Utah Governor Vetoes Jack Thompson's Game Sales Bill 36
Not long ago we discussed news that the Utah Senate and House had both passed legislation worked on by Jack Thompson that would add restrictions on how game advertising interacted with the rating system. The bill itself was poorly amended, and many questioned whether it would have the effect its sponsors desired. GamePolitics asked a First Amendment rights expert for his opinion on the matter, and the National Coalition Against Censorship spoke out against the bill, urging Governor Jon Huntsman to strike it down. Fortunately, it appears he took their advice (or that of many lobbying retailers), as the bill has now been vetoed. Huntsman said, "The industries most affected by this new requirement indicated that rather than risk being held liable under this bill, they would likely choose to no longer issue age-appropriate labels on goods and services."
I hope we'll see more (Score:4, Insightful)
GamePolitics asked a First Amendment rights expert for his opinion on the matter, and the National Coalition Against Censorship spoke out against the bill, urging Governor Jon Huntsman to strike it down. Fortunately, it appears he took their advice (or that of many lobbying retailers), as the bill has now been vetoed. Huntsman said, "The industries most affected by this new requirement indicated that rather than risk being held liable under this bill, they would likely choose to no longer issue age appropriate labels on goods and services."
(emphasis mine)
I'm optimistic that we'll see a lot more stories in the coming year like this one, of governors vetoing similar game-sale restrictions - or of state legislatures not passing these bills at all.
But it's not just because of First Amendment issues. Apparently, that hasn't been a problem for the legislatures passing the bills in the first place. I think the downturn in the economy will wind up helping the game industry here.
This governor clearly got the message: "the economy is in recession, and this bill would make it less likely that your state would have sales in a certain industry." And he wisely decided to veto the bill, so that game retailers in his state (WalMart, Target, EB/GameStop, ..) would continue to sell games. No doubt someone also showed him the sales numbers for the top games [gamespot.com] and how many of them would be affected by this bill (rated M). And so, had a bill like this already been on the books, those sales would not have happened in his state. I can't see any governor wanting to sign a bill that prevents money entering his state's economy, not at a time like this.
Money drives a lot of things, and the economy clearly drives decisions at the government level.
Take a good look at WHY it was vetoed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice to see something happen in "our" favor once in a while, but realize that this isn't. Yes, the outcome seems to be what people want: Less invasion of privacy, more personal responsibility and The Man (tm) generally getting off our back for a change. But this isn't why this bill was shot down. It wasn't even that the governor realized that he should probably not allow a bill sponsored by a nutcase to pass into law.
It was shot down because the governor feared the studios would stop labeling their games altogether if they could be held liable for what label they slap on the box. This wasn't a victory for free speech or at least a step in the right direction. What would a studio do to cover its back? Label everything M. Even "Barnie's 'I love you' singalong" because you might see someone hug and that could be seen as something sexual (eeek!) by another nutjob.
We're still in Utah, remember that!
Bottom line would have been that the whole self-imposed rating system would go out the window and parents couldn't tell a Teletubbies preschooler educational game from a blood dripping slaughterfest. And you can imagine what he'd get to hear then, right? Right?
This is no victory. Yes, we like the outcome, but that will only be temporary until Nutsy finds the time to reword it. And that he has far too much spare time should be known by now.
Not too surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
given that Gov. Huntsman seems to be pretty level-headed.
Re:Take a good look at WHY it was vetoed (Score:3, Insightful)
This is no victory. Yes, we like the outcome, but that will only be temporary until Nutsy finds the time to reword it. And that he has far too much spare time should be known by now.
With respect, I disagree.
(Full disclosure--Utah resident here.)
I think this is a victory, in that it shows consciousness of what game ratings are designed to do. They are supposed to give sane parents an indication of game content before making a purchase. So far so good--the gaming industry has subjected itself to an independent ratings board. No, a studio can't label anything "M" or any other rating. They can decide not to go through the ESRB, which is retail suicide. That seems to be what everyone was threatening to do: if we're going to get slapped for the ratings, we won't rate. The governor seems to see that voluntary content ratings are a good thing for conscientious parents, and I think he's right.
Moreover, the governor also seems to have noted (and this is a huge victory) that every other such piece of legislation has been struck down on constitutional grounds. More details here [sltrib.com]. Pertinent remark from Huntsman:
"While protecting children from inappropriate materials is a laudable goal, the language of this bill is so broad that it likely will be struck down by the courts as unconstitutional," Huntsman wrote to legislative leaders notifying them of his decision.
Possibly the bill could be reworded for resubmission (and it remains to be seen if the wacky Utah legislature will challenge the veto), but I think this suggests that this governor at least understands that there are constitutional concerns that trump think-of-the-children hysteria. I applaud the governor's action here, and his reasoning.