Michigan gov. may be in trouble with new law

[punkoffgirl]

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=10562

Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today signed SB 416 into law, which could impose very heavy penalties on people caught selling or renting violent games to minors. In fact, a manager of a business that lets a minor play a violent game could face more than 3 months in jail and a fine of $25,000. The game industry is suing to overturn the law.

[combatking0]

As much fun as violent games are, the thin, blurred line between fiction and reality calls for more regulation on such products.

I feel it is rediculous though that Sega has decided to drop the Streets of Rage trilogy from the English version of the Sonic Gems Collection, just to keep the family rating.
They've kept Sonic The Fighters.

[§ Gideon §]

It's my understanding that the majority of law enforcement agencies side with the game industry's feelings, even going so far as to state on the record they cannot enforce such policies.

Clearly, political figures like Granholm only make such decisions for the good publicity. They may or may not know that it's the wrong thing to do, but that doesn't matter. They still get good publicity whether it works out or not.

[chrisbid]

if we just banned children, things would be so much better :)

[s1lence]

I wonder if this is an election year for that gov?

[scooby105]

i dont really see how it would be any sort of problem to enforce laws such as this. they already id you for alcohol and tobacco purchases. it'd be pretty easy to id for videogame purchases as well.

[njiska]

Hey i'm with the games industry on this one. The michigan law lacks a clear definition which is what you need if you want to enforce a law.

[esquire]

I wonder if this is an election year for that gov?

No.


Hey i'm with the games industry on this one. The michigan law lacks a clear definition which is what you need if you want to enforce a law.

Don't take this the wrong way, but when aren't you with the games industry side on these matters? It seems like you are always taking their side, whether its over GTA: San Andreas, Killer 7, the Sims or this matter.

I can understand your support for the gaming industry, but you must acknowledge that there are certain responsibilities a business must take in selling its product, and this goes for the local game stores as well.

Have you even read the Senate Bill? Here is a link for your viewing:

Enrolled Senate Bill No. 416 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billenrolled/senate/htm/2005-SNB-0416.htm)


Vagueness could pose a problem
Apparently the law does not take into account the ESRB rating system to determine which games are affected. SB 416 defines an ultraviolent explicit video game as one that "continually and repetitively depicts extreme and loathsome violence" such as "real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings, including actions causing death, inflicting cruelty, dismemberment, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, or other mutilation of body parts, murder, criminal sexual conduct, or torture."

Umm, how is that vague? Sure it doesn't use the ESRB ratings, but so what. As a retailer selling products to the general public, including minors, it is your duty to know what it is you are selling. More importantly, it creates a duty for the publishers and developers to truthfully disclose the content of their product. This has become even more important as of late with the failure of Rockstar to truthfully disclose the content of GTA: San Andreas, and then the attempted cover-up. It is one thing to slap a label with a rating on a game. It's another to disclose why it got that rating, or what exactly is in the product. How is this a burden to the ESA? They're already supposed to doing this for the ESRB, which is not governmentally enforced. The same info they disclose to the ESRB can be disclosed to their retailers.


"In 2004, the average game buyer was 37 years old and the average game player was 30," Lowenstein said.

If this is the case, and I am sure it is, why is this law a problem? The law will not apply to the majority of their transactions. It is clearly about $.

[Gamereviewgod]

Umm, how is that vague? Sure it doesn't use the ESRB ratings, but so what.

Because who determines what game is violent enough? One person could Jak and Daxter is too violent, the next GTA.


If this is the case, and I am sure it is, why is this law a problem? The law will not apply to the majority of their transactions. It is clearly about $.

Goverment has no buisness regulating media. If this was across the board, encompassing books, movies, magazines, etc., fine. It's not, and she only did it to get her face on the news about something she has no clue about.

[lendelin]

This law is nonsense for the sake of vote hunting on well prepared grounds of blind hysteria, nothing else.

It is a non-enforcable, irrelevant, a substantially (violence affects behavior) non-sensical regulation put forward by politicians focusing on soft issues.

Simple-minded opportunists are as old in politics as the corrupt ones. We should make a stance against both types of politicians.

[Griking]

Goverment has no buisness regulating media.

I disagree. Are you saying that it should be acceptable for a child to purchase a pornographic videogame if one should be released? I you don't think that its appropriate then you're already accepting regualtaion. You're arguement then would be with the boundaries of regulation.

I personally don't see a problem with the law. Since games covered would surely already have a "M" or "AO" rating then kids sgouldn't be getting their hands on them anyways

It seems to me sometimes that people here are just too biased on the side of the games industry and will defend them no matter what the arguement is.

[Cryomancer]

I think the problem here is that they are choosing where the "rating" is as well. Enforcing ESRB would be one thing, enforcing what they think is another. Unless I'm reading this wrong.

And just for the sake of discussion, I don't think things should be regulated much at all, at least not federally. I'm not saying kids should be able to walk into porn shops, but I think the shop owner should enforce their own policy on the matter, and the parent of said child should prevent it to begin with. Or make it a local law if there's a general consensus.

[esquire]

Because who determines what game is violent enough? One person could Jak and Daxter is too violent, the next GTA.

Obviously you didn't read the Senate Bill, nor are you familiar with constitutional law. The local community (in this case Michigan) is able to set the standards.


Goverment has no buisness regulating media. If this was across the board, encompassing books, movies, magazines, etc., fine.

It is not a matter of right. It is a matter of whether the speach is unprotected. The Supreme Court in ruling on the First Amendment has determined over the years that not all speech is protected. Why do you think minors cannot buy Playboy or Hustler or go to the Red-Light District to watch "The Happy Hooker Goes To Hollywood" at the local theater? Those are forms of media that are regulated everyday by the government. Moreover, it can be outright banned, such as child pornography.


It's not, and she only did it to get her face on the news about something she has no clue about.

That's a pretty bold face accusation. Do you know Govenor Granholm? Do you know this for a fact? What is the factual basis for your assertions?


In May, a series of independent investigations conducted at the request of the Granholm Administration found that children as young as age nine were able to purchase adult-rated video games (rated M for Mature or NC-17) nearly half of the time." Investigations conducted in Cass, Genesee, Ingham, Lenawee, Monroe, and Wayne counties found that 26 of 58 stores sold games such as Grand Theft Auto, Manhunt, Doom 3, Mortal Kombat, and Resident Evil to minors.

This would seem to contradict your allegation. Moreover, please take notice that these investigations took place before any of the recent headlines involving GTA, Killer 7, or The Sims.

[bargora]

I wouldn't expect a legislator to use ESRB ratings in drafting a law. In the past, legislatures have passed laws making it a crime to allow minors into MPAA rated "R" or "X" movies. When the laws were challenged, the courts struck down the laws because they impermissibly delegated the legal classification of films (for the purpose of determining who could see which film) to a private body (the MPAA).

It would be reasonable to assume that courts would take a similar view if a law were passed basing its penalties on the sale of ESRB "M" or "AO" rated games to minors. That's why these types of bills try to clearly set out what is prohibited or restricted. Of course, some bills do a better job of this than others.

In case you're interested in the language of the bill but don't want to wade through it, here's the pertinent language:


(g) "Extreme and loathsome violence" means real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings, including actions causing death, inflicting cruelty, dismemberment, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, or other mutilation of body parts, murder, criminal sexual conduct, or torture.


(h) "Harmful to minors" means having all of the following characteristics:

(i) Considered as a whole, appeals to the morbid interest in asocial, aggressive behavior of minors as determined by contemporary local community standards.

(ii) Is patently offensive to contemporary local community standards of adults as to what is suitable for minors.

(iii) Considered as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value for minors.


(j) "Minor" means a person less than 17 years of age.


(l) "Ultra-violent explicit video game" means a video game that continually and repetitively depicts extreme and loathsome violence.


Sec. 17. (1) A person shall not knowingly disseminate to a minor an ultra-violent explicit video game that is harmful to minors. Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3), a person who violates this subsection is responsible for a state civil infraction and may be ordered to pay a civil fine of not more than $5,000.00.
Would this bill make it illegal to sell an emulation of "Mortal Kombat" to a minor?

Anyway, the bill also contains this language:


the legislature finds all of the following:

(a) Published research overwhelmingly finds that ultra-violent explicit video games are harmful to minors because minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games are consistently more likely to exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior and have feelings of aggression.
Is this true?

And esquire, can you point to any court cases that have found video games or violent video games to be unprotected speech?

[Gamereviewgod]

That's a pretty bold face accusation. Do you know Govenor Granholm? Do you know this for a fact? What is the factual basis for your assertions?

Part of the law (it was four parts) stated that retailers must have ESRB info in a prominent area. They do. I've never been into a retailer that sells video games that HASN'T had the information available, and the flyers, and the posters. It's obvious she failed to check this herself, nor did she care to.


The local community (in this case Michigan) is able to set the standards.

That's great, and everyone has their own opinion on what's too violent.



This would seem to contradict your allegation. Moreover, please take notice that these investigations took place before any of the recent headlines involving GTA, Killer 7, or The Sims.

No it doesn't. It doesn't matter when it was done. The debates been around for years. TV news stations have done "studies" like this. The only thing it proves is that parents fail miserably at thier job.

Where is any information on the studies that show limitied to no increase in aggression when kids play games? Didn't see that mentioned.

[esquire]

It seems to me sometimes that people here are just too biased on the side of the games industry and will defend them no matter what the arguement is.

Amen. This is exactly how I feel. Why the blind support for the gaming industry here? Do those of you who oppose the law, actually think its ok for minors to be in possession of M or AO rated material?

Sometimes I think many of you who are so against these laws, and react in such a knee-jerk fashion, must be minors yourselves. I don't mean that as an insult, but why would you otherwise care? If you are over 18 years of age, you have no vested interest in this law. This law does not affect anyone age 18 or older, and it imposes no additional requirements to publishers/developers as tehy already have to disclose the content of their product to the ESRB. The only difference is they now have to disclose it to their retailers as well so they may determine whether the content falls under the law, and if so, they cannot sell it to minors.

Sure the gaming industry will kick and scream, but that's because they want a selling market that is as broad as possible, as the more people who buy games, the more $ they make. Don't kid yourself, this isn't about freedom of speech, but rather the almighty dollar. The gaming industry is not in the business of regulating itself. They don't make any money by doing so.

[njiska]

Don't take this the wrong way, but when aren't you with the games industry side on these matters? It seems like you are always taking their side, whether its over GTA: San Andreas, Killer 7, the Sims or this matter.

Chris Rock once said something to the effect of: "If you take sides without actually knowing issue your a fucking fool"

Once before you claimed i didn't know what i was talking about and you never did reply to my response. I am no fool and i'm taking the industries side because it's the right side.


I can understand your support for the gaming industry, but you must acknowledge that there are certain responsibilities a business must take in selling its product, and this goes for the local game stores as well.

Yes there is a onus on the Industries and local game stores to protect children from unacceptable content but that doesn't mean they have to do everything some lawyer or Senantor says without question. I support restricting the sale of M rated games to minors but i don't support making the ESRB defunct by introducing state defined limitations. The movie industry is regualted in the same way that the Game industry should be. A self regulated ratings body determines what is right and you use it for determining what's acceptable.


Have you even read the Senate Bill? Here is a link for your viewing:

Enrolled Senate Bill No. 416 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billenrolled/senate/htm/2005-SNB-0416.htm)


Vagueness could pose a problem
Apparently the law does not take into account the ESRB rating system to determine which games are affected. SB 416 defines an ultraviolent explicit video game as one that "continually and repetitively depicts extreme and loathsome violence" such as "real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings, including actions causing death, inflicting cruelty, dismemberment, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, or other mutilation of body parts, murder, criminal sexual conduct, or torture."

Umm, how is that vague? Sure it doesn't use the ESRB ratings, but so what. As a retailer selling products to the general public, including minors, it is your duty to know what it is you are selling. More importantly, it creates a duty for the publishers and developers to truthfully disclose the content of their product. This has become even more important as of late with the failure of Rockstar to truthfully disclose the content of GTA: San Andreas, and then the attempted cover-up. It is one thing to slap a label with a rating on a game. It's another to disclose why it got that rating, or what exactly is in the product. How is this a burden to the ESA? They're already supposed to doing this for the ESRB, which is not governmentally enforced. The same info they disclose to the ESRB can be disclosed to their retailers.

Yes i've read the senate bill. There's been information about it on http://www.gamepolitics.com for days. I would love to argue with you over the vagueness of the law but since i'm rather preocupied trying to do a few reviews for stopstopkill and training for a new job. i don't have the free time right. Matt feel free to carry the torch for me buddy.

But i will say that the Michigan law will make the sale of many M-rated titles illegal to people who are 17. 17 is a minority age, 18 is the age of majority.


"In 2004, the average game buyer was 37 years old and the average game player was 30," Lowenstein said.

If this is the case, and I am sure it is, why is this law a problem? The law will not apply to the majority of their transactions. It is clearly about $.[/quote]

You didn't get it the 1000 times this came up so i'm not going to even try.

[Push Upstairs]

Where is any information on the studies that show limitied to no increase in aggression when kids play games? Didn't see that mentioned.

You need the new PC Gamer. Their article clearly shows charts from either the FBI or another government agency (i forget the actual name of it) but the charts and statistics clearly show that violent crime has been going down since the before the Playstation* was even released.


*added in on a chart by PC Gamer.


All these laws and "concern" are nothing more than pandering to an uninformed public...which is what most of politics is.

[njiska]

Where is any information on the studies that show limitied to no increase in aggression when kids play games? Didn't see that mentioned.

You need the new PC Gamer. Their article clearly shows charts from either the FBI or another government agency (i forget the actual name of it) but the charts and statistics clearly show that violent crime has been going down since the before the Playstation* was even released.


*added in on a chart by PC Gamer.


Thanks i'll have to go pick that up. I didn't know PC gamer actually had interviews anymore, i though it was all just ads. LOL


All these laws and "concern" are nothing more than pandering to an uninformed public...which is what most of politics is.

That's not entirely true. While i personally feel that nothing is inapporpriate for a child if the child is raised properly (i look at the past to prove my point), but one must except the fact that many children aren't being raised properly and parent's can't always be there to explain what the child sees and talk to them about it.

That's why we have ratings, to keep kids from experiencing things on there own before they've had a chance to become educated on the matter. It's the same reason why we have Sex Ed and have it at a younger age. The only problem is that no one takes reality into account with these matters. Parents worry about things like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas encouraging their children to have sex but the bottom line is that your own hormones will make you have that desire long before GTA ever would.

Ratings do serve a purpose, but i think it's time you (AKA the USA) over haul the entire system and try to take a more current, up-to-date and educated view on it, rather then just reinforcing the old social mores that are out of date.

[lendelin]

It is not a matter of right. It is a matter of whether the speach is unprotected. The Supreme Court in ruling on the First Amendment has determined over the years that not all speech is protected. Why do you think minors cannot buy Playboy or Hustler or go to the Red-Light District to watch "The Happy Hooker Goes To Hollywood" at the local theater? Those are forms of media that are regulated everyday by the government. Moreover, it can be outright banned, such as child pornography.


Not all speech is protected? Holy Moly, I'm shocked.

