Massachusetts Looks To Jack Thompson for Game Law

Game Politics is carrying the news that the state of Massachusetts is asking Jack Thompson for help in drafting a piece of videogaming related legislation. The bill aims to block minors from purchasing games which fall under one of these categories: "Depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors. Is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors." The bill has strong backing in the state, from mayors all the way up to state senators.

Comments

Rephrased Miller Test

[sqlrob]

Already thrown out multiple times. This will be tossed on the junk heap with all the others.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[PrescriptionWarning]

"Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

yeah, there's not a chance for this one. seriously, why do they keep trying? I mean all they really need to do is figure out how to punish people who sell M rated games to those under 17... but if the parents buy it I can't see them being able to do JACK.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[vandon]

"Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
Considering what the NEA considers "art", then every video game *IS* art and this law is doomed to be struck down. Yet again, wasting taxpayer money and judicial resources.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[smallfries]

They've gone about this entirely the wrong way. There is something to be said for limiting the sale of violent games to kids - but it's the same thing that needs to be said about violent movies, music and other forms of media. If they'd had the balls to go for consistent censorship of content according to violence ... then it would still have been thrown out. But at least they would have had some moral authority when they lost, rather than their dubious claims that games require special treatment, and as a market side-effect they want to censor the games available to adults.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[shaitand]

"There is something to be said for limiting the sale of violent games to kids."

I would have to disagree here and this one comment can be used to fill in the blanks for other posts I might have made under this story. I do not believe censorship is a good thing. I believe that restricting, limiting, or altering the view children have of the world only serves to retard their mental development. Just because a parent has been brainwashed into a make believe moral caste (in part) by this method is no reason to allow them to impact the next generation in the same way. And if I don't think parents should be permitted to damage the minds of their children in this manner then I obviously don't support politicians doing it.

Some argue children don't understand the content. True, children don't understand anything without exposure, all the more reason to expose them. Perhaps children aren't mature enough to handle it. True, nobody is mature enough to handle it until they have been exposed to it and there is no justification for hindering or retarding the maturation of a human being so they can enjoy ignorant bliss for a prolonged period of time. Further, if exposing children to the reality of life causes desensitization then maybe, just maybe humans are only sensitive to these issues because they have been brainwashed into a fairy tale sense of morality. Who says it is bad to not feel the need to gasp in shock when one sees death and violence? If that is real life then why should we be afraid of or shocked by it? Perhaps that lack of morality is only shocking to you because you were brainwashed as a child and perhaps that isn't a good thing?

P.S. When I said you, I really mean anyone who feels however I implied, not that all of that actually applies to the parent I am responding to.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[smallfries]

Shame you got moderated troll for this post. I disagree with what you've said, but you've made some interesting and thoughful points. Typical abuse of the slashdot moderation system.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[tjanke]

I hate censorship, and loathe Jack Thompson for the zealot he is. But from your post, it's obvious you don't have kids. Sorry, but until you do, you're talking out your^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h just an armchair expert.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[hesiod]

Whether or not he has kids has absolutely NO bearing on whether he is correct or not. In fact, not having kids means he isn't biased by blind emotion, making his opinion MORE valuable to some people.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[tjanke]

It's obvious you don't have kids, either. And having or not having kids has a DIRECT bearing on whether he is correct; it's obvious from his post that he doesn't have any experience with kids because it's obvious that he doesn't understand the way they think and learn. They aren't little adults; they process input and understand things quite differently from adults, even as teenagers. In life, quite often, the devil is in the details, and we as adults can see and understand nuances and subtleties and complexities that are often lost on kids. They *think* they get it, but they really don't. Because of this, it is precisely our job as parents to filter the larger world and put it in context for our kids, to add the perspective they lack. Contrary to his position, this isn't brainwashing; we aren't teaching our kids *what* to think, but we are teaching them *how* to think, how to evaluate, how to look past the obvious.

And contrary to your assertion, it isn't guided by blind emotion. We constantly measure how much and what kind of filtering and contextualizing to do against our kids' ability to understand; we constantly question and evaluate and re-evaluate.

