Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

Massachusetts Looks To Jack Thompson for Game Law 117

Posted by Zonk from the i-would-have-sooner-had-cookie-monster-do-it dept.
Game Politics is carrying the news that the state of Massachusetts is asking Jack Thompson for help in drafting a piece of videogaming related legislation. The bill aims to block minors from purchasing games which fall under one of these categories: "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 as to suitable material for such minors. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors." The bill has strong backing in the state, from mayors all the way up to state senators.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massachusetts Looks To Jack Thompson for Game Law More

Massachusetts Looks To Jack Thompson for Game Law

Comments Filter:

  • Rephrased Miller Test (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:30PM (#17544282)
    Already thrown out multiple times. This will be tossed on the junk heap with all the others.

    • "Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

      yeah, there's not a chance for this one. seriously, why do they keep trying? I mean all they really need to do is figure out how to punish people who sell M rated games to those under 17... but if the parents buy it I can't see them being able to do JACK.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vandon ( 233276 )
        "Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
        Considering what the NEA considers [firstamendmentcenter.org] "art", then every video game *IS* art and this law is doomed to be struck down. Yet again, wasting taxpayer money and judicial resources.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smallfries ( 601545 )
      They've gone about this entirely the wrong way. There is something to be said for limiting the sale of violent games to kids - but it's the same thing that needs to be said about violent movies, music and other forms of media. If they'd had the balls to go for consistent censorship of content according to violence ... then it would still have been thrown out. But at least they would have had some moral authority when they lost, rather than their dubious claims that games require special treatment, and as a

      • Re:Rephrased Miller Test (Score:5, Insightful)

        by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:39PM (#17546724) Journal
        "There is something to be said for limiting the sale of violent games to kids."

        I would have to disagree here and this one comment can be used to fill in the blanks for other posts I might have made under this story. I do not believe censorship is a good thing. I believe that restricting, limiting, or altering the view children have of the world only serves to retard their mental development. Just because a parent has been brainwashed into a make believe moral caste (in part) by this method is no reason to allow them to impact the next generation in the same way. And if I don't think parents should be permitted to damage the minds of their children in this manner then I obviously don't support politicians doing it.

        Some argue children don't understand the content. True, children don't understand anything without exposure, all the more reason to expose them. Perhaps children aren't mature enough to handle it. True, nobody is mature enough to handle it until they have been exposed to it and there is no justification for hindering or retarding the maturation of a human being so they can enjoy ignorant bliss for a prolonged period of time. Further, if exposing children to the reality of life causes desensitization then maybe, just maybe humans are only sensitive to these issues because they have been brainwashed into a fairy tale sense of morality. Who says it is bad to not feel the need to gasp in shock when one sees death and violence? If that is real life then why should we be afraid of or shocked by it? Perhaps that lack of morality is only shocking to you because you were brainwashed as a child and perhaps that isn't a good thing?

        P.S. When I said you, I really mean anyone who feels however I implied, not that all of that actually applies to the parent I am responding to.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by smallfries ( 601545 )
          Shame you got moderated troll for this post. I disagree with what you've said, but you've made some interesting and thoughful points. Typical abuse of the slashdot moderation system.

        • True, children don't understand anything without exposure, all the more reason to expose them. Perhaps children aren't mature enough to handle it. True, nobody is mature enough to handle it until they have been exposed to it and there is no justification for hindering or retarding the maturation of a human being so they can enjoy ignorant bliss for a prolonged period of time.

          The other reply was right: it is glaringly obvious that you don't have kids, and that you have minimal experience with them at all. Th

    • This will be tossed on the junk heap with all the others.

      I hope so, but then I also look forward to it lasting just long enough to be ridiculed in an episode of Boston Legal.

  • Seriously? (Score:4, Funny)

    by realinvalidname ( 529939 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:32PM (#17544330) Homepage
    First Mitt Romney, now this? Massachusetts, you used to be cool, but now y'all have a lot to answer for.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Smidge204 ( 605297 )
      Maybe it's like... Jack Thompson is the guy you go to when you want to know what not to do, y'know? Like they'll take anything he proposes and do the exact opposite.

      (One can only hope...)
      =Smidge=

    • Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Hercynium ( 237328 ) <HercyniumNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:11PM (#17546172) Homepage Journal
      First Mitt Romney, now this? Massachusetts, you used to be cool, but now y'all have a lot to answer for.
      As a life-long resident of MA I am dumbfounded.

      I repeatedly hear people crying sighs of relief, "Now that Romney's out and we can start again..." Yet, I completely fail to understand what he did wrong.

      Indeed, he came into the governor's office as a republican after a long spell of mis-management and gross ineptitude by his predecessors of the same party. At the same time, his term spanned the same period that a republican president and congress have totally f*cked up on an immense scale.

      Yet, despite the failings of Mitt's political party, he has run the office of governor as a consummate executive. His agenda was made clear prior to the election, and has been consistently pursued, with remarkable results given the opposition. While having shown an admirable ability to compromise, just as admirable has been his intolerance of ineptitude, waste, and inefficiency. For both the state budget and our overall economic health, his policies and leadership have stemmed the arterial bleeding and we are currently on the mend.

      I do not begrudge Mr. Romney's presidential ambitions. Even with that on his agenda for possibly his whole gubernatorial term, I have been singularly impressed with his performance.

      Despite all this, the voters in Massachusetts have elected someone who appears to be the opposite of Mr. Romney in every way. From his eloquent parries to avoid taking positions on a multitude of political topics to his questionable political backers, not to mention his complete lack of executive experience, the man we elected our new governor seems to *me* to be the one who is 'uncool'.

      Of course, I base my judgments of 'coolness' on facts, track records, plans, and common sense. However is is quite evident that most other citizens of this state prefer youthful ideology and a perfect salesman's smile.

      One last thing, just to say something on-topic... Deval Patrick was given and borrowed a *lot* of money to run his campaign. I have read that Microsoft has already made successful appeals to his administration. I suspect that Mr. Thompson smells an opportunity as well.

      • Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Reverberant ( 303566 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:56PM (#17547066) Homepage

        Yet, I completely fail to understand what he did wrong.

        Another life long MA residents here (one who has spent 2/3 of my residency in the western part of the state). Here's a few things off the top of my head:

        • Spending 212 days away from the state he was supposed to be governing in 2006.
        • Joking about the state [washingtonpost.com] instead of lobbying for it.
        • Claimed his policies resulted in a $1 billion budget surplus, only to tell us after the election it's actually a $1 billion deficit
        • Pretty much ignored the western half of the state, (including only marketing the eastern half of the state to prospective employers, and letting them go to other states/countries instead of lobbying for CMass/WMass when EMass proved to be unsuitable) except for...
        • Installing a state-run control board in Springfield who's primary goal seemed to be the breaking of unions rather than quality services; that's not to say that the CB wasn't needed, it was - but clearly their first priority seemed to be implementing Romney's ideals (teacher merit pay anyone?) rather than "compromising" with city officials and workers.

        IME, most people outside of 495 aren't sorry to see him go...

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by bconway ( 63464 ) *
          That's the best rhetoric you've got? Might want to give Wikipedia a read for some real facts, it has a pretty thorough write-up (and mostly factual) on Mitt. Now that Deval Dukakis is here, we're really screwed. He's backpedaling so fast on all his campaign promises, he's almost to central MA (and my wallet, ugh).
        • Joking about the state instead of lobbying for it.

          Hey, you guys sent the rest of the nation Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

          Don't you think the rest of the country holds that against you (certainly the Republicans who vote in primaries!), Romney knows this, and plays it up?

          Further from what I understand the state legislature is overwhelmingly Democrats, so his jokes probably ring a little too close to home, eh?

          You folks have some pretty thin skin.

          That being said if you live in Western MA, shouldn't you guys have

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Asmor ( 775910 )
        Maybe I can put it in perspective a bit... I'm 22 years old, and I've only really started following politics in the last couple years when I started listening to NPR and watching The Daily Show. Feel free to make fun of me/ignore me as appropriate based on those two primary sources for keeping up.

        Anyways, my point is that I have no idea what the political landscape was like even 4 years ago, aside from Dubya being in office (don't blame me! I voted Kodos/strike> Badnarik. I especially don't know what Mas
        • Romney was never pro gay marriage. He's all for equal rights and allowing many (if not all) of the same tax/health/etc benefits as a married couple and opposes discrimination, but he's not for gay marriage and never said he was. He seems to be just a little right of the "Civil Unions, just don't call it marriage" camp.