Tell us something new. Gamereviewgood didn't say it is a matter of right, he simply stated that regulation of game content isn't the governments business. Why should we accept that we do not when it comes to novels, poems, movies, political carricature and TV shows? In particular if a law is worded so wishi-washi that it can be applied to everything and nothing. (see my following post)

The analogies used to justify these kinds of regulations are bizarre and non-sensical. It always boils down to children and porn, and children and drugs. I'm proud to say that I'm against selling porn to a 12 year old. But what has this to do with selling M rated games to minors? What is the sense of using these analogies in our context? To point out that there are regulatiions limiting free speech? Again, I'm shocked about this groundbreaking information.

[lendelin]

Quote by Bargora:

(g) "Extreme and loathsome violence" means real or simulated graphic depictions of physical injuries or physical violence against parties who realistically appear to be human beings, including actions causing death, inflicting cruelty, dismemberment, decapitation, maiming, disfigurement, or other mutilation of body parts, murder, criminal sexual conduct, or torture.


Thanks, bargora, for quoting that thing. It shows how dangerous it is.



(i) Considered as a whole, appeals to the morbid interest in asocial, aggressive behavior of minors as determined by contemporary local community standards.


This means everything and nothing. It applies to a plethora of movies and novels in history. I could list twenty right out of my head from the sixties.



(ii) Is patently offensive to contemporary local community standards of adults as to what is suitable for minors.

You could possibly put half of the arts in history on the index right there applying local community standards. A.C. Doyle? OH MY. Manet's famous painting "Picnic" where a naked woman lays on a field with two dressed men? OH MY! Dali? OH MY. Hieronymus Bosch? OH MY. Max Ernst and his painting the Dark God? OH MY. Egyptian and Greek art where erections can be clearly recognized? OH MY. Novels and paintings of 'realism' in the 19th century where prostitutes where characterized in a positive light as human beings? OH MY.

The religion, the violence, the sex, the porn, the politics, the provocation, the social implications, OH MY!! Does nobody think about our children?

What about Baroque music? Haendel wrote this music as picnic entertainment for the nobility who had sex in the bushes while the music was played. Do we really need this kind of music for our children?


(iii) Considered as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value for minors.

Oh God, lots of political commentary, movies, sculptures, novels, comic books fall into this category. THIS is the ideal tool for tyrannical political educators.

Do we really wanna give (whom?) such interpretive power what is suited for minors and what not?

Freedom of speech is a holy cow. You don't slaughter it lightheartedly. In doubt, decide for a very important civil right.


(j) "Minor" means a person less than 17 years of age.


This is way too specific. I suggest: "Minor means every living being regarded immature determined by contemporary local community standards."


(l) "Ultra-violent explicit video game" means a video game that continually and repetitively depicts extreme and loathsome violence.


There are researchers like Anderson from the University of Iowa who regard every existing Mario and Sonic game as "violent." Well, maybe not "ultra-violent." I'm sure the above definition helps us tremendously to determine (by local community standards) to distinguish between a "violent" and "ultra-violent' game.

Bargora, yep, you're right, Mortal Kombat is probably an "ultra-violent" game. :) Or maybe it is just a "violent game?" Ok, let the discussion begin...waitaminut...we probably do not determine the local community standard. Ok, no reason to discuss it even.


Anyway, the bill also contains this language:

Quote:
"the legislature finds all of the following:

(a) Published research overwhelmingly finds that ultra-violent explicit video games are harmful to minors because minors who play ultra-violent explicit video games are consistently more likely to exhibit violent, asocial, or aggressive behavior and have feelings of aggression."

Is this true?

And esquire, can you point to any court cases that have found video games or violent video games to be unprotected speech?

Bargora, you're absolutely right. First, there is no substantial research which convincingly argues that 'violent' games lead to violent behavior or even have any effect on behavior at all. Period. Unless you take works from Anderson or Walsh et. al. who use dumb statistics, measurements flawed by serious sins of statistical reliability.

In stark contrast to the statement in this 'law' published research finds overwhelmingly that there is NO effect on behavior by playing games. Note: the law states smartly a mere relationship, NOT an effect-cause relationship; even the stated mere relationship is questionable, and not substantiated by research.

