Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Illinois Passes Explicit Game Law 95

Posted by Zonk from the slippery-slope dept.
The law that the Illinois system of government has been tossing around for a while explicitly banning the sale of Mature games to minors has been passed into law. Gamasutra reports: "Like the similar bill proposed by California Senator Leland Yee, the Safe Games Illinois Act would require retailers to use warning labels in addition to the existing ESRB labels, as well as post signs within stores explaining the ESRB rating system. Sale of offending games to minors will earn stores a $1,000 fine on a petty offense, while failure to post explanatory signage will draw a $500 fine for the first three violations and $1,000 for each subsequent count."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Illinois Passes Explicit Game Law More

Illinois Passes Explicit Game Law

Comments Filter:

  • Not that I'm opposed to such a law... (Score:4, Informative)

    by The Warlock ( 701535 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:33PM (#13168047)
    but wasn't one of these kinds of things thrown out in some big court case five years ago?

    *checks*

    Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri.
    • That case was decided in the 8th circuit. Illinois is in the 7th circuit.

      The 9th circuit is the only other to rely on the decision in the case you give (329 F.3d 954).

    • Yes, a court case giving games special status as "not protected speech". Personally, I think any law making special exceptions on an industry/product basis should be automatically viewed as suspect. Treating games as a special, evil, magical form of media just convolutes and destroys the consistency of law (which, of course, lawyers love - the more complicated the law is, the more legal fees).

      A law against selling material with adult-level content to minors does make sense. However, making the law speci
      • Customer: Do you have GTA San Andreas?

        Store: You look too young, kid.

        Customer: I am 25.

        Store: The warning saids over 20 years old only. You look 19 at most.

        Customer: I'll show you my license.

        Store: I need to see that, and also whether you have reached Puberty. Drop em. I need to inspect for genuine Pubic Hair.

        Customer: Sigh. That's the 3rd time this holiday season.

  • Great (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Oostertoaster ( 808578 )
    This is another example of the legislature do a parents job for them. This is just stupid. If you don't want your kid to play these games, don't let them! Instead of simply talking with their kids about stuff like this, parents spend 10x the effort lobbying lawmakers to enact legislation that achieves the same end!

    • Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Leiterfluid ( 876193 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:50PM (#13168303)
      Right idea, wrong point. The legislators are taking it upon themselves to tell you how to be a better parent. Worse, it seems they're trying to remove parents from the parenting process. They put the burden on retailer and public institutions like schools and libraries to police your children's behavior and values, but if you dare raise a hand or make any other effort to discipline your child, you'll get slapped with jail time. We're raising an increasingly permissive society that elects to make others responsible for the bad decisions and behavior of a few. There was a great editorial cartoon that summed it up this weekend. A parent questioned his child playing GTA if he had been accessing the sex game, and the child replied with (I'm paraphrasing" "Nope, just doing the usual stuff, killing cops."
      • Telling a store it can't sell a game with porn in it to children is awful, make no doubt about it.

        And, of course, forcing stores to do this IS making parents make a conscious decision as to whether the child should have this or not.
      • Tell me again how requiring parental permission to buy a mature game is removing parents from the parenting process. It seems to me they are trying to get the parents actually involved, instead of letting kids buy these things on the sly.
        • Because it makes retailers content-filterers and babysisters for other people's kids under threat of huge fines and punishment. That's why.
          • Sorry, still not getting it. Not seeing how requiring retailers to be content-filterers actually takes away any parental responsibility, since the parent absolutely has to be involved for the transaction. Sounds like that's helping the parent more than anything.

            I guess it does inconvenience the vendors who were selling M games to kids already. Who cares if they get fined? They are the problem that led to this anyway.
            • It takes away the parents responsibilty of having to keep an eye out for material THEY may find offensive or unsuitable for their kids and places it on someone else shoulder's.
              The fact is it's up to YOU, to make sure YOUR kids don't get ahold of material YOU may find offensive or unsuitable for them.
              If we make stuff like this law, then we'd essencially have to ban the sale of everything out there to minors as just about everything out there is likely to be offensive or unsuitable for their kids in the eyes
            • The problem is that when you say 'the parent absolutely has to be involved for the transaction', it amounts to this:

              Lil' Timmy: Mommy mommy, I want this game!
              Parent: Okay. Wage slave, I wish to purchase this game!
              Wage Slave: But ma'am, this is Bloodstorm X. It's rated Mature. He's only ten, he shouldn't have this game.
              Parent: I DON'T CARE!!! IT'S A VIDEO GAME!!! THEREFORE ITS GOOD FOR MY BOY!!!