  • Sounds fine (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dan Slotman ( 974474 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:34PM (#17544372)
    They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

    I offer the same advice as Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]. Work at it for a while. It just takes time. Practice showing some maturity. Given a few years of practice--how old are you? 12?--Let's say about 6 years of practice, and you can play these games too!

    • Re:Sounds fine (Score:4, Insightful)

      by XenoRyet ( 824514 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:47PM (#17544628)
      You're right. The concept is sound. Minors don't need to be playing excessively violent or otherwise offensive games.

      The problem comes in how the law is worded. It needs to be crafted in such a way that it doesn't put unreasonable expectations on retailers, and doesn't indirectly infringe on an adult's right to acquire these games. Traditionally, government is not so good at filling those two requirements.

      Personally, I really don't see why the ESRB can't work like the voluntary movie rating system. I don't think any more kids get their hands on M rated games than see R rated movies, and that hasn't proved to be a severe determent to society. Really, we don't have this type of legislation for any other type of media, what about video games is so different that we need it here?

      • Personally, I really don't see why the ESRB can't work like the voluntary movie rating system.

        Amen. All the law should require is that retailers check id for purchasers of said games. Mature is 17+ and Teen is 13+ (I think). There shouldn't be any more involvement politcally.

        Adults can still purchase games without hassle. Mom can buy Little Jimmy Zombie Teabaggers 4 (as mentioned in another post) with no trouble. Now Little Jimmy can not. Problem is solved.
        • Why are you saying "Amen" to a post and then disagree with the main point? Movie ratings don't have any laws or legal enforcement. Why should video games?
          • They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.

            That may not be the standard everywhere else but I'm not overly traveled.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by kennygraham ( 894697 )

              They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.

              That may not be the standard everywhere else but I'm not overly traveled.

              Because of company policy, and because the movie industry would take away some privileges if they didn't. They weren't required by law to check your ID. The fact that pretty much every theater in the united states has that policy is proof that you don't need it written in law.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
                Because of company policy, and because the movie industry would take away some privileges if they didn't.

                See, there's a rock and a hard place problem here. We don't want the ESRB's ratings be enforced by the law, but then we also don't really want to turn the ESRB into as corruptly powerful organization as is the MPAA.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by jythie ( 914043 )
              That is not law, that is a theater's policy. A pretty common one though.

              When I was a kid, I could walk into any video store and buy/rent R (or unrated) movies pretty easily.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by tepples ( 727027 )

                That is not law, that is a theater's policy. A pretty common one though.

                What about studios refusing to rent their films to theaters that don't have such a policy? Then the policy is backed by law, specifically copyright law.

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by jythie ( 914043 )
                  *ponders*

                  Actually, I am guessing that such a series of events would fall under contract law since if a company is paying good money under a sales contract for copyrighted goods, the copyright holder can't just say 'well, we are not going to send you anymore' and throw away an agreement.

                  That being said, this is a bit of a stretch. While an agreement between theaters and studios can be enforced by law, this does not really make the policy 'law'. The goverment does not have independent authority to come in a
                • You would think that would be illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act?

                  PS: What ever happened to that law? I don't hear about it much these days.

            • They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.

              The same premise does work for games. Games stores check ID before selling M-rated games. Sure, there's the occasional lazy clerk who just doesn't care, but there's also lazy clerks who forgeting to check ID at movie theaters or when selling R-rated DVDs. I don't see why people get all worked up

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Damvan ( 824570 )
          There is a problem with this. Many, many movies are editted to remove content in order to receive a certain rating. When was the last time you saw an "NC-17" rated movie? Not because no one made one, but because the studios would edit them to comply with a "R" rating.

          We will see the same with games. How many "A" or "M" games will we see with these laws in place? My guess is few to none. They studios will simply force an edit of the content to get a "T" or lower rating.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by FLEB ( 312391 )
            Lately, though, I've seen more and more "Unrated versions" of movies out on DVD. I would consider this a rather good demonstration of how private policy can work with everyone-- The theatre organizations and distributors get their guaranteed level of "family-friendly" restraint on their turf, while the studios and movie-makers are taking advantage of the growing prevalence of home-theater to give the original film a proper distribution (backed in part by the theater run as an advertising device).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pla ( 258480 )
        Minors don't need to be playing excessively violent or otherwise offensive games.

        Neither do adults, but that has no bearing on the fact that some of us want to. Your point?



        It needs to be crafted in such a way that it doesn't put unreasonable expectations on retailers, and doesn't indirectly infringe on an adult's right to acquire these games.

        And while we add requirements, how about adding a reason to prevent minors from playing "violent" games? Guess what - We live in a violent world! We live i

    • They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

      Ok, but this text confuses me:

      would block underage buyers from purchasing any game which:

      • 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
      • Well that's the part that'll get tossed out when challenged in court. However, to address your main point, adults always judge content for minors. "That video game is too violent for children" is only a hop, skip, and jump from "You can't eat that cookie now because it will ruin your appetite."

    • If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

      And if they do have a problem with it, then guess what? They can sodding well do their own parenting. They neither need nor deserve the government's assistance in making sure little Jimmy isn't playing Zombie Teabaggers 4.

      Also, the "advice" proffered by the PA strip was in fact satirizing the "it doesn't affect me personally so it's OK" attitude people tend to have regarding onerous legislation like this.


    • Then why just video games? Are there laws against minors buying books, CDs, movies, etc that might fit those descriptions?

      The line,

      Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."


      would cancel out just about all the cartoons and comedies....

      I now this is redundant, but let the parents do the parenting and not the state!!!!!!!

    • They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

      There's a huge difference between "minors don't particularly need X" and "we need the government to prevent children from getting X with legislation and regulation!"

      Minors don't particularly need to be seeing movies like Kids [imdb.com] either, but there's no push for laws to regulate the movie/theater industry. They self-regulat

      • Why shouldn't they be seeing that movie? In my book, it's a pretty good movie and I certainly would rather my kids watch that then a movie like Road Trip that glorifies immoral behavior.
        • Road Trip is probably a better example. If I could go back and edit my post, I'd put that in. I just used the first NC-17 rated film I could think of.

          The point wasn't the film itself :)

  • Lacks value? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:35PM (#17544406) Journal
    Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
    Hitler agrees. Let's burn all the games we don't agree with.

    On another note, doesn't that describe just about every kids show on TV now? What literary, artistic, political or scientific value does "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" or "The Doodlebops" have? No one is trying to ban those (Unfortunately).

    /Godwined?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eln ( 21727 )
      Now I have that goddamned Doodlebops theme song stuck in my head. Thanks a pantload, Chet.

    • On another note, doesn't that describe just about every kids show on TV now?

      A good deal of them. And some of them are pretty violent. Tom and Jerry is one of the most violent shows ever if you use a fairly clinical definition of violence.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thansal ( 999464 )
      hmmm...

      To much beer for me? When I read that all I thought of was a Doppelbock. And now I want another good lager.

      I actualy am against govn't oversite into this, for the same reason I am against govn't oversite into movies (remember, the movie ratings are 3rd party, volountary, and not enforced by the govn't). The ESRB does a good job (generaly, the hot coffe stuff was still silly), and I hope that we don't end up with laws on this.
    • Godwin's law, this thread is officially over and Jack Thompson wins. I don't like it any more than you do, but the slashdot croud can always be counted on to resort to emotional rhetoric ASAP.

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        There should be a corollary to "Godwin's Law" that some asshat will mention it in any sufficiently long discussion.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mqduck ( 232646 )
        Godwin's law, this thread is officially over and Jack Thompson wins. I don't like it any more than you do, but the slashdot croud can always be counted on to resort to emotional rhetoric ASAP.


        Goodwin's law, though amusing, irritates me. GP's comparison was apt. Maybe you should take a look at the way the Third Reich outlawed all "degenerate" art and consider the analogy before you go yelling "hyperbole!"

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by jstomel ( 985001 )
          If GGP can't come up with a less inflamatory comparison than the Third Reich then the phoenomena he is addressing is not a trend, it's an anomoly. If he can come up with a less inflamatory comparison then he should use it to avoid the appearance of an appeal to emotion. The thing about goodwin's law is that, while it looks amusing it is actually a very apt tool. If you compare someone or something to Hitler, the Nazis, or the Hollicast then you are not making a logical argument, you are making an appeal
          • What you're missing is that the comparison I made to MA & Hitler was meant to be taken in humor. Hence the "/Godwined?" at the end of my comment :)

        • Godwin's law, this thread is officially over and Jack Thompson wins. I don't like it any more than you do, but the slashdot croud can always be counted on to resort to emotional rhetoric ASAP.

