violent games out there, and quite alot of them too but i think what makes the games different from each other is the way the violence is portrayed in the games and the context it is used in. the majority of violent games i have played over the years use violence in a tasteful manner. and when it is not done in a tasteful manner, most gamers regardless of age end up using that as a reason to criticize a game, not worship it.
these people seem to think that we, and kids as well, are a bunch of mindless zombies who take in everything we see literally and follow it like jesus or something. and in my opinion that is a very unrealistic viewpoint on how the mind works. it also goes to show you that it is in fact THESE people who are the ones who are unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, not us.
It's also been proven time and again that anything with "Thompson's Taint" will fail.
Waste of Tax payer's Money (yours and mine).
@ Twin-Skies
First, I agree with you.
Second, Because the moral outrage isn't with TV and movies anymore, It's the Video Games that need regulation now. Helps Politicians with agendas get more votes too. exploit the ignorant parents.
Try pulling this crap in Minnesota and see what happens.
BANE XXIII
Minneapolis, Mn
You shouldn't, in my opinion, knock the legal standard if you're pro-gaming. It's almost impossible to find anything that lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. And that's precisely why the anti-game laws are struck down by the courts. Because it's almost impossible to find that a video game lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The standard protects video games. It doesn't threaten them.
Plus there is going to be a hearing on it....she just didn't tell me where in the email.... :(
Greetings from Mexico...
Yeah, maybe it will be constitutional like a month or two, and then it will be dismissed like other bills in the past.
It may have been mentioned, but I felt like it needed to be brought up. This is the quality of politician supporting this bill!
it will never be constitutional until movies and books are involved as well.
and I don't see that happening, despite the fact that movies show you, in great detail, how to assemble and use a gun, and books, including the Holy Bible, describe violence in great detail.
岩「…」
Forget videogaming - that line described 75% of the garbge on TV. Why not axe that first?
IMO age sloting is a tool the media and retail industries can use to show the public a generic but helpful guide to age ranges.
“depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community"
ie. Stomping on heads, kicking turtles, and throwing balls of fire.
"lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.”
Key word "SERIOUS"
literary... "the princess is in another castle" x 7
artistic... too cute to be "serious art"
political... a giant mutant turtle tyrant captures a princess... seriously?
scientific... mushrooms make you bigger and a 2D universe
Seriously, Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry, did Monsignor Ryan Memorial H.S., Boston College, or Suffolk University have a copy of the US Contitution for you to read. You need only read the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to understand... YOU ARE AN IDIOT. I mean seriously why do dems try to take away our basic freedoms (first amendment, second amendment, etc...) then complain when terrorist's freedoms are violated.
GG. The bill is doomed just like all the others.
Clever
The sad part of this, is, its in my state. Nice to see my hard earned tax dollars going to waste. The bill will fail on the grounds of constitional rules. Since by defination, every one of these violent video games, is political. Every one of them is a form of artistic expression. Every one of these, takes ALOT of coding.....there's quite a bit of scientific value in this.
After all, violence tells a story. Doesnt have to be a good one. The opening scene to the movie Saving Private Ryan, is/was the most gory 20 minutes of violence. And every second, tells the story. Braveheart, is another excellent film that is very gory.
But games, are pretty gory, even though they tell a story. But instead of us as the viewing audience, we take the role of the hero(ine).
The whole Tom Clancy series of Rainbow Six: RS1, Raven Shield, Vegas 1 & 2, Ghost Recon 1 & 2, GRAW 1 & 2, Sum of all Fears. Each of those are pretty violent....but they have a great story, alot of art, and a fair degree to create them.
Still, time to write my congressmen....Kennedy and Kerry....
Sure, they can ignore the fact that violent (and most other) videogames drastically increase spatial awareness and other positive attributes. And they can ignore that videogames have less violence than television and are not causlly linked to real-life violence or even aggression.
