Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

A Delay in the Michigan Violent Games Law 182

Posted by Zonk from the not-so-fast dept.
TecnaDigit writes "The ESA and the VSDA have achieved a small victory in the case against Michigan Senate Bill 416. According to Game Daily Biz, Michigan Judge George Caram Steeh (who himself seems a bit skeptical of the bill) passed an injunction holding it for consideration. In other words, while the bill is under examination it won't be passed into law. Originally, the law was supposed to commence on December 1st, 2005. Though the battle for this case is far from over, it is a bit of silver lining."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Delay in the Michigan Violent Games Law More

A Delay in the Michigan Violent Games Law

Comments Filter:

  • Someone pinch me. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @10:57AM (#13998139)
    By "silver lining" I think you meant "sliver of common sense". Someone please note the date and time for the record.
    • Is it the spirit of the bill or the implementation that you disagree with?

      • Re:Someone pinch me. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:13AM (#13998276)
        I disagree that the government should get involved with issues that should be a parent's job. Who defines what is "ultra-violent"? Does this mean that hotels will require you to come down to the lobby with photo ID before allowing you to play in-room games, or will they all be G rated puzzle games from now on? I disagree with the general assumption that violent games are the cause of violent behavior in the first place. The bill bases some criteria on "contemporary local community standards". Does this mean that what is acceptable in Detroit is not acceptable in smaller towns? Too many variables for what I perceive as a non-solution anyway.

        • Re:Someone pinch me. (Score:2, Interesting)

          by mctk ( 840035 )

          I disagree with the general assumption that violent games are the cause of violent behavior in the first place. The bill bases some criteria on "contemporary local community standards". Does this mean that what is acceptable in Detroit is not acceptable in smaller towns? Too many variables for what I perceive as a non-solution anyway.

          I'm with you here all the way.

          I disagree that the government should get involved with issues that should be a parent's job. Who defines what is "ultra-violent"?

          Hmmm. I'm

          • Re:Someone pinch me. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by jhill ( 446614 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:52AM (#13998653) Homepage
            Hmmm. I'm viewing these video game restrictions in the same light that I'm viewing movie restrictions. I think it's okay for the government to restrict minors' access to R and NC-17 rated movies.


            Except the issue is, the government has nothing to do with R and NC-17 rated movies, there is no law that puts someone under punishment for allowing someone under the age restriction in to see one of these movies. It's up to the individual movie theatre to enforce this suggestion.
            • I like this quote from American McGee in this USA Today article [usatoday.com] from July 2004 about lawmakers' attacks on video games.

              "They look at how hypocritical our society is when it comes to judging the content or sexuality in the media," McGee said. "And they look at how these double standards or triple standards are applied to films versus games or music versus games or written fiction versus games, and it's a silly argument to get involved in."

              Over the summer there was an article about the confusion by many

            • It's up to the individual movie theatre to enforce this suggestion.
              I was not aware of that. And while I think we should err in favor of free speech, I think it's okay for the government to restrict minors' access to certain things. Pornography, for example. Should this not translate for video games?
          • It's not the government who restricts access to R and NC-17 moveis - the ratings are completely derived and enforced by a complex web of private interests. The studios send the films to be rated because the theater owners and newspapers - generally shy away from showing or advertising unrated films. All private business - all acting in what they percieve as their best interests in light of the mood of the public and their business partners. But there is no law stopping you from releasing an unrated movie

        • Re:Someone pinch me. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shotfeel ( 235240 )
          I disagree that the government should get involved with issues that should be a parent's job.

          And it could be argued that what this law is intended to do is prevent other adults from overriding a parent's decision and selling something to a minor that the parent won't allow them to have. We do this for everything from alcohol, to tobacco, to firearms. Generally anything that's potentially dangerous to minors can't be sold to them without express parental consent Iand sometimes not even then -see lottery tick

  • buffering (Score:4, Funny)

    by seringen ( 670743 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @10:57AM (#13998147)
    stop blaming your ping times for getting fragged, legislature!

  • Politics of the Nanny State (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trolling4Columbine ( 679367 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:00AM (#13998164)
    These parental government initiatives seem to be something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. Isn't bi-partishanship great?

  • Christmas goodness (Score:3, Funny)

    by HugePedlar ( 900427 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:02AM (#13998182) Homepage
    So now kiddies will get to experience the magic of Christmas through violent games once again! Yay!

    Seriously, stupid law.
    • "For this Christmas, I want a game of Captain Slaughter and a death in Devil's Island..."

      (thinks for a second)

      "... and peace and good will for all people on Earth".

      (Joke courtesy of Robotman by Jim Meddick)
    • Actually, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if one of the reasons this judge is holding the bill for consideration is that he realized how much of an in-state loss of revenue it would be if this bill was active before the majority of the Christmas shopping season. I mean, considering that the average price per game is probably 40-45 dollars, and the Michigan sales tax is 6%, that's $2.40 per game, times the number of games purchased... and with a population of almost 10 million, even if only 1% of the state pop

  • Don't jump too far ahead of yourselves (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:06AM (#13998211)
    From TFA:
    VSDA advised legislators and Governor Granholm that the law could not pass muster under our Constitution, and today's decision - while not a final determination - clearly indicates this law will be overturned.

    OK, um no. I am not a lawyer, but the issuing of an injunction has nothing to do with the final verdict. It just means that the judge thinks there is a chance that it could do harm during the trial if it is unconstitutional.

    • Re:Don't jump too far ahead of yourselves (Score:4, Informative)

      by agibbs ( 729458 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:39AM (#13998528)
      Potential for the ultimate success on the merits of the case is one of the factors a judge must consider when granting an injunction. If a judge thinks there's little to no chance of success for the plaintiff, he won't grant an injunction. So, while it is not a final judgment, it is a more important step than you'd imagine. For those curious here are the four elements (in federal court anyway) that a judge is to use: An injunction should be granted if
      1. the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted
      2. the plaintiff will probably prevail on the merits
      3. in balancing the equities, the defendants will not be harmed more than plaintiff is helped by the injunciton
      4. granting the injunction is in the public interest.
      Taken from 526 F.2d 46.

  • I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fissure_FS2 ( 220895 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:07AM (#13998224)
    What's the difference between preventing minors from getting M-rated games and preventing them from getting porn, cigarettes, or alcohol? It makes sense to have consistent standards about keeping questionable materials out of the hands of children.
    • People are fighting back against making the govnerment a parental entity for all people under 18 year olds.

      • I think it's more that people just don't get it. This is an issue that we're only beginning to see, especially in the area of AO games. Better to get it hashed out on a national scale, than deal with the whiny Jack Thompsons of the world for years to come.

        I don't really have a problem with age ratings on games, same as on movies. Of course, no one enforces those EITHER, so...
      • The government isn't being a parental entity, except for alcohol, it's not illegal for parents to give cigarettes to their kids.

        What laws like these do is make it more difficult for minors to gain access to materials without their parents intervention. If you as a parent decide your child is ok with the content in a mature game, then it's your perogative to purchase it for them. If you realize your kid is already on the edge and don't want him to have access to this stuff, then that's your perogative as a
        • Actually, its legal to drink with your kids in more states than it is legal to smoke with your kids, because most of the harm from alcohol is secondary effects.
      • 18 year olds should be leading the call to have their rights upheld or extended. If they do not speak up, why should we speak for them? There are more pressing matters such as corruption at the highest echelon of governments and all sorts of DRM voodoo coming down the pipeline.
    • What's the difference between preventing minors from getting M-rated games and preventing them from getting porn, cigarettes, or alcohol? It makes sense to have consistent standards about keeping questionable materials out of the hands of children.


      First off, there aren't even consistent standards accross those examples. And I think the real question here is: who decides what is questionable for whom?
      • Who decides what is questionable for whom?

        Your duly elected representative government decides this. If they make a bad decision, you are entitled to duly elect a new representative government.
    • There are a host of reasons, due to soft definitions of terms, particularly the definition of "game" but the big one for me is this:

      If your child is running around buying 50 bucks worth of anything, and playing with it for 40 hours, without you having any idea of what it is, that is YOUR bad, not the stores.