          Goodwin's law, though amusing, irritates me. GP's comparison was apt. Maybe you should take a look at the way the Third Reich outlawed all "degenerate" art and consider the analogy before you go yelling "hyperbole!"

          Offtopic, (but hoping to lessen parent's annoyance. It's a humanitarian effort!):
          That's because the mouth-breathers who squawk "Godwin's Law! Thread over!" don't actually know what Godwin's law is.

          Godwin's law states ONLY "As the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1."

          There is no rule that states the thread is over, or that the other side wins, or any other such bollocks. It's a pseudo-mathematical theorem.

          • "Godwin's law states ONLY "As the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1."

            Since the limitless possible points to be made in a discussion actually aren't limitless at all; wouldn't that law be true of any comparison?

            • "Godwin's law states ONLY "As the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1."
               
              Since the limitless possible points to be made in a discussion actually aren't limitless at all; wouldn't that law be true of any comparison?
              Indeed it is.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bockelboy ( 824282 )

      Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

      The question here is who does the burden of proof fall under? Does the government have to show, for every game they want to block, there is *no* serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value anywhere in the game for minors? That covers large swaths of human existence (Art is particularly broad; I'd argue that Bully can be argued as an artistic portrayal of childhood, given expensive enough lawyers) Or does the publis

    • Jack Thompson is a dangerous dope, but he law in question isn't as bad as you make it out. Read the original article - there's an "AND" between those three points. If the article is correct, lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value is not alone grounds to restrict the game - it must also depict violence in a bad way and be patently contrary to prevailing standards (whatever that means).

      -BbT

  • Exercise in futility? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PingSpike ( 947548 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:36PM (#17544422)
    Hasn't the supreme court tossed out everyone of the laws passed in states that old Jackie boy worked on?

    Maybe thats why they want his help, so they can make sure that it gets thrown out. That way they can say they tried to 'fix the problem' and then blame it on the federal government.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GWBasic ( 900357 )

      Hasn't the supreme court tossed out everyone of the laws passed in states that old Jackie boy worked on?

      When I turned 18, I was living in MA. Around that time, a friend's father was an exec for a local theater chain. Their clerks were giving us trouble whenever we'd try to buy tickets for R-rated movies.

      I complained to my friend's father about the amount of difficulty that we were having legally buying R-rated tickets. It turns out that in MA, people DO call the police when they see underage people sne

  • Hamas is seeking Mel Gibson's aid in producing a series of films to inform and protect people from the Zionistic Entity.

  • Excellent Idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:37PM (#17544454)
    I think this is an excellent idea. Any input by Jack Thompson will be so over-the-top loony that it will be doomed from the start. Getting him involved with anything pretty much guarantees failure.

  • Poor saps... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Captain Sarcastic ( 109765 ) * on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:39PM (#17544484)
    Which saps? Well, there are a few:

    1) The politicians who are going to back Thompson's ideas, because the legislation that they will craft will end up getting tossed into the compost heap by the courts, leaving them looking useless;

    2) The court judges who are going to have to listen to Thompson's drivel as he tries to support the bill;

    3) The voters of Massachusetts, who are going to wonder, with all of the things that need doing, why their elected officials are politically grandstanding with this nonsense.

    Groups 2 and 3 I have sympathy for. Group 1... sorry, I've used up my sympathy supply.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by mparcens ( 76207 )
      I don't know how it is in other states, but here in Massachusetts, everything is political granstanding -- all the time.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )
      Don't have sympathy for the voters in MA. They *asked* for this. The state has a progressive rep, but it's only for token issues. The gay marriage thing could still go either way. You can't buy alcohol on the weekend... Hell, a recent ballot question for selling wine in grocery stores was shot down. The voters here only care about stereotypical "issues" that haven't been an issue in the state in decades, and recently, the letter next to the candidate's name on the ballot.
      • Sure you can, we have been able to buy liquor on sundays for about 2 or 3 years now. At least it's better than New York, where you can't even buy beer and liquor in the same store...what sense does that make?!
        • I still hold that Kansas has some of the most archaic, arcane, and anachronistic alcohol laws (hey, at least I liked the alliteration!) in the U.S. Among them:

          1) Liquor stores must have a specific green-and-red neon sign that shows in the window during operational hours (Why? I suspect that some neon sign maker must have had a brother-in-law in the legislature...)

