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."
stop blaming your ping times for getting fragged, legislature!
These parental government initiatives seem to be something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. Isn't bi-partishanship great?
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
So now kiddies will get to experience the magic of Christmas through violent games once again! Yay!
Seriously, stupid law.
Argh.
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.
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!
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
Is it still killing them if they're ghosts? It's questions like that which must keep politicians up at night.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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.
Its the parent's fault.
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.
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.
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.
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.