Hot Coffee In The Retail Space

Gamasutra has a piece talking to the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association's Hal Halpin about the impact of recent gaming news on the retail space. From the article: "As of this minute, [the game retail industry's] three major opponents are the State of California, the State of Illinois and the State of Michigan ... More specifically, they are those states' respective attorney generals and their governors, who each signed into law bills which their legislatures knew full-well would be in violation of the First Amendment."

Comments

Wait a minute..

[sesshomaru]

"Attorney Jack Thompson is someone whom I believe has his heart in the right place actually," Halpin said. "I think it's clear to all involved that he earnestly believes his perspective shall be the one to prevail and he is willing to put all of himself - personally and professionally - into that fight...a position which I don't see countered on the 'pro' side of the debate. That said, we take issue with his opinion that our members have not done enough to stem the sale of Mature-rated games to minors, and in that regard, we appear to be adversarial."

This is extremely sad, and really makes me wonder if this guy has studied Jack Thompson at all. No one who actually knows anything about him would think that his heart is in the right place. There are actually probably some credible people on the anti- side of this debate, who I will oppose to my death, but Jack Thompson is not one of them.

Heck, I consider David Grossman to be another dishonest huckster, but he's like a pillar of honesty compared to Thompson. (Remember him? He used to have Thompson's part in this debate. I miss those days.)

Just read the man's (Jack's) words, he come across as a dishonest, bigoted grandstander whose primary concern is stroking his own massive Ego. I don't get why this guy is treating him like someone who is taking a reasonable, morally responsible position here.

Right....

[steveo777]

From TFA "My personal opinion is that there should absolutely be more AO-rated product available in the market. While I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, I believe in expression, and I also would hope that like music and movies adults interested in purely adult content should be able to purchase or rent similar content on differing media"

He also speaks in favor of Jack Thomson's efforts saying that the only front he disagrees with is the limitation of MA or AO games to the public in general... which is the only issue Thompson ever argues about (well, I know he'd like it banned, but that's not going to happen).

Personally, I agree that certain content should NEVER fall into the hands of minors. I don't care what the parents say. There is no such thing as a non-impressionable teenager. You can tell me how independent you or your kids are, but right up till you die your environment has an impact on you.

Any parent who thinks their 13 year old son is old enough to handle extreme violence (killing bystanders for fun), sexuality (nudity, scantally clad women/men doing their thing, porn), or drug use (the support of it) in any video games/movies (very few exceptions) more than likely would rather let the game machine and TV raise thier kids than step up to the plate. At any rate, they're not okay in my book.

The article doesn't make much sense, and it's kind of hard to understand if this guy's got a point.

They're worried about their wallets. This guy doesn't care what's actually in the game. Free speech is to keep voices from being quelled on a political front, for the most part. They aren't being silenced anyway. We aren't violating free speech, we're protecting our kids', and thier future's!

Re:Right....

[TheRealMindChild]

What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for? Up until very recently in our social eveolution, people were going to war, getting married and having children at that age. Young people haven't become more stupid over time... if anything they are collectively more intelligent. The problem is, sir, is that you treat them as something less than a person.

Re:Right....

[Naikrovek]

"What part of sex do you not think a person at 13 is ready for? Up until very recently in our social eveolution, people were going to war, getting married and having children at that age. Young people haven't become more stupid over time... if anything they are collectively more intelligent. The problem is, sir, is that you treat them as something less than a person."

Do you know any 13 year olds? There is nothing about any 13 year old that is ready for sex except their bodies, and even that is borderline.

Your arguement is similar to this: "There is nothing wrong with lead consumption. Until very recently in our social evolution, toothpaste came in lead tubes and water was delivered to our households in lead pipes. we survived fine."

The reason that our society sees 13-year-olds as being too young for sex (and lead unsuitable for human consumption) is because we know a *lot* more about the growth of the mind, starting very recently. it is called progress. We know more, so we know what to avoid much more clearly.

Re:The headline and summary tell me nothing

[Red Flayer]

No, it's not just you. The article isn't really about anything either, just the head of a industry organization continuing to pat the industry on the back, and try to justify the existence of the organization.

It's like one of those quarterly or yearly "letter from the CEO" some companies distribute.

Re:Riddle me this

[RoadDoggFL]

What gets me about the Hot Coffee deal is the reasoning behind it, something along the lines of:

"A technically proficient minor could unlock content that's not suitable for those under the age of 18."

Right. Because a kid who can work his way through the Hot Coffee modding process can't find his own (real) porn on the internet. Might as well ban that too (though I bet they could at times).