      These types of laws all boil down to the same thing. It isn't that those who push them want to protect their own children, it is that they want to remove the rights of other parents to choose what is ac

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MoralHazard ( 447833 )
      Because we live in a free country, that's why! Be careful not to confuse porn, cigarettes, alcohol, and "mature" (violent but not pornographic) content. These are separately considered and regulated categories, as far as the law is concerned. The important question, here, is what category video games should fit into.

      Porn: US law recognizes the concept of pornography through obscenity laws, which have been generally upheld (subject to scrutiny) by the Supreme Court. Banning access to porn is generally s

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jparker ( 105202 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:56AM (#13998704) Homepage
      (Disclaimer: I work in the video game industry, so I'm hardly impartial here, but I do know what I'm talking about.)

      There's a key difference between controlling cigaretts, alcohol, etc. and controlling M and AO games. The former are clearly defined: does this product contain tobacco? Then it's not for kids. With video games (and movies, music, etc.) the question is much murkier. Does this game contain violence? And how do you rate that violence? These are very subjective decisions. That kind of subjectivity is fine for a self-policed rating system (like game or movie ratings), but bad for a governmental standard. (It is important to point out in these discussion that there is no legal weight behind MPAA ratings. Individual theater chains are solely respoinsible for ensuring that only those 17 and older go to see R-rated movies.)

      Consider the position of power that this would give the ESRB (the board who rates games) if their ratings became enshrined in law. They suddenly become the sole arbitrator of what games are freely available and which are restricted. Even if they don't use this power in overtly controlling ways ("It's looking like an M to me, but maybe a little "fiscal persuasion" could fix that."), the ESRB can be difficult to work with. They have no set guidelines for what constitutes a T or M game, and apply double standards all the time. I recall on one FPS title I worked on we were told flat-out that if there was any blood when peole got shot, that made the game an M. However, there are numerous examples of similar titles that have blood but were rated T (orig. Call of Duty comes to mind). In another title I worked on we were trying to build an FPS for kids, and getting an E rating was imperative. We would contact the ESRB frequently, asking if this or that feature would violate the rules for an E game, but were always unable to get an answer. "Well, we just need to look at everything in context and then decide." That's a fair position to take if the rating is just a guideline for parents, but if gains legal weight that kind of process is completely unworkable. Do some research on what the Hayes Comission did to movies in the forties and fifties. This is the textbook case of chilling effect. Game creators, finding it impossible to toe a line that is both invisible and in constan flux, would be forced to create games that were absolutely uncontroversial, which makes this very much a first-amendment issue.

      There's another key issue here as well: no study has shown a link between games and real-world violence. None. There are studies that get frequently cited, but to quote from TFA:
      It's also worth noting that, despite certain research from the APA and others, Judge Steeh found that the brain imaging and social science cited by Michigan "was unpersuasive and insufficient to sustain the argument that violent video games cause aggressive behavior," the ESA said.
      In other words, the science doesn't even back up the claims of harm, again a clear distinction from other controlled substances. (Hey you. Yeah you with the hemp backpack. Shutup.)

      Believe me, I and everyone I've ever talked to in the industry don't want children playing M-rated games, but we *do* want to be able to make them for adults. If you remember Kingpin, a game very violent for it time, when you installed it the first thing you saw was a big letter from the publisher, saying basically "I have kids. I love kids. Whatever you do, DON'T LET YOUR KIDS PLAY THIS GAME." We in the industry really do care about feeding violence to kids, but with the kind of stiff penalties that this law introduces, many stores may simple stop carrying M-rated titles. (AO games are exceedingly rare and are usually only thrown into the mix to raise the rhetoric. Sony, MS, and Nintendo all disallow AO titles on their consoles anyway.) Protecting the children is certainly a noble goal, but laws like this chill expression for adults as well, and there's not even good evidence that the content is harmful
      • IF the video game industry, from the manufacturers to the distributors to the sales drones would self regulate based on ESRB recommendations, Then there would be no push for these laws.

        Hopefully, the Video game industry will follow the example of the movie industry and implement effective self control before these laws come into being.