And if anyone wants to discuss the most recent study by Walsh et al. which is supposedly a long-term study (which it is not) and goes supposedly into cause-effect relationships (which it does not), I'm willing to discuss it.

The statement is an extreme statement by educational-wing anti-gaming activist and parental groups which was characterized by a study of the Washington DC Health Department as unfounded four years ago. It is simply propagandistic babble.

Second, EVERY law like this didn't hold constitutional muster and was rejected repeatedly by courts in the last couple of years.

These attempts are activities by politicians going vote hunting by focusing on soft issues. It is nonsense and hypocritical, nothing else.

[Mangar]

As much fun as violent games are, the thin, blurred line between fiction and reality calls for more regulation on such products.

Unconstitutional

[njiska]

As much fun as violent games are, the thin, blurred line between fiction and reality calls for more regulation on such products.

If you're sane and properly educated the line between fiction and reality would span a continent.

[Cryomancer]

As much fun as violent games are, the thin, blurred line between fiction and reality calls for more regulation on such products.

And this is another perception that is based mostly on the way someone is raised. If the parent takes the time to instill the understanding between the two, it's clearer than night and day. Hell, how are you confusing stuff like the ich on your elbow from the chair your sitting in versus the bullet in the arm the character in the game has taken? Do you HONESTLY turn on a bunch of hardware, feed it a disc, play with some menus, and then FORGET that you are playing a game? Really now.

[punkoffgirl]

Sometimes I think many of you who are so against these laws, and react in such a knee-jerk fashion, must be minors yourselves. I don't mean that as an insult, but why would you otherwise care? If you are over 18 years of age, you have no vested interest in this law. This law does not affect anyone age 18 or older, and it imposes no additional requirements to publishers/developers as tehy already have to disclose the content of their product to the ESRB

*lol* Yes, it does affect people over the age of 18. It affects people over the age of 18 a heck of a lot more than those under the age, because if you're a minor, you're not going to JAIL for selling, or even buying this game for, another minor, now are you? But if you're an adult, you sure as heck are. Why would *I* want the rest of the COMMUNITY deciding if MY children were mature enough or not to handle a certain game? And since people keep mentioning movies, you don't find it slightly uncomfortable that this law for GAMES would be far more strict, with more serious penalties for violations, than any law we have about MOVIES?

[Griking]

The analogies used to justify these kinds of regulations are bizarre and non-sensical. It always boils down to children and porn, and children and drugs. I'm proud to say that I'm against selling porn to a 12 year old. But what has this to do with selling M rated games to minors? What is the sense of using these analogies in our context?

To me it points out the fact that there are some things appropriate for children to view and some things that aren't. Porn is one of those things that isn't and the government has taken action to prevent it from getting into the hands of children. "M" and "AO" game are just another thing that is being argued that is inappropriate for children to access. I personally can't see what harm would come out of keeping violent games out of the hands of children until they're 18 years old.

[Cryomancer]

Sometimes I think many of you who are so against these laws, and react in such a knee-jerk fashion, must be minors yourselves. I don't mean that as an insult, but why would you otherwise care? If you are over 18 years of age, you have no vested interest in this law. This law does not affect anyone age 18 or older, and it imposes no additional requirements to publishers/developers as tehy already have to disclose the content of their product to the ESRB

*lol* Yes, it does affect people over the age of 18. It affects people over the age of 18 a heck of a lot more than those under the age, because if you're a minor, you're not going to JAIL for selling, or even buying this game for, another minor, now are you? But if you're an adult, you sure as heck are. Why would *I* want the rest of the COMMUNITY deciding if MY children were mature enough or not to handle a certain game? And since people keep mentioning movies, you don't find it slightly uncomfortable that this law for GAMES would be far more strict, with more serious penalties for violations, than any law we have about MOVIES?

Indeed. And to add to that, there's the hard-to-kill notion of games being "for kids" no matter what the content, and thus the thought of "oh well if we can't sell it to kids no one will buy it because we're ignoring the fact that plenty of people over 18 play games", and thus less games "for adults". Keep in mind I don't agree with that kind of thinking, nor that violence and sex makes a game be "for adults". People seem to forget that E is for everybody, not 1-13 or something.

However I do enjoy a game that will take things that are "questionable" seriously. We're just now barely getting some of the Shin Megami Tensei games. I have hope that we will get more, but if we go regulations-crazy and scare companies into making anything but disney platformers, this threatens the kind of games that will be made, or localized.

[esquire]

Sometimes I think many of you who are so against these laws, and react in such a knee-jerk fashion, must be minors yourselves. I don't mean that as an insult, but why would you otherwise care? If you are over 18 years of age, you have no vested interest in this law. This law does not affect anyone age 18 or older, and it imposes no additional requirements to publishers/developers as tehy already have to disclose the content of their product to the ESRB

*lol* Yes, it does affect people over the age of 18. It affects people over the age of 18 a heck of a lot more than those under the age, because if you're a minor, you're not going to JAIL for selling, or even buying this game for, another minor, now are you? But if you're an adult, you sure as heck are. Why would *I* want the rest of the COMMUNITY deciding if MY children were mature enough or not to handle a certain game? And since people keep mentioning movies, you don't find it slightly uncomfortable that this law for GAMES would be far more strict, with more serious penalties for violations, than any law we have about MOVIES?

O_O

Thank you stating the obvious.

So do laws governing the sale of alcohol and tobacco products to minors. What is your point? Should we repeal those laws as well?

As for your movie analysis, I always love how everyone against the regulation of selling ultra-violent games to minors fall back on this argument. It is the same type of argument marijuana advocates use when comparing the illegality of pot to the legality of alcohol. These type of arguments never prevail. As you can make such a counter-argument for anything, rather than address the issue at hand.

[Gamereviewgod]

So do laws governing the sale of alcohol and tobacco products to minors. What is your point? Should we repeal those laws as well?

No, they have harmful, sometimes deadly effects.


As for your movie analysis, I always love how everyone against the regulation of selling ultra-violent games to minors fall back on this argument... These type of arguments never prevail.

You just tried the same thing with the alcohol. And besides, the movie argument is a relavent one. It shows how uniformed the people making these laws are. If they want to have fines for violent media, then it needs to clear and across the board.

[esquire]

Chris Rock once said something to the effect of: "If you take sides without actually knowing issue your a fucking fool"

Once before you claimed i didn't know what i was talking about and you never did reply to my response. I am no fool and i'm taking the industries side because it's the right side.

Not sure how to respond to your vague response. Either I am to assume you know the issues, or that you a f**king fool.

The point of my post is that you jumped in this thread denouncing the law on its face without explaining why. I see as a trend with you. Let me pose this question to you:

Can you ever stand behind any type of law making it illegal to sell M or AO rated games to minors?


Yes there is a onus on the Industries and local game stores to protect children from unacceptable content but that doesn't mean they have to do everything some lawyer or Senantor says without question. I support restricting the sale of M rated games to minors but i don't support making the ESRB defunct by introducing state defined limitations. The movie industry is regualted in the same way that the Game industry should be. A self regulated ratings body determines what is right and you use it for determining what's acceptable.

Unfortunately, the good ole United States of America does not adopt a "laissez faire" attitude toward commerce. There are plenty of regulations over the sale of specific items such as alcohol, tobacco and pornography. The government protects minors from those products. The reason isn't necessarily because "parents are too lazy" or won't make the right decisions, its because that minors won't. Minors do not always make the right decisions, and need to be protected against themselves. That's why we don't want them drinking booze, smoking tobacco, reading Hustler and playing GTA: San Andreas.

For whatever reason, the local government has determined that viewing/playing ultra-violent or sexual content videogames is harmful to minors - just like viewing ultra-violent movies and other forms of media such as magazines. You may say well that aren't any laws against these acts, but that does not mean squat. Apparently the governor and the state legislature of Michigan, elected officials of the public, feel that this is a problem.


