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
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.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
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.