      • There's a key difference between controlling cigaretts, alcohol, etc. and controlling M and AO games. The former are clearly defined: does this product contain tobacco? Then it's not for kids. With video games (and movies, music, etc.) the question is much murkier.

        Note that the parent talked about porn, cigarettes, and alcohol, and you addressed cigarettes, alcohol, etc. Obviously you substituted 'etc' for 'porn' because your argument that there's a difference between the first type and games falls d

    • A Clockwork Orange is often mentioned in references to "ultra-violence" and some could say it started the idea of ultra-violence, yet no one talks of regulating it. Nor should they. Most games that fall under the proposed guidelines aren't that bad and shouldn't be regulated as if they were spawn of the devil.
    • What's the difference between preventing minors from getting M-rated games and preventing them from getting porn, cigarettes, or alcohol? It makes sense to have consistent standards about keeping questionable materials out of the hands of children.

      First, you must accept the premise that the detrimental effects of M-rated games, porn, alcohol, and cigarettes are identical. I don't.

      Then, you must accept the premise that the rights of people, particularly children, to access M-rated games, porn, alcohol, and
    • Here is my idea to keep porn, cigarettes, alcohol and ANYTHING else that should be kept out of children's hands out of children's hands: BE A RESPONSIBLE PARENT.

      Yes, I know, as a parent you cannot be with your child 24/7. You *CAN* instill in them your values and beliefs and rulesets and then *gasp* actually PUNISH them (spare the rod, spoil the child) when they disobey you. I'm not talking about beating a child to a bloody mess but I am talking physical and other appropriate discipline when needed. Teach y
    • M-Rated games aren't the equivalent of porn, they are supposed to be the equivalent of R-Rated movies. If the argument is that a particular M-Rated game is the equivalent of porn, then it was misrated and should be either AO or unrated. AO rated games are already very restricted with no need of a law, and a law impacting only them would have little or no effect on the way things currently stand (i.e. most people wouldn't really care one way or the other).

      This law doesn't care about M-Rated games anyway,

    • Or, simply have no such standards at all as applied to children, and hold their parents responsible for whatever mischief they get into. Don't want that responsibility? Fine. Don't have kids.

      The world is full of awful things and children cannot (nor should they) be sequestered away from them forever. I guess I just see this kind of paternalistic substitution of government for good parenting as a mistake.

  • I read TF-Bill (Score:3, Insightful)

    by callipygian-showsyst ( 631222 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:07AM (#13998225) Homepage
    I just read TFB (The F.* Bill) and while it defines what "sexually explicit" means, it convieniently avoids defining "ultra violent"

    Obviously, "Space Invaders" is an ultra violent game! You're destrying thousands of space ships, presumably occupied by intelligent life forms. And what about Pac-Man, which deals with death and ghosts!

    • Re:I read TF-Bill (Score:5, Funny)

      by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:12AM (#13998266)
      Is it still killing them if they're ghosts? It's questions like that which must keep politicians up at night.

      • Ghost questions aside, PAC-MAN is all about running around in a dark room, listening to techno, munching pills. I think that's enough to disqualify it anyway.

        ~Will

    • Re:I read TF-Bill (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Brothernone ( 928252 )
      I do agree that the bill needs a little more definition. The entire bill had no clear definition as to what "ultra-violent" means.. would doom be acceptable unless on "ultra Violence" setting? Would Link be banned for chopping up some funky octopi.. would Mario be banned for stomping on an endangered species of koopa? What exactly they mean by "ultra-violent" could be changed from day to day unless they define it a little more. As it stands they could ban anything they wanted because it's "too graphic".
      • I know I'm preaching to the choir.. but anyways, isn't this what game rating are for?

        I mean, come on. You can't buy porn until your an "adult" and yet.. parents buy their children these games that are labeled for 18+?
        Personally, I don't think their is a problem with it, however the label is clrealy being not used (who's fault is that for not reading?).

        Next step: Taco Bell and it's health (or lackthereof) in food.

        Although, on the flip side, a parent might say "well, I can't read *every* warning when I go sho

  • He better be careful (Score:3, Funny)

    by Spazntwich ( 208070 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:12AM (#13998271)
    This judge needs to be careful with what he's doing. Before he knows it, a savvy opponent could latch onto the (obviously false) notion that he's not "for the children" and ride it right into his seat on the bench.