          2) Liquor stores are the only places that can sell any beer stronger than 3.2% or other form of alcoholic beverage (although they never do complai

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by ivan256 ( 17499 )
          Sure you can, we have been able to buy liquor on sundays for about 2 or 3 years now.

          Only near state borders, and around the holidays....

          What always gets me in New York is how insulted the liquor store owners get if you ask them if they have beer. It's always something like "What do we look like, a grocery store?"
          • Nope, state wide. It was like that prior to 3 years ago. It's a town=by-town basis how late they can be open on sunday, but you can buy beer & liquor in any non-dry town (only a handful of those) on sunday. In Boston I think they are open till 9pm on sunday.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
          Just think what it must be like in Los Angeles, where they have to card you just for buying milk lest it get in the hands of certain minors [wikipedia.org] who allow it to go sour so that they can get intoxicated on it! Talk about a nanny-state legislative nightmare!
  • or in this case, the lawyer in the Intensive Care Unit.

  • Making this too difficult? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Blocking sales to minors...

    OK. Harsh and enforced penalties to retailers for selling said games to minors. And properly educate parents and other adults about the rating system for games and that it would become their responsibility if their child does something stupid after playing a game they shouldn't be playing b/c mommy and daddy chose to ignore ratings and purchase the game anyways.

    And I'd like to see no liability to the retailer or game publisher if parents or other family members choose to ignore th
    • And you can link something stupid that they do to the video game? Riiiight! You can prove that their violence was because of GTA and not because they watched the three stooges or the WWE. My kids are already my responsiblity. Not yours. Buh Bye. p.s. I already understand the ratings system and find it laughable. Sort of like you.

  • Don't Do It Deval! (Score:3)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:47PM (#17544620) Homepage Journal
    I sincerely hope that the new governor, Deval Patrick, will not choose to waste the taxpayers' money on legislation which has failed at each and every turn. There are so many more pressing problems and quite honestly, the elections are over, what upside could the governor see in signing such a bill if it were to make it to his desk. Just say no Deval!

  • Video/computer games & Laws (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @03:50PM (#17544706)
    Why would any special laws be needed for video/computer games? I can think of no reason. Any "content neutral" laws (say, against defamation) already exist and do not need to be re-passed to make them applicable to video/computer games. There is no reason for making special laws for video/computer games. And there is no difference, so far as regulating content, between a book and a computer/video game.

    But that won't stop the theocrats, like Jack Thompson, from trying.

  • Since when (Score:2, Insightful)

    by monkeypoo ( 981042 )
    Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

    Since when has Jack Thompson claimed that ANY game has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
  • ...and as a Massachusetts taxpayer, I can't wait to watch my tax dollars reimburse the EFF after they have to spend money to have the law tossed out as unconstitutional, like they have in so many other states...
  • Who decides which games are worthwhile for minors?

    Who decides which games provide a minor 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value'?

    Does Grand Theft Auto 'Tom Sawyer Edition' pass muster?

    How about SCMRPG (or whatever) that just got pulled from the slamdance festival? That at least might have had historical value, as a rememberence of a national tragedy.

    Blocking these games from being sold on the store shelf doesn't stop the problem: These kids think they want these games and they ask mommy
  • Jack Thompson's response:
    Your "news" story about the Massachusetts video game bill is utterly flawed. do you journalist wannabes EVER talk to an original source, or do you just quoting other pro-gaming sites? this is ridiculous!

    Jack Thompson, Attorney
    -source [penny-arcade.com]

  • Enjoy those civil rights lawsuits, Mass! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @04:07PM (#17544982)
    I guess you guys must have a lot of extra tax money to blow on attorneys fees [law.com], huh?

    -Eric

  • This is just a codification of the Miller Test (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3&gmail,com> on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @04:14PM (#17545100) Journal
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [wikipedia.org]

    The Supreme Court has been using this test for decades to determine whether or not a work is obscene. If a work doesn't pass the test, it can be banned from sale not only to minors, but to anyone in the United States. But very rarely does a work not pass the test, since the SLAPS test ("serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value") has been affirmed to allow even pornography. This law will do nothing to video-game sales.

