Slashdot Mirror
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."
Was Hot Coffee actually in the game with a cheat code? Or was it something a bunch of hackers did and changed the code? It still boggles my mind why Senators weren't upset with the gangster and other sexual things in the game.
God spoke to me.
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.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Is it just me or does this entry leave you clueless as to what the story is actually about?
PowerLevel.com - A next generation marketplace for virtual items and services
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!
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
A lot of states have similar clauses in their constitutions, there might be a clause in the US constitution where states and municipalities may not infringe on that.
I'd like to know what the legislation does to stifle free speech. Does the restriction of sales and play of "NC-17" and "R" movies from youth also stifle free speech? The linked article seemed to be a lot more about catch phrases, sound bites and jingoism that it's hard to decipher as anything but vapid propaganda.
Where was that in the article?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Declaration of Independence, while not binding law, indicates that the people who founded the US beleive that Rights cannot be granted or rescinded by the government, as they are a gift from God (or Nature, for yon Athiests)
"to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
From Wikipedia:
.", even though the text of the 1791 First Amendment states clearly that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .".
Consequently, the literal text of the First Amendment has been functionally revised through the doctrine of stare decisis, as the Court has also acknowledged. For example, in Denver v. FCC (1996), [1], the Court stated that "this Court, in different contexts, has consistently held that the Government may directly regulate speech . .
This phenomenon of functionally revising literal text has also been referred to as creating a "virtual First Amendment".
But if the literal text of the First Amendment is no longer used by the Supreme Court in rendering its decisions, what is? The text below is a brief representation of the virtual text used by the Supreme Court in its First Amendment jurisprudence over the years, from Thomas Ladanyi's book The 1987 Constitution.
Text of the Virtual First Amendment (heavily abridged)
No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press all media of information; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
There is a 14th amendment, you know. In fact, it's newer than the 1st.
English is easier said than done.
minors aren't full citizens of the united states, ask any attorney.
Actually, they are.
Nothing in the constitution says anything about giving gaming rights to people that are not citizens of the United States.
The Constitution guarantees rights, it doesn't grant them. And at any rate, the 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments protect the rights of all people in the United States to play video games.
making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.
Possibly, however, the 1st amendment right of game developers to communicate with minors, and the 1st amendment right of minors to listen, are both implicated. Perhaps these rights are not infringed upon by the law, but it's not a given.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
making a law which makes it illegal to sell games (of any type, violent or not) to minors is not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights. Perhaps you should read that amemdment again. No one's free speech is being squelched.
The real point here is not that this content can be kept from children by government edict. Indeed, the laws in question don't do that. Instead, they do what has always been a protected right by the government: they protect the right of parents to make that decision. The government cannot say "children can't have GTA," and it does not say that. The laws say, in effect, "it is the right of parents, and parents alone, to determine whether the child should have GTA."
There's no question but that states have the right to make such laws. The question is only in how they are tailored, making sure they do not, in fact, infringe on anyone else's rights more than is minimally necessary to effect this state interest in protecting the rights of parents from groups like IEMA that want to allow retailers to make those decisions instead of the parents.
The part you're neglecting is that it is the natural (or God-given, for you theists) right of parents to decide if their children should be able to have these games. And the law is merely recognizing that fact, and if it did not do so, it would be rescinding the rights of parents, which it -- as you say -- has no authority to do.
It doesn't limit their speech, but it -does- limit their freedom to exercise their right to perceive information of their choosing.
Sure, parents have a right to limit what their kids buy. The law can't (well, shouldn't -- because apparently it is) mandate it for all parents, though.
Can't mandate what? No one is mandating anything for parents. You're confused.
but it doesn't occur to him that he might have to take the log out of his own eye before he can demonstrate to others where the spinters are.
He just doesn't seem to understand that his conduct is atrocious no matter how many judges tell him so.
His mental illness isn't bad enough for him to be considered "insane" (or at least it wasn't when they had him tested), but he needs to be diagnosed and treated. His behavior goes well beyond that of mere egotism.
The laws say, in effect, "it is the right of parents, and parents alone, to determine whether the child should have GTA."
Then why make a law? Why are they wasting legistlature time with this? If a parent can't keep their kid from having a PS2, Xbox, or computer and then even fail to prevent the child from obtaining a $50 or more purchase then why the hell are they giving them money!!!
Do kids go out and buy their own consoles with lunch money? I don't think so...
If the kid is earning enough money on his own with a job then perhaps you should be parenting them, because obviously if he has money it isn't that hard to pay an 18 old friend in highschool to go out and buy these games for him...
You can't really hide a console and games like you can hide a dirty magazine. If you don't want your kid playing these games then don't give them a friggin TV. If they bitch and moan and you give in you are probaly going to buy them GTA for them anyways because you fail at parenting.
These parents should be damn thankful their kids aren't spending money on booze and cigarettes because they obviously don't know what the hell their own kids are doing.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Oh sorry this comment wasn't directed at you... Just the situation and bad parenting around the USA.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Then why make a law? Why are they wasting legistlature time with this?
... who the hell do you think you are? If I want my child to have a TV to watch PBS and play educational games I've approved, who the hell are you to tell me, the parent, that I shouldn't?
