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."
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.
My life's goal is to get a score of +3!
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.
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?
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
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 what might happen.
-- lol pwned
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
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.
OK, I'm -1 Redundant and -1 Rant.
You guys just don't get it, do you! This law allows the parents to regulate what their kids buy and use as opposed to the check-out clerk at the store. Or do you think its also OK for anyone to sell alcohol, cigarettes, firearms and porn to minors too? Are those laws in place because parents don't care enough to regulate their kids drinking/smoking/whatever habits?
just parents who really give a damn
Funny, I was under the impression they were the ones pushing for the law. Or are you saying its the parents who don't care much about what their kids are doing who spent all the time and effort required to get this law on the books?
As I said before, I don't have an issue with a law preventing the sale to minors, but I do think they went too far with the punishment.