    Rob
  • Blocking the sale of video games due to content will not stop violence in kids. It's less about what the kids are allowed to watch or play, and more about what they select and are enabled to experience by their parents. A child with emotional problems may commit crimes regardless of playing violent games. The playing of violent games is more likely a symptom of a troubled psyche as opposed to the game causing the emotional trouble. I think this is what is at issue. I'm not condoning excessively violent

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 )
      Actually, the video game industry is not paying their fair share to the political parties. Microsoft, for example, didn't pay a dime to the politicians until the anti-trust lawsuit convinced them otherwise that they would have fewer problems if they paid the politicians. Whenever there's a large amount of money being made, the politicians want their hush money.

  • Do these people live in an alternate reality... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pembo13 ( 770295 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @04:34PM (#17545450) Homepage
    where real life is not violent? And the last place were violence exists is in video games? Because I can understand detesting violence, but video game violence should be the least of their worries. Have they ever watched National Geography Channel and see a squad of hornets wipe out what is essentially a entire civilization of honey bees?
    • Violence against humans is far rarer in real life than in video games.

      In real life, you die once (hopefully many years from now) and most people kill exactly zero other people. In some video games (pretty much any FPS game), you kill a person or creature every few seconds.

      I'm against this law, but only on 1st Amendment grounds.
  • Lets see. How many governments in the U.S. have already had this type of law bitch-slapped into oblivion? How much taxpayer money was spent in the process? Consider that a federal judge recently ruled that virtual porn is not the same thing as real porn and even extended that down to child porn! So what makes these idiots in the Mass. legislature think that they can come up with a law that can successfully supercede such precedent? What, is the Big Dig not enough of a tax money vacuum?

    And Jack Thomp

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      Why not also ask G. W. Bush for help drafting a law supporting embryonic stem-cell research?

            Or a peace plan for the middle east. Or any other region of the world, for that matter. Sorry, couldn't resist!
      • Well, I was going to add "or ask him about his military victories as CiC", but I figured that my point was already made. :)
    • "Consider that a federal judge recently ruled that virtual porn is not the same thing as real porn and even extended that down to child porn!"

      Considering that the only reason child porn is illegal is because some child had to be violated to produce it, virtual child porn definitely should be legal. At the very least it will make breathing room for more mainstream porn as all the attention gets drawn there.
  • If someboy makes a law to prohibit adult videogames, kids will see gore-games even more. GTA gained (or at least didn't lose) popularity when it became AO. When the drinking age was raised to 21, more teens binge-drunk. If you intimidate kids, it'll backfire.
    Besides, laws like that have been passed/struck-down, passed/struck-down, passed/struck-down, etc. for years. It would only legally be possible if the state or country started its own ratings board, as only government agencies can say who can get
  • Even if it does pass, the courts will be only too happy smack it down at the first chance they get; they're pretty well known for slapping the legislators when they act out of place.
  • Massachusetts gets ready to hand ESA and their lawyers large pile of money.

    ESA representatives report, like our hat? It's made of MONEY! Hey wan't to know what's for lunch? MONEY!
  • Nannystate.
  • The article mentions the MA bill will be patterned on the Utah bill [state.ut.us] that was booted by that state's legislature in 2006.

    If even conservative Utah legislators figured this would run afoul of the 1st Amendment, I'm not sure how this became an issue in Massachusetts.

    This sort of bill tries to class violent material with pornography, and approach that has been disallowed by virtually every jurisdiction to have considered the question. The Utah text is even more bizarre, criminalizing the sale or exhibition

  • Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

    Now, nobody in their right minds would say that Gran Turismo is offensive or too grotesque for minors, but how does it apply to any of four categories in a serious manner?

  • I'm not a lawyer, but I feel that this law is designed to encourage distribution of violent games to minors. In particular, it needs to meet all three of the following:
    • 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 as to suitable material for such minors
    • and lacks serious literary, arti

  • The proposed legislation, which does not yet have a primary sponsor, would block underage buyers from purchasing any game which [...] lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

    Good, for a minute I thought they would prevent kids from playing Pac Mac.

    No wait..

  • Am I the only one to think that Jack Thompson [photobucket.com] looks an awful lot like Jon Stewart in 20 years?

  • They allowed gay marriage, which in itself is a very liberal thing to do, then they pull this crap. What a bunch of fags. ;) (I'm not bashing gays, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. But lets not get started on that topic. :P)

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close