Slashdot Mirror
A Delay in the Michigan Violent Games Law
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."
By "silver lining" I think you meant "sliver of common sense". Someone please note the date and time for the record.
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.
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!
Best Buy can have you arrested
Reading the linked PDF, it strikes me that this law makes M and AO rated video games more of a controlled substance rather than outright banning them. That makes the case for a first amendment violation a tricky one.
That being said, I'm really not in favor of the government getting involved in these things. The rise in Ultra-Violent video games are a sign that the market is on the decline. Regulating such activities can have the opposite of the intended effect, as the government is basically okaying such products.
It's the same in the television industry. In the paper this morning they had a story about how 3/4 of TV shows today have strong sexual content in them. (Up from 56% in 2003.) The government is considering intervening. Again, I think the government should stay out. The ratings speak for themselves. The general populace won't buy their shock value crap for very long. Ratings will continue to decline until the shows are either fixed or television as we know it disappears. If the government involves themselves in it, they will only create controversy that will help the TV studios.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Its the parent's fault.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
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 game or not.
They were talking about something similar here in Wisconsin several months ago, and I would fully support it, nothing wrong with saying a 10 year old shouldn't be able to buy games meant for 17-18+ year olds as long as there is strict criteria the seller can follow.
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.
Someone save me from this sanity.
"it has such broad based support simply because there are a lot of parents who are worried because the long term effects of violent videogames are unknown."
Oddly enough, those same parents don't seem to care quite enough to regulate thier kids' gaming habits themselves. It's just easier to let the gub'mint do it for them.
This isn't something that needs laws to "correct"; just parents who really give a damn.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
will be the parents. Now, they must take more time out of their busy lives to monitor what their children are doing.
America - Land of Free (Provided there is no swearing or smut)
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Sex is bad unless the State 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 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 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.
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 to young children and adolescents
- prevent games (and not movies, because they are considered "art", while games are not...tzk....) that have nazi-symbolism in it to be distributed to anyone at all
You can argue about the latter one, but I think what's more important, that violence might have an effect on the youth, at least as strong as sexual content. Therefore, if you want to prohibit the second, there's little chance you can convince me that you don't need to prohibit the first.
Yes, I _know_ that some of you think that neither should be censored. Yes I _never_ did care about censored games myself, played doom when I was about 13, though you need to be 18 to play over here, and played wolfenstein, even though it's illegal...but that's beside the point. _IF_ you want to censor (apart from the effect it might or might not have), censor _both_ sexual and violent content.
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 seen as an violation of the 1st Amendment, but statutory laws can ban trafficking/sale of porn where it has no redeeming value (artistic, scientific, etc.). It's therefore acceptable to regulate porn sales to minors because it's legally accepted that porn (espcially entertainment porn) itself isn't pure free speech.
Cigarettes and Alcohol: There is absolutely no free speech angle, here, unless you really want to blow smoke. These are considered to be harmful, judgement-impairing substances, and so we forbid minors from using or purchasing them.
"Mature" content: This is where we're talking about video games, movies, TV, and printed material (books, magazines, etc.) that aren't specifically pornographic. In this case, the courts have NEVER upheld government's ability to regulate the consumption of mature content, generally, by adults OR children.
What about R-rated movies, you say? Well, it turns out that the enforcement of MPAA ratings is entirely a matter between the MPAA, the studios (which own it), and the theatre owners around the country. Theatre owners can only get movies distributed to them if they agree to abide by MPAA age regulations, and to only show MPAA-rated movies. Studios therefore have to submit their films to the MPAA for review if they want them to be seen. This is entirely a private agreement, without laws or government regulations to enforce it.
And as far as books are concerned, just TRY passing a law that would mandate an age-rating system for books, and which would prevent minors from purchasing "mature" content. Kids of any age can buy a copy of "The Godfather" or "American Psycho" or "Without Remorse", any of which are at least as violent and graphic as "Grand Theft Auto".
Hell, most people I know got started on Stephen King in elementary school or junior high. Have you ever read "Gerald's Game" or "IT"? There's some mighty fucked-up stuff in those, and worse in some of King's other books. (I actually like SK, so don't take that the wrong way.)
Anyway, the point is that pornographic video games can be neatly dropped into the "porno" categories of laws that already ban distribution of porno movies and magazines to minors. But EVERYTHING ELSE that's considered "mature" content, including violence and such, is a much murkier question.
Do we ban kids from purchasing books that are as violent or twisted as GTA? Hell, no, not in the USA.
Do we ban kids from seeing movies that are as violent or twisted as GTA? Yes, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian, but the government doesn't tell us to do it. It's a private practice agreed to by the industry.
So don't be so knee-jerk about this stuff. It's complicated.
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: 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 I were a parent, I wouldn't need a LAW to teach my kids right from wrong, nor would I need one to set parameters for their activities and behavior. That's a PARENT'S job, not the government's!
You seem to believe that anyone who wants government to stop interfering with how we raise our kids advocates anarchy and debauchery. I'm calling you out on that strawman.
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
The first amendment does not simply apply to a total ban of speech - but also to laws that make speech a "controlled substance". The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Courts have consistently interpreted "abridging" to apply to situations where speech is controlled or made more difficult unless the state can show a "compelling state interest"
Where do the kids get the money to buy these things? Where is their morality BEFORE they decide to buy those games and such? I know my mom kept my brother and I from owning Mortal Kombat when we were young. She just watched, and paid attention. Watched us playing it, decided she didn't like it, so took it away from us.
They're the PARENTS. It's their job to make sure moral choices are made and so on. Then they need to trust their kids to make the right decisions as they get older.
This "tool" is only so lazy parents have someone to blame other than themselves.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.