But, by this point, how are they still unaware that such a bill will go the way of the nine precedents in this sort of case, and die because it's flagrantly unconstitutional. Not to mention, wholly ineffective in its stated purpose, and a waste of taxpayer money.
The U.S. really needs to start requiring classes on the Constitution that politicans must pass before entering office. And maybe tach them how to do a Google search, since their support for such laws is so blatantly uninformed, ignorant, asinine, and plenty of other derogatory advectives. Perhaps being required to learn at least the bare minimum about a product or implementation or whatever it is they intend to effect, and preferably being required to do intensive study on it, would help keep the bandwagon morons from throwing away money in a time like this.
Why is it always the media's fault for parental ineptness?
Children aged 17 and under should not be sold this stuff, so they are not getting into the hands of 9- and 10-year-olds.
There can only be one conclusion: Teenage Massachusettsians (or whatever the hell people from Massachusetts are called) have clearly created (or more likely they've been influenced by computer games to STEAL) a time machine and are corrupting THEMSELVES!!! They're waiting until they reach the legal/recommended age for purchasing violent computer games, buying them and then immediately taking them back in time to corrupt younger versions of themselves! Thats not only a threat to children but the paradoxes it would create are a threat to all causality!!!
Why?
So that a month later, when minors are still getting violent games, politicians might actually realize, parents are the number one supplier of these games, because they think throwing shiny stuff at Junior to shut him up is good parenting.
The worse thing is the fact that, they don't want to just make it illegal for a minor to buy an M-rated game. They want anything THEY see as violent to be illegal. How do I know Kingdom Hearts won't be illegal? It had me whacking away at things with a weapon. IT MUST BE BAD!
Dun Dun DUUUUUUNNNNN!!!
Once again my faith in humanity is tested by politicians
Just an idle thought.
Nah then they'd only end up blaming piracy & trying to ban the internet entirely or at least force us all to use something like AOL
@Pominator
I think I've been playing too much Sam & Max, I'm starting to sound like Bosco
You are free to do as we tell you! You are free to do as we tell you!"
- Adam Freeland, 'We Want Your Soul'
You have a point there. Eventually they'd just say these kids got the games off of the internet by stealing their parents credit cards because they games taught them how. Games like GTA where you kill prostitutes, sure there is no mention of stealing credit cards. But prostitutes die in that game, so it must obviously teach you how to be a criminal, steal, kill, and rob.
Then they ban credit cards to prevent future purchases.
You ever get the feeling that all this protection we give kids is unhealthy for society? I mean, they are trying to eliminate everything in our lives that they deem bad, rather than talk to us about it all. Instead of being parents, they want everyone else to nanny us so they can feel like their job is done.
Then we get out into the real world and wind up slapped around because we weren't prepared.
Or maybe that's the goal? They want us all to be in a bubble of joy, so when we grow up, we won't know anything but smiles and apple pies.
Rep. Forry, and the mongoloid mayor of Boston should get their heads out of their asses, straight and simple.
Where are 9 or 10-year-olds buying "violent" games? Bizzaro World?
Besides that, the ESA and FTC report that 90% of M-rated game sales are to parents. The NPD Group estimates M-rated games make up only 15% of all game sales. And the FTC says minors trying to purchase M-rated games are refused over half the time.
Let’s see….15% of total sales, 10% of that is 1.5% and 42% of that is 0.63% of all game sales.
Since when does 0.63% of all video game sales warrant unconstitutional legislation? Why the hell do we even “need” legislation in the first place? After all, video games are protected by the First Amendment, and like I’ve been posting, if you’re going to infringe on a Constitutional right like freedom of speech based on the claim that the speech in question is “dangerous”, then you better damn well show absolute proof of that. It’s NEVER been done. There is no proof that any harm will come of anyone playing a “violent” video game.
If there is a danger so clear and so threatening to the American people that causes these self-righteous politicians to step on the First Amendment, wouldn’t any rational thinking person have to believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and clear that there would be no argument against it? Especially since you’re directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment.