Bottom line: until you have kids of your own, and watch their little minds grow, their understanding of the world increase slowly, moment to moment, day to day, and be the one responsible for guiding their growth and understanding, you cannot appreciate what it takes to do so. He's like a man who has never held a gun, trying to tell a general how to win the war. Simply put, when it comes to how to raise kids, if you've never had any of your own, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[hesiod]

> adults can see and understand nuances and subtleties and complexities that are often lost on kids

We aren't talking about toddlers, we are talking about teenagers or just below, for the most part. Those old enough to actually play these games.
We aren't talking about subtleties and complexities, we are talking about exposing them to the concepts of life and death as viewed through a video game.
We weren't talking about the development process of children, that is only where you took the discussion, but since you did... This is about how being overprotective of your children and raising them to believe that the world is candy and peaches all of the time will turn them into disturbed adults who may have very big problems grasping reality. The only reason any teenager (barring mental handicap/deficiency) wouldn't be able to understand that a game is a game, and real death is really REALLY real, is if their parents sheltered them to a dangerous extent or if they have a mental disorder, although the two tend to overlap.

Before you get back up on that high horse of yours, you might want to think a bit more about some things you said and how they apply in the real world. You might as well suggest that I cannot appreciate what it's like to be an astronomer unless I have a degree in astrophysics. Bullshit, that is some extreme arrogance. You basically said that I (and the OP) cannot possibly have any idea what I'm talking about unless I have kids of my own. That is just as invalid as if I had said that "unless you are without kids, you are not able to think rationally about what is best for society because your mind is clouded by personal, greedy desires." I would be wrong, and you ARE wrong. Just because YOU didn't have the ability to understand certain things until you experienced them does not mean that others cannot understand things without that same direct experience.

It's like saying I won't understand what being an abusive parent is about until I beat the tar out of my own kids. It's possible that I was raised in an abusive family, and I WOULD, then, understand what it is all about without the experience of being abusive myself. Well, this case is about overprotecting your kids and I _WAS_ dangerously overprotected as a kid, so in this particular case, I certainly AM more qualified than you -- unless you had similar childhood experiences or you are dangerously overprotective of your own children and teach them that everyone in the world loves them and death couldn't possibly come to them... Are you?

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[tjanke]

You missed that part of my last comment where I said "we constantly evaluate and reevaluate" (how much to filter), based on our children's ability to grasp complexity.

And I agree with you that we're not, for the most part, talking about toddlers, and that teenagers are able to play the majority of these games. But, there is a marked difference in the way even a 15 yr old and a 17 yr old understand the world. That two years of growth make a noticable difference in the maturity and sophistication and understanding with which the child processes the messages they receive, and the conclusions they draw. And that applies to *everything*, video games included.

As far as overprotecting kids, yeah, I agree, it's bad. But the OP seemed to think that *any* filtering parents do for their teenage kids is overprotecting, and it's generally not. Would I let my 17 yr old play GTA? Yes, and I'd play it with them, too, and we'd talk about it. Would I let my 12 yr old play it? No way. 15 yr old? Hmmmm, probably not, unless they had already demonstrated a high level of maturity, more like that of a 17 yr old. See how it works? The OP seems to feel that that's wrong.

As for getting on my high horse, and being arrogant - sigh - maybe. But, to use your anolgy, you can imagine what it's like to be an astronomer, but, without that degree in astrophysics, are you qualified to tell them what problems they should be investigating? Where they should be pointing their telescopes? What particular mathematical approach they should use in solving that gnarly csomological equation? That, by anology, is what the OP presumed to do. Am I wrong for pointing that out?

Re:Rephrased Miller Test

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

True, children don't understand anything without exposure, all the more reason to expose them. Perhaps children aren't mature enough to handle it. True, nobody is mature enough to handle it until they have been exposed to it and there is no justification for hindering or retarding the maturation of a human being so they can enjoy ignorant bliss for a prolonged period of time.

The other reply was right: it is glaringly obvious that you don't have kids, and that you have minimal experience with them at all. The reason is simple: you don't understand at all why children don't understand things; you seem to think it's for lack of exposure. Hell, let's expose the world's 5-year-olds to blood and gore, then they're all good to go! To hell with age restrictions, let them drink and vote, too!

Here's an idea: the fact that children cannot properly understand some things is not because of lack of exposure. Children are not adults learning the ways of the world. Children are developing beings who are not fully capable of rational decision-making. A parent showing his kids violence implies that he finds it acceptable, when in fact it most certainly isn't.

Children learn by playing copycat, the whole "monkey see, monkey do" sort of thing. They regularly copy the behavior patterns of their parents, because they trust them and they observe them the most. Show a child violence, though, and he will imitate that, too, whether it's gunplay or physical assault or something worse. Young children are largely incapable of discerning right from wrong. Even teens are not fully capable.