Because retailers recklessly violate the wishes of the parents, often.
If a parent can't keep their kid from having a PS2, Xbox, or computer and then even fail to prevent the child from obtaining a $50 or more purchase then why the hell are they giving them money!!!
Sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Just because I give my child money and send them off into the world, hopefully to do the right thing, doesn't mean that anyone should be able to sell to them porn, or a gun, or alcohol.
If the kid is earning enough money on his own with a job then perhaps you should be parenting them, because obviously if he has money it isn't that hard to pay an 18 old friend in highschool to go out and buy these games for him...
More nonsense. Just because laws can be circumvented does not mean we don't have them. Again, by the same logic, laws against selling *anything* to a minor -- porn, guns, alcohol -- are useless. But they're clearly not.
You can't really hide a console and games like you can hide a dirty magazine. If you don't want your kid playing these games then don't give them a friggin TV.
Um
You're making no logical sense.
You're just proving that this really is about the industry usurping and ignoring parental rights.
Also, that you yourself are not a parent.
hunterx11 is exactly right. The 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) applicable to the states. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (emphasis added)
*Gags* from your pseudo-logic. Try fully thinking things through before you post. First, minors are guaranteed rights under the Constitution. Ask any attorney. But more importantly, these laws do violate the game producers' first ammendment rights by having a chilling effect on the availability. You see, by making it illegal to sell games in the manner that these laws propose, they make it very difficult to sell any games to minors. (Take a good read at Michigan's law. It bans more than just M and AO games by virtue of its ridiculously vague language.) With this much difficulty in selling these games, many stores will simply drop games rather than deal with fines and regulations. Many more (read: most) will just drop M games, making them not profitable in the least. That's why nobody makes AO games; major stores won't carry them. This is a called a chilling effect. That's a legal term, and that's why these bans are unconstitutional. They have a chilling effect on peoples' rights to produce material intended for adults.
"We decided then that we'd tie up with children's charities and donate the games to hospitals, shelters, homes and schools..."
Great, until they donate their excess copies of "Hot Coffee" capable GTA...
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
### Was Hot Coffee actually in the game with a cheat code?
It was on the game discs, but only reachable via save-game hacking and neither via gameplay or via a simple cheat-code.
Does anybody know other games where affected by the aftermath of the 'Hot Coffee' dicussion. I know that the US Version of Indigo Prophecy had three scenes removed due to probally offending content, any other games that got cut for the US release? And what would have happened if they didn't cut those scenes (contain some nudity and sex), AO rating?
I think that if something's a product designed to make money it's much harder to make a case for it being free speech. You're not trying to express your opinion, or even necessarily yourself, you're trying to make money. Freedom of speech protects your right to say things, it does not entitle you to do things which can be seen as harmful to others. If I hand crafted a bear trap, then set it up on the capital steps, the some poor senator stepped in it, and I got arrested, i dont think a "freedom of speech" argument would get me off. While games are no bear traps, i think it is at least fair to say that the nature of their influence on kids is a question still open to debate. As long as that's true, i'd rather see an "err on the side of caution" policy for these kinds of things.
Now, dont get me wrong i love games. I am myself and avid gamer and i work for a company that produces products for the game industry. That being said, it does bother me a little when i see a crowd of elementry school kids running people down and doing drivebys in GTA.
Hot Coffee aside, the guy states that his group (and I'm talking EB games) has expanded shelf space for PC games in recent years. You gotta be kidding me! I've seen the space for PC games have a 3 month half-life.
And with XBOX 360 here, PS3 and new Nintendo coming up quick, all the PC titles they display will be in a shoe-box under the game guides...
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt = [citation required]
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If I want my child to have a TV to watch PBS and play educational games I've approved, who the hell are you to tell me, the parent, that I shouldn't?
I just told you that you have the choice and that it is your responsibility regulate what the child watches. What is the problem?
If he/she is so out of control in that he/she is playing or watching things you don't approve of then why aren't you taking the TV away from them?
I'm not asking people to beat their own kid or anything. Just take a bit more personal responsibility because government legislation won't solve bad parenting.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I just told you that you have the choice and that it is your responsibility regulate what the child watches. What is the problem?
No, you did not. Please don't lie to me, especially when the record is absolutely clear. It's just insulting.
What you said is that if I don't want them doing one thing, I should not let them do another: that if I don't want them playing games, to not let them have a TV.
If he/she is so out of control in that he/she is playing or watching things you don't approve of then why aren't you taking the TV away from them?
Why is it any business of yours? Again, you're not the parent here. It's none of your damned business.
You're a total idiot. On the one hand you tell me I should make all the choices and decisions and everyone else should stay out of it, and on the other, you are telling me what I should not do and second-guessing me. It's incredible that you can't see how completely hypocritical and two-faced you are.
I'm not asking people to beat their own kid or anything. Just take a bit more personal responsibility because government legislation won't solve bad parenting.
This has nothing to do with bad parenting. Only idiots think so (hence, you). This has only to do with one thing: someone else usurping my authority to parent as I see fit. That's all. That's it, entirely. Bringing anything else into this shows a complete lack of understanding of everything that's going on here.
Looking at the sibling post, I notice that insulting those who call him on his incompetence seems to be a pattern with this guy.