              And then at that point, even if the wage slave continues to try and convince the parent that this isn't a kid's gam

    • This is pretty pointless, IMO.

      Let's say state X makes a law banning the sale of M rated games to minors. If they don't do anything about AO and stores decide to sell unrated or AO games, a minor could technically purchase an unrated game with 10 times the violence as an M rated game.

      Additionally, general ratings like M really don't differentiate games well enough. I could create a game with just enough sexuality in it to get an M rating. It might not have violence or profanity, but could still get an M

      • http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp [esrb.org]

        Try reading the ratings. They have "content descriptors" that give a better idea of why a game gets the rating it gets. These usually appear on the back next to the big M and have things such as:

        Blood and Gore - Depictions of blood or the mutilation of body parts

        Nudity - Graphic or prolonged depictions of nudity

        Strong Lyrics - Explicit and/or frequent references to profanity, sex, violence, alcohol, or drug use in music

        Mature Humor - Depictions or dialogue invo

    • Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @02:27PM (#13168760) Homepage
      Actually, the parents doing the lobbying probably already don't let their kids play these kinds of games. (Or don't know that their kids play them).

      The problem is that they want to be able to tell every other parent what they can let their kids do.
      • The really dumb part, for those parents lobbying for this, is that they don't realize that the kids will just get their older friends/siblings/parents/etc to buy the games for them. It's like cigarrettes, porn, alcohol, and just about every other age-restricted substance. If the kid wants it, the kid will get it. Restrictions of that nature don't actually do anything, I know for a fact that everyone in my high school who wanted to smoke, did, and everyone who wanted to drink, did, and everyone who wanted
      • What the hell? If a game is rated mature, the parent just has to buy it and give it to the kid. Explain to me again how that's telling parents what they can let their kids do???
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Eh, "My kid would never do that." Parents want to stop the whacko kids from shooting their babies. That's why they don't lock up their guns, so their babies can protect themselved. *ahem*

  • Excellent (Score:5, Funny)

    by Momoru ( 837801 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:35PM (#13168071) Homepage Journal
    This kind of legislation works extremely well. Remember the Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics notices on CDs? Since those have been implemented, not a single child has heard a swear word. Rap sales plummetted, and good old fashioned folk music is number one on the charts. One can only be hopefully that this kind of legislation can be enacted on a national level so that we may all go back to playing Centipede and Space Invaders again.

  • I'd really like this bill if it weren't for... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Wraithfighter ( 604788 ) <mtgfighter@yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:36PM (#13168080)
    The fact that it ignores the ESRB.

    Look, if it just took the ESRB ratings and used them as the basis for this law, then I'd love it, because it'd put a bit more authority and force behind the Mature and AO ratings.

    These games shouldn't be sold to kids in the first place. Putting a fine in there can only help, but the ambiguity makes things too tricky.

    • I agree whole heartedly. It goes on and on about what it does to stores that provide these games to minors, but there's one thing that irks me:

      There's no penalty for parents that buy their 10 year old a game rated 'M'

      Hooray for loopholes</sarcasm>
      • If it weren't for that loophole, I wouldn't have been able to play games like Resident Evil when it came out back in '96 (I was 16 at the time). My dad bought it for me, but he knew that if I knew how to properly handle a firearm that this was nothing.

        I was able to play games like Wolf3D, DOOM, Quake, and Mortal Kombat all before I was allowed to vote. I didn't turn into some psycho killer because of the games, and the whole "games are more realistic now" thing doesn't fly, either. People were raising j

        • Re:Hang on just a sec there. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by shoptroll ( 544006 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @02:04PM (#13168467)
          "I think that if parents WANT to purchase an M-rated game for their children that they should be allowed to. However, if the child isn't ready for it and starts doing stupid stuff like killing their siblings mimicking a move then the parents are held responsible, just like anything else."

          Except for the fact that the parents who don't realize their kid is ready for an M game won't hold themselves responsible.... they'll hold everyone else responsible. The blame game, it's a wonderful thing.
        • I'm from the same crowd of kids who played all these games and never killed anyone. But I'm not saying that no kid is capable of handling games like this because, obviously, we were.

          The point that I'm trying to make here, though, is that this bill is attacking the wrong people. Most of the children that these media illiterate soccer moms are trying to save are thier own. They probably bought a slew of these games for thier own children and so it's complete hypocracy for them to shift the blame onto store c
        • I didn't turn into some psycho killer because of the games,

          Nor did you turn into some psycho killer because you weren't taking psycho drugs, like the REAL shooters.
  • Is this more or less strict than how comparably rated movies are sold? I can remember being carded to purchase R-rated movies as a kid, but I'm not sure if that was store policy (Wal*Mart) or law.
    • Wal-Mart employees are supposed to card anyone who does not appear 17 trying to purchase M rated games as it stands today. The register even briefly flashes "CHECK ID" and you have to hit enter to go past it, if I remember correctly.

      It's supposedly grounds for termination, although I never saw that happen in my 3 months working at Wal-Mart in the electronics department. The few kids I did card and said "no" to just got their parents to come buy the game for them.
    • It's not illegal to sell R-rated movies to minors, though, it's just store policy. As well, it's also not illegal for minors to see R-rated movies, it's just theater policy. It gets irritating that so many people think these are laws when they're really not. Of course, they may be soon if this kind of legislation becomes widespread.

      I can't wait for when the people running this country are the ones who grew up on videogames. Then maybe we can put all this behind us.

  • Was it just me? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kabocox ( 199019 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:37PM (#13168089)
    I never actually bought any games when I was a minor. I had mom rent them and had a list that she'd buy 2-3 off of during a birthday or Christmas.

    I don't think that would be that big off a deal for minors just to ask adults to buy the games for them.
    Heck, minors will really be playing these games when they illegalize it like cigs and alochol for minors to use.
    • Heck, minors will really be playing these games when they illegalize it like cigs and alochol for minors to use.

      Wow, it's almost like banning tobacco, alcohol, porn, and now maybe video games is some kind of crazy plot to _drive up_ sales of those items to minors.
  • Obviously this has absolutely nothing to do with Hot Coffee!

  • Why is this bad? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shadow Wrought ( 586631 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .thguorw.wodahs.> on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:38PM (#13168107) Homepage Journal
    Personally, I think it makes sense to prohibit minors from being able to buy or rent explicit games. Should an 8 year old really be allowed to waltz in and rent GTA? Or buy Resident Evil 4? It seems that by fighting things like this, the industry is portraying itself as wanting young kids to play games with content beyond their maturity.

    But that's my $.02...

    • Re:Why is this bad? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Datasage ( 214357 )
      Although I do agree, I dont think a law is going to do much to change anything, if anything, it will make things worse.

      1. Unable to buy the game, those who want to play it may end up just pirating it.
      2. This doesnt do anything about parents going into the store to buy thier children inapropriate games.
      3. Taxpayers are paying for what parents should be doing.

      Im going to sound like a broken record, but the real issue is with parents not wanting to take responsibilty for thier kids and then turning around an

      • Re:Why is this bad? (Score:3, Informative)

        by ronfar ( 52216 )
        Well, the actual purpose of this law is to stop stores from carrying 'M' rated games, much as they do not carry 'AO' rated games currently. They don't carry 'AO' games because if they do, they open themselves up to legal problems, and if this law sticks, retail stores in Illinois will stop carrying 'M' rated games.

        Now, if this law goes into effect in Illinois and also in California, and sticks in both, then most publishers will send their games off to the ESRB and if the ESRB comes back with a 'M' or an

        • Well, the actual purpose of this law is to stop stores from carrying 'M' rated games, much as they do not carry 'AO' rated games currently. They don't carry 'AO' games because if they do, they open themselves up to legal problems, and if this law sticks, retail stores in Illinois will stop carrying 'M' rated games.

          I'm not sure that I follow you. This measure will not stop stores from carrying anything. It will require a label on certian games (similar to explicit lyrics labels on music) and it will

        • Yet, laws fining retailers for selling alcohol to minors has not caused convenience stores to stop selling beer. Only to stop selling beer to minors.

          Blockbuster doesn't carry AO games as a matter of store policy, the same reason they don't carry NC-17.

          As for resulting in less M games being made, this should have already happened if it was going to happen. Movie ratings have caused many, many originally MPAA board R-rated movies to be pared down to PG-13, and this was all with a purely voluntary, fine-free
          • "As for resulting in less M games being made, this should have already happened if it was going to happen. Movie ratings have caused many, many originally MPAA board R-rated movies to be pared down to PG-13, and this was all with a purely voluntary, fine-free ratings system."

            So can you imagine what would happen if they made it law for movies to. We'd get yet more cut down from an "R" rating to a "PG-13" rating crap so that the movie execs can get more money from the young kids/teens. It would make things

  • What does M stand for? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Iriel ( 810009 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:42PM (#13168186) Homepage
    http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php?date=2001-05- 16&res=l/ [penny-arcade.com]

    This law means nothing when junior can get away with this kind of crap. And he does. He does every day.

  • Get 'em drunk and on smokes instead! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @01:50PM (#13168294)
    Fines for (retaliers) selling to underage people in Illinois:

    Tobacco: $50 http://www.ilcat.org/lawsumm.htm#stma [ilcat.org]
    Alcohol: $500 http://www.alcoholsafetynetwork.org/state/AlcoholS afetyNetwork-PromotingAlcoholResponsibilityThrough CommunityPartnerships.php [alcoholsafetynetwork.org]
    Video Games: $1000

    Yup, that's reasonable.
    • Originally the fine was $5000 and the person could get up to 6 months in prison. But it doesn't matter anyways, this law is no different the other anti-gaming laws that were struck down as unconstitutional in the past. Actually, this one is even more broad and vague then those other ones. It's DOA.
    • You were quoting the fine for the MINOR. Let's look at the retailer's penalty for providing alcohol:

      Adult Providing Alcohol to a Minor:

      * Punishable by up to one year in prison and a maximum $2,500 fine.

      You misrepresented the Tobacco ruling for selling to minors also:

      No one may legally distribute or cause to be distributed to anyone under the age of 18 any smokeless tobacco products. Anyone in violation of this law is guilty of a business offense punishable for a first offense by a fine of $200, a s
      • The fines for cigereetes are still not as high as that for selling "M" rated games to minors. I guess the government thinks violent games are worse for kids then smoking.
        Not to mention the original law had fines of $5000 and up to 6 months in prison for those who sold "M" rated games to minors.

  • Comstockery (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Savantissimo ( 893682 )
    Here's my favorite word for all those wowsers and Grundys out there:

    Comstockery noun [U]
    excessive censorship of literature and pictures which are considered obscene or immoral ...
    Background
    The term Comstockery derives from one Anthony Comstock (1844-1915). In 1873 Comstock became secretary of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. In the same year he went to Washington to lobby for stronger laws on obscenity, carrying a huge cloth bag full of publications and information on contraception and ab

  • Like it matters. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by -kertrats- ( 718219 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @03:40PM (#13169672) Journal
    I'm working at Kmart this summer for some money to buy a car. I don't normally work at the checkout, but I've been called up there when it gets busy (a rarity, but it happens) and I spent my first week there on checkouts to train in on how to use them. No less than 3 times this summer have I seen a kid come up with some product that requires a birthdate, be told this, and promptly just call over their mom and have the parent just tell me that it's ok. None of them even glanced at what the product was (one was an M-rated game, one was a GNR cd, neither of which really mattered, but one was a Motley Crue DVD that looked rather obscene). This level of parenting isn't going to care if there's a sign posted explaining the ratings-they didnt care before, they won't care now.

  • I'm going to risk my name and karma... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SkyFire360 ( 889512 ) on Tuesday July 26, 2005 @04:17PM (#13170197)
    ... but here goes anyway:

    I believe that this will put more responsibility on parents.

    Now hear me out here. I do not belive this law will do much good, as some stores will inevitably ignore the new reguluations, game development companies will still produce violent/sex-filled games and parents will surely buy these games for their kids... nothing will change in that respect.

    What will change is the fact that when the next Little Deranged Johnny does go on his shooting spree claiming to have been influenced by videogames, who can overprotective parents, lawmakers and lawyers alike lay the blame on?
    • The stores that sell these products are not to blame if they follow the new regulations
    • The companies that make these games cannot be blamed, as there is legislation now in place that protects them. How often do gun companies get successfully sued for children accidentally shooting each other? How often do alcohol companies get sued because someone drank their beer and killed someone driving drunk?
    • The kids cannot be blamed because by law they are minors and don't know the difference between fantasy and reality (mind you this is from the point of view from the Overprotective Parents Association - OPA - not my personal view)
    How did Little Deranged Johnny get his hands on such a twisted, evil, dispicable piece of software? The parents! The only way that he legally got the software would be through his parents who bought it for him or from a friend's parents who allowed him to use it.