The correct solution is to slowly expose violence, but make it clear that it is wrong. As they become older--and more capable of rational thought and moral judgment--expose some more. Let them learn at a good pace exactly why violence is bad.

Who says it is bad to not feel the need to gasp in shock when one sees death and violence? If that is real life then why should we be afraid of or shocked by it?

In what perverted alternate reality is GTA real life?

Perhaps that lack of morality is only shocking to you because you were brainwashed as a child ...?

The only possible interpretation I can derive from this comment is that you think a lack of morality is a good thing, which I don't understand at all. Morality is caused by brainwashing? I hope you just phrased something poorly.

I don't like what Massachusetts is doing at all, but it's a hell of a lot better than what you propose. I admire your "let everyone decide for themselves" attitude and I agree with your anti-censorship stance, but in regards to children, they are misplaced.

Seriously?

[realinvalidname]

First Mitt Romney, now this? Massachusetts, you used to be cool, but now y'all have a lot to answer for.

Re:Seriously?

[Smidge204]

Maybe it's like... Jack Thompson is the guy you go to when you want to know what not to do, y'know? Like they'll take anything he proposes and do the exact opposite.

(One can only hope...)
=Smidge=

Re:Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they should put out a press release saying that they're asking Jack Thompson's opinion, then read the resulting discussion on /. since everything that Jack Thompson does gets discussed here anyway.

Re:Seriously?

[Hercynium]

First Mitt Romney, now this? Massachusetts, you used to be cool, but now y'all have a lot to answer for.

As a life-long resident of MA I am dumbfounded.

I repeatedly hear people crying sighs of relief, "Now that Romney's out and we can start again..." Yet, I completely fail to understand what he did wrong.

Indeed, he came into the governor's office as a republican after a long spell of mis-management and gross ineptitude by his predecessors of the same party. At the same time, his term spanned the same period that a republican president and congress have totally f*cked up on an immense scale.

Yet, despite the failings of Mitt's political party, he has run the office of governor as a consummate executive. His agenda was made clear prior to the election, and has been consistently pursued, with remarkable results given the opposition. While having shown an admirable ability to compromise, just as admirable has been his intolerance of ineptitude, waste, and inefficiency. For both the state budget and our overall economic health, his policies and leadership have stemmed the arterial bleeding and we are currently on the mend.

I do not begrudge Mr. Romney's presidential ambitions. Even with that on his agenda for possibly his whole gubernatorial term, I have been singularly impressed with his performance.

Despite all this, the voters in Massachusetts have elected someone who appears to be the opposite of Mr. Romney in every way. From his eloquent parries to avoid taking positions on a multitude of political topics to his questionable political backers, not to mention his complete lack of executive experience, the man we elected our new governor seems to *me* to be the one who is 'uncool'.

Of course, I base my judgments of 'coolness' on facts, track records, plans, and common sense. However is is quite evident that most other citizens of this state prefer youthful ideology and a perfect salesman's smile.

One last thing, just to say something on-topic... Deval Patrick was given and borrowed a *lot* of money to run his campaign. I have read that Microsoft has already made successful appeals to his administration. I suspect that Mr. Thompson smells an opportunity as well.

Re:Seriously?

[Reverberant]

Yet, I completely fail to understand what he did wrong.

Another life long MA residents here (one who has spent 2/3 of my residency in the western part of the state). Here's a few things off the top of my head:

• Spending 212 days away from the state he was supposed to be governing in 2006.
• Joking about the state instead of lobbying for it.
• Claimed his policies resulted in a $1 billion budget surplus, only to tell us after the election it's actually a $1 billion deficit
• Pretty much ignored the western half of the state, (including only marketing the eastern half of the state to prospective employers, and letting them go to other states/countries instead of lobbying for CMass/WMass when EMass proved to be unsuitable) except for...
• Installing a state-run control board in Springfield who's primary goal seemed to be the breaking of unions rather than quality services; that's not to say that the CB wasn't needed, it was - but clearly their first priority seemed to be implementing Romney's ideals (teacher merit pay anyone?) rather than "compromising" with city officials and workers.

IME, most people outside of 495 aren't sorry to see him go...

Re:Seriously?

