Massachusetts Will Consider Video Game Legislation This Week
Massachusetts Will Consider Video Game Legislation This Week
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
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.
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?
Wow. Fuck them, how ignorant can you be...
that's all I have to say...we are all psyhics because we are fortelling the future of this bill...
;P
Okay, who wasn't guarding the doors and and allowed the lunatic into the room? Jack, whay are you wasting your time here? Shouldn't you be devoting more time to trying to save your legal career (for all the good it will do you)? That's exactly what you said about the last bill you authored. And the one before that... And the one before that... And the one before that...
At this point, I'd say if Jack himself guarantees it's constitutional, then it will definitely fail!
Ergo, this might even include violent books like the Bible. So unless this law is blocked by an injunction before it goes into place, one could theoretically call the police on religious bookstores and churches to have them arrested for distributing "obscenity" to minors. I don't have any problem with religion, but if I lived in Mass, I would be reporting such things by the boatload just to watch the political blowback.
Hooray for the Law of Unintended Consequences!
What's a 'trans fat'? Did they outlaw obese transvestites because frankly I think that might be doing a service to the community at large.
Believe me, I REALLY don't have the legs for a miniskirt.
You make a mistake that many people both inside ad outside the US make and that is Democrat = Liberal and that Republican = Conservative. This is to say that there has been a lack of Republican Conservative leadership and that American Liberalism has become so far removed from Western Liberalism that to call Hilary or Obama a "liberal" does not mean much.
That's another thing that the broadcast i mentioned brought up. They KNOW it's unconstitutional and similar laws have been slammed down at least nine times.
@ JT
Yes, Mr. Thompson, this is unconstitutional. MUST you have those tossed bills reach the unlucky number 13 before you even get a hint? The text in the bill in this article totally opens the floodgates to allow ANY AND ALL MEDIA to be subject to be next. TV? Gone. Movies? Forget about it. Books? Govt-sanctioned burnings. You of all people should know about those things. You know, you being a lawyer and us not and all.
@ Aliasalpha
Aha ha haaaaa not really funny.
But in all seriousness, trans fats are manmade fat-type things added to food. People have been cracking down on their use worldwide. Very few fast food joints use them anymore. Surely you've seen a '0g trans fat' on a bag of chips somewhere?
"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."
---
So if I happen to make a game about the horrors and trouma of rape, but then put it in a way that is a serious literary, artistic, political and a sceintific value to teach people that rape is wrong...will that get passed????
This bill makes no sence and is so contradictory...how can anyone define what is art when art can be so many things INCLUDING controversial themes????
OH MY GOD I NEVER HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE!
Jack, you are a fucking retard who fails at life. Please continue to provide great humour for this site and the gaming community as a whole.
I do wish you would stop wasting money on this shit though. That money could be used to actually identify the real issues out there, but instead you squander it on your personal agenda. That is what makes you a disgusting piece of shit.
Oh how I cannot wait for the Florida Bar to perform a level 3 execution on your "career". Your tears will help cleanse all that you have tarnished with your hate bile.
Fuck you John Boy, and have a great day!
"Are your children corrupting themselves using timetravel? Find out more at 11!"
This state is prone to kneejerk responses to "possible" threat. None of the threats they have freaked out about have been actually. They have all been perceived.
This bill will fail and it will fail just as hard as all others.
Overreacting to video games corrupting the youth (Which is total bull in my oppinion) and overreacting to suspicious looking lights being put all over cities are two different things.
Plus considering someone went up to a similar looking device left around Boston a year before that and ended up dying due to it being a real bomb, I'd rather not take any chances and have people overreact compared to people dying. :P
I believe that was Bill Hicks first. If you haven't heard/read or seen his old stuff I highly recommend.
This, as always is doomed to fail.
For those that care about the historical underpinings, more than twenty years ago, the Miller case was the basis for overturning the ruling in the 2Live Crew case that Nasty As They Wanna Be was obscene. Who was one of the driving forces behind the erronious lower court decision? Jack Thompson.
Twenty years later, apparently Jack now knows as much about the First Amendment as he did back then.
"Oh! Me so horny. Me love you long time."
It's almost word for word: To regulate media as obscenity accordoing to the Sup. Court you have to have
1) Patently offensive the average reasonable person when taken as a whole
2) Completely lacking in artistic, political, literary or scientific value
3) And appeals to the "puriant" interest in sex (Miller applied only to obscenity)
She's trying to regulate video games as obscenity, but I'm sorry Madam Rep. The Court says to the AVERAGE REASONABLE PERSON. A minor does not qualify, it fails the test. You cannot retool the ruling by adding in "minor." Your law will be subject to the Average Reasonable Person Test.
She could try to get it covered under the Brandenburg v. Ohio test for free speech. But THAT test is even worse for her because it requires that speech "Incite imminent lawless action." In Brandenburg a Klansman saying "We're going to march to Washington to seek our revengence [sic]" wasn't even considered such an incitement.
This woman doesn't seem like she's ever taken a Constitutional Law class.
Hell, the movies SAW and HOSTEL get through the test. What makes her think GTAIV would be banned under Miller
You raise a good point. These silly attempts to get past Miller are doomed to failure and Brandenburg would be a better legal precedent upon which to base these legislative attempts. After all, isn't that the Jack Thompson argument? That violent video games incite violence? But the Brandenburg case doesn't really help for the same reason that Thompson's argument is bogus: lack of any clear causal relationship between violent video games and violence. For Brandenburg requires that in order for the speech to fall outside the protections of the First Amendment, it must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
How the heck are you supposed to overcome that kind of precedent. The guy basically threatened Congress and he was cool. It's a more logical choice but I think it's even more doomed than the Miller test.
At least with Miller she can appeal to the fact that a lot of older judges (people in their 70s) might video games as culturally worthless and offensive.
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....
Because every politician needs an issue or two to ride which they think will get them some sympathy from the voters. Plain and simple.
i agree completely
Why do these people keep coming back with these laws when they are obviously unconstitutional and extremely vague?
here's what happens:
step 1: mass media, with help from a certain lawyer, makes ignorant masses paranoid video-game haters
step 2: politicians who want votes see this new mass paranoia as a way to get votes
step 3: politicians, partially for votes and partially from their own ignorance, make anti-game laws
step 4: law is unconstitutional and fails to pass, which makes ignorant masses think video game companies are controlling the government and preventing such laws from being passed. paranoia ensues.
Repeat steps 1-5 until hair takes on a smooth glossy tone
every generation has a sub-culture that is used as a scapegoat for all the world's problems.
tomorrows rationale for anti-game laws: games cause global warming
i have just printed it on NON-RECYCLED PAPER
what do you plan to do about THAT, Senate and House of Representatives in General Court of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
Yeah, but then again, so are Lite-Brite advertisements for Aqua Teen Hunger Force.
And that the taxpayers of post-Katrina Louisiana (who have yet to return themselves to any semblance of life pre-Katrina) would have pay those legal fees still makes my blood boil just to think of it.
To paraphrase my boy, Kayne West, "Jack Thompson don't care about black people."
I’d support the law that would prohibit kids under 15-16 from buying M-Rated games on their own. I’m not saying that all kids under 17 can’t handel it. I’m just saying I know ALOT of lil prick-jobs who don’t have the intelligence to pass basic english, and if thats a uphill battle then I’d be a little concerned if they started playing manhunt…
The thing is this is already in effect in most places, you have to have parental permission from a phone call or in person if your 15 and want to buy a M-Rated game, its the same as movies, and although its not the best, it works well enough.
k.
http://www.startribune.com/local/16749351.html
The difference is, that it's all voluntary. Movies fought their battle in the 70's, and won the right to police themselves (with the exception of pornography, but that's a hot-potato issue, nobody wants to try to overturn Miller...), same with comics and music. Politicians pick on games a) because it's new, and so they can exploit the generational gap, and b) because there's no higher court rulings on games specifically to slap them around with, so they figure they can get away with it for now.
No one is getting rich off the law suits, except maybe the lawyers. The only money recovered is for the cost of legal fees.
Don't forget that JT slammed the gov of Lousiana for putting Katrina recovery ahead of his little game bill...
Gee, I wonder how much the attorneys for the ESA and the EMA are going to collect offa this one? Six figures plus, I'd imagine.
If there ever was a good "they're in cahoots" argument to be made, it's the one regarding state legislators and the game industry attorneys. The paper trail of kick-backs from the latter to the former shouldn't be too hard to uncover.
Hmmm... No new ammendments...
JT you fail again. This legislation is a goner.
As to the question of why Mass. is trying to pass a type of law that has failed everywhere else I'll bet the mayor is up for re-election this year and wants free face time along with the smiley, happy, "I dedz it for da childrenz!" Ugh. If they were TRUELY concerned and educated on the subject they'd simply endorse the ESRB and be done with it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Well, that PROVES it then! Is that what you say in court too? No wonder all your bills fail.
I wish that the people making the laws would have to pay for 60% of the fees and such that come with failure of such bills. Maybe that will keep them from trying to pass unconstitutional bills.
* When you hear a big company talk about free speech issues, it is a BS flag. This is not a free speech issue for the game industry, it is a $$$ issue. The people who make GTA need kids to buy it too. That is where the $$$ is coming from.
* The game industry has done a horrible job separating games where you play a happy plumber from games where you are shooting hookers for points.
* You can't compare this situation to movies. Games are taking a form of entertainment that has been since the beginning a fairly simple things for kids. It has been viewed as part of the toy industry by families. But now, it has grown up. Not every parent follows the game industry so closely. Pacman, Mario now also includes Grand Theft Auto and it is taking a while for the public to understand that.
* Currently this is beyond just some religious wackos wanting to "kill games", it is just becoming a common sense issue. Families are getting sick of big companies marketing inappropriate games to kids. People see GTA and say, of course I don't want my kid playing that.
* All you need is one stupid parent letting one stupid kid play GTA and the whole school is infected and wants the game.
* If you don't have kids, you won't get what all the fuss is about.
Betcha the IT librarian at the Coral Gables Public Library is beginning to look at Jack likes he's more than a little crazy for popping in and out several times a day to use their computers.
It´s not a marketing issue. When they make a movie like Saw, it is obvious is not a movie for children, but there are children who maybe they want see Saw anyways, and nothing happens. They don´t become serial killers.
And is parent´s responsability to check what are the buying for their kids. It is so difficult chose between Grand Theft Auto from Super Mario Galaxy? Hell, no.
It can not be industry fault something too obvious.
>it is obvious is not a movie for children,
All games used to be for kids. Now some aren't. It doesn't make it obvious to someone not in the game industry.
>And is parent´s responsability to check what are the buying for their kids.
Yep, but they can't be everywhere. And the people do really upon the state to be sure companies are not preying on kids and selling them stuff. If I saw a drug dealer on the corner, I would not think, it is my responsibility to make sure my kid never goes near them, I would think, I'm calling the cops. I think with games, people are at that point. They are trying to have their kids not play these adult games, but are having problems making this happen and now are "calling the cops" by complaining to politicians. I think the game industry and gamers in general have been like little kids holding their ears and saying "free speech free speech free speech" instead of realizing that there is a problem and trying to fix it. The problem is, fixing the problem means loss of revenue, so how much does a company really care about that? I don't expect companies to be anything but be companies looking to make a buck. That is why people look to our government to be the one to come up with solutions.
>It is so difficult chose between Grand Theft Auto from Super Mario Galaxy? Hell, no.
To you, me, totally. To some parent who last played pong and think that all games consoles are kid's toys. Much harder.
Let me list out a list of things that the mayor of Boston could do with the money being spent on this idea.
1) Give boston drivers lessons on using their turn signals.
2) Have the city go around the town of Boston and figure out exactly when a street sign says "One Way" the traffic seems to drive the opposite way.
3) Pay for the "Oh my, that neon sign up there looks like a bomb" fiasco.
4) Pay to clean up the mess after the Red Sox world Series Celebration.
do I really need to continue? Save the tax payers money right now and do something useful for them rather than pissing away cash left and right on a bill which is unconstitutional. If you really want to "Save the Children" contact Sally Struthers and donate that cash to help feed/cloth/provide shelter to kids.
Some counter-points.
And yet it tends to be the consumers, more than the industry which brings up the free speech issue. It is an issue, and a volid one, and one which renders the government unable to do anything about it. That kinda is the point of the Bill of Rights -- to protect the people (and private organizations) from the Government stepping in on them.
The movie industry has done a horrible job separating movies where you watch cartoon characters have a merry little musical adventure or watching some sociopath hack apart body parts with blood and gore everywhere.
(see what I did there)
Note... movies have ratings. VIDEO GAMES have ratings. Video Game ratings have been shown to be more effective than movie ratings, insofar as less children are getting their hands on GTA than on SAW.
Hello Fredrick Werthem's reincarnation. Comic books were treated the same. Yet, eventually, they got past that. The "games are for kids" argument is very weak.
But they aren't. Just because a game is made, it does not automatically mean it is for kids. M Rated games are for adults. They are advertised for adults. They are no more marketed to children than R Rated movies are.
All you need is one stupid parent letting one stupid kid watch SAW and the whole school is infected and wants the movie. Seriously... that is a failure on a parent's part, not something to blame the company making the game for. Parents have the ability to tell their children "no".
What about those who *do* have kids, and don't understand the problem. All it takes is a little responsibility on the part of the parent to make this issue not be an issue.
All games used to be for kids.
Custer's Revenge.
Are you sure you want to make that claim?
Here's a question -- where was Pong first released to? Where kids predominantly were located, or where adults the primary patrons? Just because you think they were for kids, that doesn't make it true.
What about comic books? Would you say that comics (and I mean *all* comics, including manga, graphic novels, etc) are for kids or adults? Back in Werthem's days, he claimed they were for kids. But, while there were some that are, some are not. Like other media.
http://www.comics2film.com/b/index.php?blog=11&p=108&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=...
As I was then, I am totally opposed. This is the same crap comics went through with the Senate hearings in the 50s due to Wertham. I'm hoping the games industry won't have to go through the same garbage and this stuff gets shut down.
While I agree that 8 and 9 year olds shouldn't be getting their hands on Gears of War, mostly I feel that way because I don't want to have to hear them over Xbox Live, and not for any real criminal reason.