Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Industry to Sue Michigan's Governor
hapwned writes "A news release at Warcry writes that the ESA (Entertainment Software Association) plans on filing suit in Michigan to overturn the recent Violent Games Act. From the article: 'The ESA argues that this bill is an effort to substitute the government's judgment for parental supervision and turn retailers into surrogate parents. Lowenstein said that the industry's products were being unreasonably and unfairly singled out. He contends that while there is no question that a few games have content that some audiences will find offensive, the same can be said for some content in TV, films, music, and books. Since the government does not regulate the sales of those entertainment industries, it should follow suit for the sale of video games. Ultimately, he concluded, parents, not government or industry, must be the gatekeepers of what comes in the home.'"
Doug Lowenstein.
Come on guys, you know that name.
The IDSA. The same guys that were tearing down emulation sites by the dozens between 1998 and 2000. I still have some screwed up pictures of the guy someplace on my hard drive from back in the days of utter hatemail over the issue.
So I'm torn to even begin to support anything the guy or the new name of the computer entertainment mafia. But they are right.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Because, in this case, it is the correct due process of law to directly challenge the law without requiring some poor, dumb schmuck getting arrested for it and ruining his business and life.
It's the State that will be sued, not actually the governor.
KFG
Because that's how you overturn the law.
Some of the problems with the legal system are *solved* by lawsuits. If you disaprove of lawsuits in general, then you don't understand our legal system.
Parent is not insightful or interesting. Slashdot is full of this crap. Whenever we hear "Scumbag backstabs littleguy; littleguy sues for violation of contract", someone here says, "While I'm all for littleguy, suing is never the answer." It's exactly the fucking answer. Yes, I know that's a different misunderstanding than this one. Still.
Makes me weep for all those poor lawyers out there.
Just kidding.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
But industry shouldn't have a role? That's crazy talk. Parents ought to keep a close eye on the things their kids do, but it is also the community's responsibility to raise kids rightly.
No, it's not. That's because the parent has the right to teach their child THEIR VALUES, and not have to worry about you ("the community") brainwashing them with YOUR VALUES.
The fact that many parents don't act responsibly doesn't mean we take that innate right away from everyone else.
But that is doing a huge disservice to the child who will not learn proper behavior.
And the parent and the child will have to suffer with that improper behavior, or do something about it, or wait until it escalates into a criminal act, and then the legal system will do something about it.
So too is it important that industries concentrate on producing high-quality, wholesome products.
I disagree completely. Industries produce nothing, companies do. Companies produce what people want to buy. People want to buy what suits them and their values. Don't worry about other people's values, worry about your own.
We do not accept people who wish to sell drugs to minors, nor do we absolve of guilt those who would ply them with alcohol.
I absolutely believe it should be the right of a parent to allow their child (and themselves, in the case of drugs) to ingest those things. Many countries have lowered or no cutoff year for when you can drink alcohol. Many of the best parents I know allow their children to responsibly enjoy alcohol before they turn 21, with no ill effects.
It is not always 100% the job of the parent. The community must be held responsible to the extent that they have offered moral corruption from beyond the purview of the child's parents.
Uh huh, and just who is going to decide what moral corruption is? Your signature reveals you are a Jesus worshiper, should you be allowed to force your ideals upon my child? If my child is walking through Wal-Mart talking about how Satan is his personal savior, should you have the right to enforce your belief system upon him?
Just mind your own business. That's a good rule of thumb forgotten by most right-wingers.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Here's the Bill's webpage and the final version signed by Governor Granholm at 11:58am EDT today.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
That's what happens with a fucking chick in public office. First she raised cigarette and alcohol taxes to make more money off "sin tax". Then she made strip clubs either full nudity and no alcohol, or only top-less with alcohol, and you can't get lap dances anymore. Then she fucks with our games..... blah
Seems a lot of people here are over-reacting, including the ESA.
/ billenrolled/senate/htm/2005-SNB-0416.htm
All this bill does, as best as I can understand it, is prevent a retailer from selling a "naughty" game to someone under 18.
It's nothing different than the age requirements for an R-Rated movie at the movie theatre. It simply says that little Johnny can't plunk down $50 and buy GTA.
If Johnny tries, and suceeds, then the retailer who sold it to him can be fined. If a game is given a Mature/Adult rating, then shouldn't we enforce it at the retail level like we do movies?
I'm all for parental supervision, but mom can't watch Johnny 24/7. If I were a parent, I would want to know that my kid couldn't go buy GTA without an adult's assistance.
BTW, the entire bill can be read here:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006
-David
I live in Michigan. SB 416 restricts sale or rental of violent or sexually explicit video games *to minors*. TFA conveniently fails to reveal that point.
According the to the bill folks 18 and over can buy or rent anything they want.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin