Massachusetts Looks To Jack Thompson for Game Law 117
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.
Rephrased Miller Test (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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)
Re:Rephrased Miller Test (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We aren't talking about toddlers, we are talking about teenagers or just below, for the most part. Those old enough to actually play these games.
We aren't talking about subtleties and complexities, we are talking about exposing them to the concepts of life and death as viewed through a video game.
We weren't talking about the development process of children, that is only where you took the discussion, but s
Re: (Score:1)
And I agree with you that we're not, for the most part, talking about toddlers, and that teenagers are able to play the majority of these games. But, there is a marked difference in the way even a 15 yr old and a 17 yr old understand the world. That two years of growth make a noticable difference in the maturity and sophistication and unde
Denny Crane (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(One can only hope...)
=Smidge=
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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:
IME, most people outside of 495 aren't sorry to see him go...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds fine (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That may not be the standard everywhere else but I'm not overly traveled.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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)
When I was a kid, I could walk into any video store and buy/rent R (or unrated) movies pretty easily.
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
PS: What ever happened to that law? I don't hear about it much these days.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but this text confuses me:
would block underage buyers from purchasing any game which:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why just video games? Are there laws against minors buying books, CDs, movies, etc that might fit those descriptions?
The line,
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!!!!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point wasn't the film itself
Lacks value? (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
-BbT
Exercise in futility? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
In related news, (Score:2)
Excellent Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Poor saps... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
OT: State alcohol laws (Score:2)
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)
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?"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the curious, the violent videogames I play were HL2:Day of Defeat and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.
Marry me?
Re: (Score:1)
LMAO! OK, blatant abuse of the legal system isn't that funny, but I'm not surprised about that kind of thing occuring in MA. It's the unquestioning victim mentality in MA that allows for abuse like
Ah the old fox in the henhouse (Score:2)
Making this too difficult? (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Don't Do It Deval! (Score:3)
Video/computer games & Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
But that won't stop the theocrats, like Jack Thompson, from trying.
Since when (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when has Jack Thompson claimed that ANY game has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
Mass taxpayer's lament (Score:2)
Who Decides? If it is just in Mass does it matter? (Score:1)
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 (Score:2)
Enjoy those civil rights lawsuits, Mass! (Score:3, Interesting)
-Eric
This is just a codification of the Miller Test (Score:5, Informative)
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
Correlation and not causation (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do these people live in an alternate reality... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
More waste of taxpayer money (Score:2)
And Jack Thomp
Re: (Score:2)
Or a peace plan for the middle east. Or any other region of the world, for that matter. Sorry, couldn't resist!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Everybody knows... (Score:1)
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
Won't last long (Score:2)
News Flash (Score:1)
ESA representatives report, like our hat? It's made of MONEY! Hey wan't to know what's for lunch? MONEY!
1 Word (Score:2)
Utah Bill? (Score:1)
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
So they're banning 99% of all games? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Encouraging distribution (Score:2)
Phew! (Score:2)
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..
I know I'm awfully off-topic but.. (Score:2)
Am I the only one to think that Jack Thompson [photobucket.com] looks an awful lot like Jon Stewart in 20 years?
This is unexpected (Score:1)