    I propose we do something in advance to combat this ever-increasing problem. A new Godwin's law of sorts. You automatically lose any argument if you utter the phrase "Think of the children." If you say it while waving your arms around in apocalyptic chicken little fashion, you automatically get shot in the face.

  • Parents ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GoodOmens ( 904827 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:14AM (#13998285) Homepage
    As I have said before .... its not McDonald's fault the kid is fat; It's not 50 Cent's fault the kid is listening to gansta rap; It's not RockStar Game's fault the kid is playing a ultra-violent game.

    Its the parent's fault.

    • Its the parent's fault.

      ...except when it's convenient [slashdot.org] for it not to be?

      • He's saying it's the parent's fault if children aren't raised right or become criminals. You're implying that the parents are directly responsible for their children's criminal activity. There's a fine distinction between the two, but there is a distinction.

    • Re:Parents ... (Score:1, Funny)

      by avasol ( 904335 )
      Following the set path here one could also say that the tobacco industry has absolutely no responsibility in selling an addictive stick of rolled tobacco that causes cancer, heart disease, and more.
      Just like gun manufacturers don't have anything to do with people dying from being shot.

      In both cases, a parent could have stopped this from happening.

      I don't see how.... But I guess the important thing here is to establish that you can peddle whatever wares you wish since there is no responsibility attached in d
      • Following the set path here one could also say that the tobacco industry has absolutely no responsibility in selling an addictive stick of rolled tobacco that causes cancer, heart disease, and more.

        They may have had responsibility for this 20 years ago, but everyone who buys a pack of smokes today knows the risks involved. In Canada and other countries, half of the package is covered with warnings regarding the health risks of smoking, often accompanied by grisly photographs. If an 18 year old starts smok

      • There is a huge difference between Games, Tv etc. which I feel falls under media which in turn is freedom of speech and hard drugs/weapons.

        But anyways these above items already have a warning label (ie violent games are often rated m for mature) meaning it IS the parents fault they are letting their kids buy these games because they chose to ignore the warning label.

        Granted not all kids are the same (some being way more mature then others) but if a kid can't handle mature content then his parents shouldn'

    • Re:Parents ... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EchoMirage ( 29419 )
      Its the parent's fault.

      The only people who I see putting this argument forward are people who don't have children. You can't be with a kid (especially age 13+) 24 hours a day to monitor them, and even if you teach them well and they're respectful of your wishes and teaching "don't do this," by definition as human beings, they will do it. Thus, the laws of the state exist to protect the child in the void of their parents' oversight and teaching. It's not bad parenting, as you claim - it's reasonable.
      • Well my experience going into ebgames, compusa etc is that they will not sell games that are rated older then you are to you and if you look like a parent they will tell you that the game you are getting is not intended for children, not intended for people under the age of 13 etc depending on the rating.

        If your child gets one of these games then an adult bought it for them and ignored what the store told them. I have been in a store more then a few times when some 10 year old or so kept asking their mother

      • The only people who I see putting this argument forward are people who don't have children.

        Really? I'm glad you know who on Slashdot does and does not have children. Perhaps you should talk to any one of the many parents I know. Unfortunately, they don't post to Slashdot. :-(

        You can't be with a kid (especially age 13+) 24 hours a day to monitor them...

        Nobody is telling you to be with your kid 24/7. We aren't talking about kids sneaking away to play violent games in the stores or arcades. Tha

      • The only people who I see putting this argument forward are people who don't have children.
        Then let me put a definitive end to that: I have a kid, and I agree that this is none of the government's business. Parents should be responsible for teaching morality to their children; not the government.
      • Its the parent's fault.

        The only people who I see putting this argument forward are people who don't have children.

        The only people who I see putting this rebuttal forward are people who generally raise children unable to cope with adult life.

        Look, you're worried about a 13+ year old kid getting into trouble because you can't monitor them 24 hours a day? As you said it yourself:

        even if you teach them well and they're respectful of your wishes and teaching "don't do this," by definition as human beings, they w
      • No but making me a kid at one point of my life does allow me to make my argument.

