Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

June 29, 2011 -

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling to strike down the 2005 California law regulating violent video games, one Utah lawmaker says that he will not pursue a similar law he tried to pass in 2008. Rep. Michael Morley, (R-Spanish Fork, Utah) told the Deseret News that he felt his bill was very different from the California law that was struck down on Monday.

For one, the bill did not impose a fine on retailers who sold mature-rated games to children, but did give parents the power to file a lawsuit against the offending business. The bill would allow parents to sue under a claim of false advertising. While the 2008 video game bill passed with broad support in both houses, former Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. vetoed the bill. Former Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff backed the governor's position at the time. Both expressed concern over the impact to local businesses and free speech rights.

While Morley defended his bill, he did say that he would not pursue trying to push for future laws that tackle videogame sales. Morley also said that his bill would have been deemed constitutional by the courts, but that ship has sailed.

"It's not on my radar to fight that fight," he said.

Meanwhile, lawmakers and the Eagle Forum of Utah blasted the Attorney General, who supported the Supreme Court's decision on Monday. The Eagle Forum said that the AG failed to protect Utah's children from violent games.

Shurtleff countered that any form of government intervention into the private lives of citizens should be considered with care. He also encouraged parents to take an active role in their media their kids consume.

"To say that he's anti-family, that's just ignorant," said Scott Troxel, spokesman for the attorney general. Troxel said protecting children has been the focus of Shurtleff's administration.

Source: Deseret News


Comments

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

Why is this tagged "Gabe Newell"?

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

Am I the only one who fails to see how his law is related to any form of "false advertising"?

I mean sure, if they marketed the game as one thing but it was really another then yes, that'd be false advertising, but most retailers clearly state the classification of the games it sells and allowingtheparents to judge what should be classified as "M-rated" would be pretty idiotic.

Just because a game has the word "shit" in it doesn't mean it has to be "R18", though I'm sure some parents will disagree with that sentiment.

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

You missed where the "false advertising" lies. It's not in the game itself, it's in the fact that most retailers actively advertise that they don't sell M-Rated games to minors without a parent or legal guardian.

If a retailer advertises that, then sells Resident Evil 5 to some 10-year-old kid, that's where they get their false advertising logic.

Of course, as stated above, all they would have to do is cease any advertising about not selling M-Rated games to minors, and that law would effectively be stonewalled.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

True, they "could" stop advertising that they do not sell M-rated games to children.  However, most states have now adopted laws or codes that require such stores to state they will not sell such items to minors.  (Just like the laws that regulate the sale of alcohol, tobacco & other "adult material" to minors.)

Such a regulation is much different than what California was proposing.  (Which I am sad to say I am a resident of.  You would think that for such a "liberal" and "foreward-thinking" state as California they wouldn't try to limit one's freedoms, hunh?  And if you don't think that law wasn't attempting to limit the freedoms given by the First Amendment of the Consitiution of the United States of American, then you apparently do not understand the bill/law.)

I sincerely wish that the government (at all levels) would stop trying to tell us *HOW* to raise our children.  As long as we're teaching them right from wrong, to obey the laws of society and how to be a productive member of society, I don't see how it is any of their business in how we raise our children.

Cronniss


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Ruger is coming out with a new and intimidating pistol in honor of Senators and Congressmen.  It will be named "The Politition."  It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

 


Ruger is coming out with a new and intimidating pistol in honor of Senators and Congressmen.  It will be named "The Politician."  It doesn't work and you can't fire it!

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

However, most states have now adopted laws or codes that require such stores to state they will not sell such items to minors.

I know of no state that has passed any such law. The closest thing to such a law I have seen is Joe Baca's attempt at cigarrette style warnings on games. But that has failed to be heard in Congress.

E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

And down go the dominos.

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

False advertising huh...so if they didn't advertise not selling M rated games to children would it basically stonewall any effect of the law?

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

more good news....excellent!

 

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

Poor, poor Eagle Forum.  It must be a hard week for them, what with Gay Marriage in NY and games affirming 1st Amendment protections.  This 6000 year old planet must seem to be really going to shit for them.    

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

Hehehe chuckle. Nice turn of the knife there with the 6000 years comment. I ran in to a guy at work recently trying to defend the 6000 year comment by telling me that carbon-14 dating methods are too inaccurate to claim anything further than 6000 years.

I let him know that there are quite a few other methods including potassium-argon dating, that’s useful for rocks over 100,000 years old.  There’s also uranium-lead dating, which has an age range of 1-4.5 million years old.  It can be used for such long time spans because the half-life of uranium turning into lead is billions of years so that puts the Earth in the ballpark of being around 4.5 billion years old.

Of course the guy from my office ran to "faith" next to defend his argument. I don't think he thought he would run in to a guy like me that knew a little about geology.

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

Carbon dating is accurate to 60,000 or so, so even then he's out of luck. 

Re: Utah Politician Gives Up on Video Game Legislation

Nah. Just this 200 year old country.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekAlso, it's the upgrade that's available for installation now. You might need to forcibly initiate the Windows Update process before it'll start downloading, though. (If there's a C:\$Windows.~BT folder on your computer, then you're in luck.)07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekAdmittedly there's more room to push for an advertiser boycott when you get into opinion content versus pure news, but keep in mind that reviews are opinion content as well.07/29/2015 - 8:46am
TechnogeekMatts: There's a difference between "this person regularly says extremely terrible stuff" and "I don't like the phrasing used in this one specific editorial".07/29/2015 - 8:45am
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician