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."

Comments

buffering

[seringen]

stop blaming your ping times for getting fragged, legislature!

Politics of the Nanny State

[Trolling4Columbine]

These parental government initiatives seem to be something both Democrats and Republicans can get behind. Isn't bi-partishanship great?

Don't jump too far ahead of yourselves

[ZachPruckowski]

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.

Re:Don't jump too far ahead of yourselves

[agibbs]

Potential for the ultimate success on the merits of the case is one of the factors a judge must consider when granting an injunction. If a judge thinks there's little to no chance of success for the plaintiff, he won't grant an injunction. So, while it is not a final judgment, it is a more important step than you'd imagine. For those curious here are the four elements (in federal court anyway) that a judge is to use: An injunction should be granted if

1. the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if injunctive relief is not granted
2. the plaintiff will probably prevail on the merits
3. in balancing the equities, the defendants will not be harmed more than plaintiff is helped by the injunciton
4. granting the injunction is in the public interest.

Taken from 526 F.2d 46.

I don't get it

[Fissure_FS2]

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.

Re:I don't get it

[jparker]

(Disclaimer: I work in the video game industry, so I'm hardly impartial here, but I do know what I'm talking about.)

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:

It's also worth noting that, despite certain research from the APA and others, Judge Steeh found that the brain imaging and social science cited by Michigan "was unpersuasive and insufficient to sustain the argument that violent video games cause aggressive behavior," the ESA said.

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

Re:You smell that?

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:I read TF-Bill

[Sockatume]

Is it still killing them if they're ghosts? It's questions like that which must keep politicians up at night.

What's the big deal?

[Voltageaav]

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.

The people really hurt...

[HilariousHandle]

will be the parents. Now, they must take more time out of their busy lives to monitor what their children are doing.

What about the children?

[dada21]

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.

Re:Someone pinch me.

[jhill]

Hmmm. I'm viewing these video game restrictions in the same light that I'm viewing movie restrictions. I think it's okay for the government to restrict minors' access to R and NC-17 rated movies.

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.