We, the American people, have not been given any valid reason to believe that this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary. There just simply isn’t any evidence at all of any danger from “violent” video games. This “protection” from “violent” video games isn’t needed or wanted for that matter, but please feel free to use everyone’s tax dollars for protection from things like a 10-foot storm surge from a Category 3 or greater hurricane or the fuselage of a 747 airplane entering the workplace or the home.
Another giant waste of taxpayer money.
Could not Super Smash Bros Brawl be lumped into that category by some people? It's fun, don't get me wrong, but does it have any real purpose in its "violence"?
Of COURSE the MGS series should be banned! How can a torture porn murder simulator that encourages us to critically question US government policy have any political value?
As for this law...*headdesk* The only good thing about it is that it doesn't drag in the ESRB ratings. Let's take a closer look, shall we?
"RESTRICT THE SALE OF VIDEO GAMES WIH VIOLENT CONTENT"
Lack of spellcheck does not inspire confidence.
"matter is harmful to minors if it is obscene"
There is no factual basis for this. Also note how no definition is provided for "obscene", it just goes without saying.
"or, if taken as a whole, it (1) [is a porn game] (2) [offends the standards of a few adults who want to ban the game for the rest of us] (3) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed"
What "offense"? The "offense" of selling a "harmful" game to a minor? But if it's counted as an offense, then isn't it already presupposed to be "contrary to prevailing standards"? This clause is either unnecessary or could be used to show that any game is "harmful to minors".
"and (4) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
The sad thing is, even if a violent game (say, MGS4) has SLAPS, under this law your average retailer will look at the cover and the M rating, assume it's another Generic First [sic] Person Shooter, and refuse to stock it. I know that was my first impression of the MGS series. And how can a game HAVE SLAPS for adults but not for minors?
Also notice the "And" clause joining (1), (2), (3), and (4). Under this law, then, almost all M rated games would be exempt due to not having any sexual content...or the word is actually meant to be an "Or", which could be used to ban ANY game, violent or not, deemed to be lacking SLAPS.
Why am I ranting? It will never pass anyway.
Speaking of which, does anyone know the status of Ahhhnold's appeal to the Supreme Court?
The one detail that bugged me was when one guy said that he thought it would pass through (though he said before and after this that he didnt want it to) was comparing it to the state's recent ban on trans fats. Like 'Hey, they banned trans fats here, why not M-Rated games?'
Kinda... not the same boat there, buddy.
Just like the bill in Louisiana, Jack? Or the bills in California, Oklahoma and Illinois?
This alone makes it unconstitutional.
Boston should go back to fighting the real threat: Lite Brite.
because if their ignorance was food, no one would ever go hungry.
That's true. Given the current track record on these laws this one has no chance. It just seems to me the people drafting these things assume that because something is a video game it somehow automatically disqualifies it from having any kind of the above mentioned merits. I can't say if this is true or not, that's just the way it seems to me.
why would ANYONE then try to emulate that?
my theory: Mass WANTS the bill to fail.
doing something makes them look like they care, and having the bill fail makes it look like it's not their fault everyone's kids suck.
Even if this bill is passed it won't do anything.
Why?
The Miller test it's patterned after does nothing. Nobody understands what obscenity is, legally, and apparently that includes legislators. The obscenity of pornography means it can't be sold AT ALL. It means that the government is allowed to use prior restraint to pull its publication and it isn't considered a violation of the first amendment.
Even with pornography, this practically never happens. So why does anyone think that pursuing this line of reasoning with something as mundane as simple violence is going to do anyone any good.
What they NEED to pattern it after if they want to get somewhere is the laws that states have forbidding the sale of pornography to minors. This has nothing to do with the miller test OR obscenity. It has its own definitions of pornography that are considerably more mild than the Miller test for obscenity.
Idiots.
So, you've tweaked the law to make it constitutional? Or are you just too busy printing off letters to mail to the AG to threaten him (figuratively speaking, of course! ;)) should he/she call this a bad idea?