    I fear though that the wrath of the OPA will be turned elsewhere instead of on the parents where it belongs... "How could it be possible that the parents are to blame when he could have just as easily pirated it off of the internet? Regulate the internet now! Crack down harder on piracy!"
  • This is a good thing because it'll show that parents are buying their kids the inappropriate games. Consider the law a "pilot program" for an equivalent national law. There will be almost no fines - and anyone who's in the media, make sure to spin this as meaning that no kids were buying M games already, because the wacko liberal senators will try to interpret this as meaning that the law is effective.

    Most retailers I've seen already block those under 17. This would be a one-year age difference only - and
  • It was comic books.
  • I have nothing against wanting to restrict mature video games.

    What I have an issue with is when state governments want to invent definitions of "Mature" that go outside of the ESRB.
  • If retailers were "self-policing" like the ESRB ratings were supposed to be for, kids would need to get their parent to buy a mature game anyway. We all know that's a crock, so the system wasn't working.

    This is the fault of video game retailers. They did not live up to their end of the agreement to prevent government intervention. Hot Coffee got the legislators riled up, but stores selling mature games to minors has been a problem for a long time.
    • Well, a recent FTC study showed kids are able to get R and Unrated DVDs and videos easier they they can get "M" rated video games (81% for R and unrated DVDs/videos compared to 69% for "M" rated videogames) yet you don't see the government trying to regulate movies.
      There are many stores that will card you for buying an "M" rated game yet won't card you for buying an R or unrated rated DVD or video. So it looks like the videogame industry is doing better then the movie industry in this regard.
  • I hope not. I was carded by an over-enthusiatic new cashier at the grocery store today (I'm almost 30, with a 4 inch beard and grey hair). The store manager, whom I knew personally, scolded her, and I got my smokes. But if this is like this in video game stores, what then? What kind of ID is good enough? What about fake ID? They've been trying to stop kids from buying smokes for years, and they still can if they try hard enough. And those of us who ARE old enough sometimes can't.

    Won't work.
  • So does anyone have a list of states to pass anti-m rated games legislation?
  • I don't know about you, but I don't see too many 13 year olds who are walking into a store with $49.99 in their pockets...but what do I know.
    • >>> I don't know about you, but I don't see too many 13 year olds who are walking into a store with $49.99 in their pockets...but what do I know.

      No, but there's plenty of 13 year olds walking in with their clueless parents. Oh, maybe the parent will ask *their kid* if they're mature enough for the game (guess what the kid says...), but then they'll ignore the cashier who despretely tries to explain that the game is not for a 13 year old ("Yeah, I know, it has swearing" "Uh, yeah, and you can b
  • Okay, from what I've been reading here, NOBODY has clicked the link to read the FULL article! If they did, then they would know that the Entertainment Software Association, the ESA, has already filed suit AGAINST this law in conjunction with the Video Software Dealers Association and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association! AND the law is not slated to go into effect until January 1st, 2006! That's practically SIX MONTHES to overturn the law and label it as unconstitutional. Similar attempts like this
    • Okay, THAT did not turn out as well as I had hoped for. Apparently, HTML and Plain Old Text is something I NEED to pay more attention to! Let's try that again:

      Okay, from what I've been reading here, NOBODY has clicked the link to read the FULL article!

      If they did, then they would know that the Entertainment Software Association, the ESA, has already filed suit AGAINST this law in conjunction with the Video Software Dealers Association and the Illinois Retail Merchants Association! AND the law is not slat
  • Isn't ESRB rating optional anyway much like the mpaa rating is optional?

    Will stores no longer be able to carry games that aren't ESRB rated? It would seem that publishers could just choose not to have certain games rated.. I doubt Gamestop really cares if GTA is rated or not.
    • Will stores no longer be able to carry games that aren't ESRB rated? It would seem that publishers could just choose not to have certain games rated..

      which means that sales will be restricted to the red-light district of your local adult bookstore. until the states and federal government impose mandatory rating systems with teeth.

  • BBFC (Score:1)

    by Fatcud ( 904580 )
    Have you guys heard of the BBFC? In the Uk they had ratings on games and films for ages. I think its a good idea seeing as it prevents the kids from blaming their behavior on the game, when they shouldn't have it in the first place. What worries me is when things start to get banned, like in the UK the bbfc can ban films and cut them to shreds, and most people don't even know what there missing!

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close