Yes i've read the senate bill. There's been information about it on http://www.gamepolitics.com for days. I would love to argue with you over the vagueness of the law but since i'm rather preocupied trying to do a few reviews for stopstopkill and training for a new job. i don't have the free time right. Matt feel free to carry the torch for me buddy.

But i will say that the Michigan law will make the sale of many M-rated titles illegal to people who are 17. 17 is a minority age, 18 is the age of majority.

I will say there may be some issues to debate in the exact wording, and of course they could have done better. However, I am not sure if it is enough to make it unconstitutional.


You didn't get it the 1000 times this came up so i'm not going to even try.

Good argument. :hmm:

Let's just leave it at this. I am not going to convinve you any more than you are going to convince me. We can agree to disagree.

[esquire]

You just tried the same thing with the alcohol. And besides, the movie argument is a relavent one. It shows how uniformed the people making these laws are. If they want to have fines for violent media, then it needs to clear and across the board.

No my comparison was different. The poster I was quoting said we should be concerned over the law because it does affect those over the age 18 - by imposing criminal charges for violating them. The point was, and forgive me for being brief and not more clear, is that we have laws that prohibit the sales of certain items to minors, but I do not see anyone advocating against criminal charges for adults for breaking those laws. Your agument is as far as I can tell is that if you are going to make it illegal for one thing (videogames) you need to make it illegal for everything (including movies).

See my last post. Apparently the people and the government of Michigan do not feel movies pose as much as a problem as do video games. I would even argue that your average minor has more exposure to ultra-violent and sexual content video games than movies of the same caliber. Of course this is just my opinion.

[Mangar]

These silly videogame censorship arguments seem to pop up at least once a month. Not even worth being sucked into.

There are those who simply believe that the Government is this great and wise entity, that should have the power to go around regulating the content of movies, books, television, The Internet, AND Videogames. They couldn't give a rats ass about personal choice and freedom, because.. you know... It's all "For the Children"

Luckily - We have a Constitution to protect us from those types of people. The founders of our country, in their infinite wisdom. Decided to make sure that Holier then Thou Do-Gooders couldn't go around forcing their views on speech and media upon the rest of us - So they made SURE to protect us from them. Their opinion will NEVER change, and no matter how many scientific case studies, facts, or statistics you cite to try and turn them to your point of view - It will not work. Luckily you don't have to waste you're time. Since our Constitution trumps any rebuttal, opinion, or argument they have on why it's important to censor videogame violence. This argument has been going on since the existance of media. In the 60's they whined about Tom and Jerry and Looney Tunes being too violent, and tried to censor that. Today it's Southpark and Video Games.

Bottome Line: The law is Unconstitutional. Every law even remotely attemping to censor videogames has been struck down for this reason. This new one is no different. Just sit back, have a chuckle, and smirk when you're side wins.

[Griking]

Why would *I* want the rest of the COMMUNITY deciding if MY children were mature enough or not to handle a certain game?

Because it's better to be safe than sorry and err on the side of caution. I'd like to think that most parents are just ignorant and really don't know how violent today's games are. But if you're ok with the idea of your child playing GTA when he's 10 years old then you'd still have every right to out and buy it for him yourself.



These silly videogame censorship arguments seem to pop up at least once a month. Not even worth being sucked into.

...says the person who then jumped head first into the very debate he was condeming. LOL

[Zing]

Anyone who doesn't agree with the goverment is a terrorist, amirite?


On a serious note (wait, was I really joking?), I hope laws like this don't contribute to the "walmart effect". This is where game developers or publishers specifically alter content just to get a "safe" rating from the government. We already see it in movie and music releases, where publishers force content creators to tone things down, or just straight up change the content, so they get the "ok" from Walmart to sit on their shelves.

[Cryomancer]

Yeah, in the same way, many movie makers will intentionally tone things down or remove content so blockbuster will stock it. Terrible.