        I might not have had the perfect parents and I did my fair share of stuff that would of gotten me grounded forever that I never got caught for, but I learned enough from them (most of the lesons not learned till several years after moving away from them) to allow myself to make fair and good judgements.

        You are right, you can't watch a kid 24 hours a day but you have to draw the line. There are plenty of bad parents who inste

      • C'mon. You're right you're not gonna be with little johnny 24/7, but lets say hes gonna play GTA somehow. Either you bought it for him and its you'r fault, or he goes over to little jimmys house after school and plays it. If he's playing it at jimmys house, whos fault is it? Jimmys parents who bought jimmy the game and are letting little johnny play it. When i was younger i had friends whos parents wouldnt let us watch rated R movies because they weren't ok with their kids watching them and assumed that nob
    • Its the parent's fault.
      Politicians didn't just create this legislation for the fun of it. Their constituents, "concerned" parents, demanded it. The politicians are just doing the usual whatever it takes to get re-elected. So yes, ultimately it's the parent's fault if their kid gets out of control but it's also the parent's fault for demanding such legislation.

      The real problem is that most parents are unsure of their own parenting skills and are scared that their kids could get easily influenced away from th

  • I don't have a big problem with this bill... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Flaming Babies ( 904475 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:19AM (#13998339)
    I'll assume that I'm in the minority on this one.
    The penalties may be a little stiff...
    there is no good reason that the penalties would be worse for selling games.
    (Texas came up first with a Google search, so that's what I'm going with.)
    Sale of Alcohol to a Minor:
    Class A misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $4000;
    confinement in jail for a term not to exceed one year;
    or both fine and confinement.

    Purchase of Alcohol for a Minor or Furnishing Alcohol to a Minor:
    Class B misdemeanor is punishable by a fine not to exceed $2000;
    confinement in jail for a term not to exceed 180 days;
    or both fine and confinement.

    I'm not sure if I'm missing the point here, or not...
    I love my violent video games and don't believe they have the right to stop me, as an adult, from playing them.
    If they can't punish stores that sell to minors, and people that help minors get their hands on the games, why have the games rated?
    • To follow your logic, if they can't punish movie theatres for letting 13 year olds into R-rated movies, why rate the movies at all? After all, the whole movie rating system is completely voluntary.
    • If there was a similar law for video games do you think that if a game store employee sees a parent buy a violent game for their child, the employee should call the cops?
  • so many of you are condemning this bill as if it will destroy video games, but you are so horribly mistaken i am blown away!

    if "ultra-violent" (lol clockwork orange) video games are not allowed to be sold to kids, responsibility will be on the parents who buy games for their kids -- where the responsibility should be -- instead of on game developers.

    this is just like the jack thompson case. we think it's funny that he is off his case now, but when another (less insane) lawyer does take the case, who knows w

  • Two Words... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:24AM (#13998379) Homepage
    ...First Amendment.

  • I read through the bill at the link provided, it's not that bad. My only problem is that they should define what the criteria for this is better, are they following the ESRB rating exclusively or are there other determining factors for what might be sexually-explicit or ultra-violent? It would seem to me the best choice would be to follow the ESRB ratings strictly, that's something you can cut and dry enforce, otherwise people selling these games can't make good decisions about whether they should sell a
    • The trouble is that this is how it will work:

      1. A purely subjective system will be put in place, where the government has great leeway in deciding what is "adult" and what isn't. Because of the inconsistancy, companies will lobby (and bribe) government officials to get the lowest ratings possible. Soon, only people with lots of money and lobbying power will be able to get their game approved. (This same thing happens in almost any industry and regulation were the government has vauge undefined rules).

      or

      2. A

  • A bit skeptical (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Judge Steeh seems more than just a bit skeptical, IMO. Here are some of his words: "the Act will likely have a chilling effect on adults' expression, as well as expression that is fully protected as to minors. The response to the Act's threat of criminal penalties will likely be responded to by self-censoring by game creators, distributors and retailers, including ultimately pulling 'T' and 'M'-rated games off stores shelves altogether." There's a very good article at Gamasutra [gamasutra.com] on this.

  • What's the big deal? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Voltageaav ( 798022 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:32AM (#13998455) Homepage
    I realize that using a private rating system isn't currently legal. They might have to make an official rating system to get around this. I don't even want to get into what the costs of that would be. Beyond that, amending the state constituion seems the only alternative means of enforcing game rating through law. In the area I grew up in, the local stores would check IDs for mature games and CDs. I know in other areas some stores don't follow that policy. Really though, movies are enforced throughout the state. I flinch when I say this, but video games are little more than interactive movies. If movies are restricted, then video games should be too. If I had kids, I would most likely buy them the newest GTA game if they wanted it. That's my personal position. But it should be up to the parents to decide what they want for their children for themselves. If this were passed, nothing would stop the parents from buying the games for their children. I don't see why everyone is fighting it so much. The only problem I see is putting it into a form where it would be lawful.

  • The people really hurt... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HilariousHandle ( 926468 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:35AM (#13998474)
    will be the parents. Now, they must take more time out of their busy lives to monitor what their children are doing.

  • Re: More Civil Liberties Taken Away (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EddyPearson ( 901263 ) on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:39AM (#13998514) Homepage
    America - Land of Free (Provided there is no swearing or smut)

  • What about the children? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday November 10, 2005 @11:41AM (#13998545) Homepage Journal
    Sex is bad unless the State [lewrockwell.com] teaches it, to 7 year olds: California school district administered a survey to children (ages 7 to 10) in the early grades with questions concerning "thinking about having sex"

    Violence is bad unless the State [lewrockwell.com] teaches it, without parental intervention: believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired.

    Prejudice is bad unless the State [lewrockwell.com] discriminates in order to generate more control and funding for itself.

    There is no surprise here, folks. The law's delay is only to reduce its newsworthiness. In a few months we'll have forgotten (as a voting majority) and it'll still be enacted and enforced.

    Do the right thing. Buy violent games for your kids if you think they can handle it. Bring you 15 year old adult with.

    Your vote means nothing. Your safety means nothing. Your knowledge of your child isn't important, since you've given up responsibility to the teacher's unions long ago.

    You made your bed? Out of shit? Don't make me sleep in it.
    • <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16 7881&op=Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=123&ti d=10&mode=thread&pid=13998271">If you look here</a>, you'll see that your entire post was invalidated.

  • silver lining? usa as crazy as ever... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As a german, I've never quite understood why the hell most of you americans (apparently including the poster) are such a bunch of hypocrites, when it comes to content that's supposedly not "fit for the youth". Violence and gore everywhere, but god forbid you might see a nipple. Over here, we have laws that
    - prevent games and movies that supposedly are too violent to be distributed to young children and adolescents
    - prevent games and movies that supposedly have too much sexual content in it to be distributed
  • It's more likey that violence in video games is a symptom not a cause. Right or wrong, America was founded on violence and violence is inherent within its culture and language.

    It's too dificult for politicians to examine and change the root causes of violence. Much easier to go after the symtoms.
  • What are law makers thinking?

    I'm all for computer game violence. I play Carmageddon [forerunner to GTA], and Unreal Tournament, and Doom, Wolf 3D, etc.

    I think it's perfectly acceptable, and where the problem lies is in parents who don't supervise their kids, or buy them games inappropriate for their mental capacity. Some kids get whacked out on games, or are nuts to start with, and it's not game maker's fault for making their works of art, it's the parent's fault for not seeing the harm it's doing to their
  • i wonder how this legislation would affect america's army -- the game that is promoted by the u.s. army for recruitment and training . . .

    http://www.americasarmy.com/ [americasarmy.com]

    mr c.
  • Half-witted dopes, (including penny arcade AND too feeble to mention swedish dorks) make POOR CASES against the pithy twatish remarks of the people who seek to make their money out of litigating the fuck out of the games industry, and at the same time restricting the themes we are allowed to be exposed to in the games we purchase.

    Example: Fack Humpson (identity protected to keep his fucking name out of press) states that he wants more enforcement for age ratings on games. Rather than AGREE that enforcing th
  • What's he doing in Michigan's legislature? Doesn't he already have enough trouble in Texas?

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Close