[Asmor]

Maybe I can put it in perspective a bit... I'm 22 years old, and I've only really started following politics in the last couple years when I started listening to NPR and watching The Daily Show. Feel free to make fun of me/ignore me as appropriate based on those two primary sources for keeping up.

Anyways, my point is that I have no idea what the political landscape was like even 4 years ago, aside from Dubya being in office (don't blame me! I voted Kodos/strike> Badnarik. I especially don't know what Massachusetts politics is like, as most of what I follow is national interest kind of stuff. I only know aout Romney because he's been in the news a lot lately.

From what I understand, he's basically done a major flip-flop. I don't know if it's true, but from what I've heard it sounds like he used to be pro gay marriage. From anecdotal evidence, it certainly seems like Massachusetts is a very gay-friendly state, but then again I don't have much exposure apart from the Boston and North Shore areas. Therefore, his attack on gay marriage seems to be not just a flip-flop, but in fact a turn against what his constituents want, in a blatant attempt to curry favor with the nation at large at the expense of his home state for a white house run in '08.

Anyways, this is just the image I've been given of the situation from my liberally-biased sources, so think of it what you will. I don't pretend that this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but it's what I've come to understand as a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Oh, and before I get labelled as a liberal nutjob, I'd like to consider myself more centrist. Anti-corporation, pro-small business, anti-pork, pro-(well spent) taxes, etc. Only current potential '08 candidate I like is McCain.

Re:Seriously?

[DurendalMac]

Romney was never pro gay marriage. He's all for equal rights and allowing many (if not all) of the same tax/health/etc benefits as a married couple and opposes discrimination, but he's not for gay marriage and never said he was. He seems to be just a little right of the "Civil Unions, just don't call it marriage" camp.

Re:Seriously?

[bconway]

That's the best rhetoric you've got? Might want to give Wikipedia a read for some real facts, it has a pretty thorough write-up (and mostly factual) on Mitt. Now that Deval Dukakis is here, we're really screwed. He's backpedaling so fast on all his campaign promises, he's almost to central MA (and my wallet, ugh).

Re:Seriously?

[dfenstrate]

Joking about the state instead of lobbying for it.

Hey, you guys sent the rest of the nation Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Don't you think the rest of the country holds that against you (certainly the Republicans who vote in primaries!), Romney knows this, and plays it up?

Further from what I understand the state legislature is overwhelmingly Democrats, so his jokes probably ring a little too close to home, eh?

You folks have some pretty thin skin.

That being said if you live in Western MA, shouldn't you guys have seceeded by now?

Sounds fine

[Dan Slotman]

They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

I offer the same advice as Penny Arcade. Work at it for a while. It just takes time. Practice showing some maturity. Given a few years of practice--how old are you? 12?--Let's say about 6 years of practice, and you can play these games too!

Re:Sounds fine

[XenoRyet]

You're right. The concept is sound. Minors don't need to be playing excessively violent or otherwise offensive games.

The problem comes in how the law is worded. It needs to be crafted in such a way that it doesn't put unreasonable expectations on retailers, and doesn't indirectly infringe on an adult's right to acquire these games. Traditionally, government is not so good at filling those two requirements.

Personally, I really don't see why the ESRB can't work like the voluntary movie rating system. I don't think any more kids get their hands on M rated games than see R rated movies, and that hasn't proved to be a severe determent to society. Really, we don't have this type of legislation for any other type of media, what about video games is so different that we need it here?

Re:Sounds fine

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize Gabe's the dumb one, right? You did take that into consideration before you agreed with him?

Re:Sounds fine

[TubeSteak]

They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

Ok, but this text confuses me:

would block underage buyers from purchasing any game which:

• depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors
  
• is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense* was committed as to suitable material for such minors

If this legislation is all about minors, why does it matter if the material is offensive/contrary to adult standards?

*what offense?

Re:Sounds fine

[CrashPoint]

If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

And if they do have a problem with it, then guess what? They can sodding well do their own parenting. They neither need nor deserve the government's assistance in making sure little Jimmy isn't playing Zombie Teabaggers 4.

Also, the "advice" proffered by the PA strip was in fact satirizing the "it doesn't affect me personally so it's OK" attitude people tend to have regarding onerous legislation like this.

Re:Sounds fine

[dyslexicbunny]

Personally, I really don't see why the ESRB can't work like the voluntary movie rating system.

Amen. All the law should require is that retailers check id for purchasers of said games. Mature is 17+ and Teen is 13+ (I think). There shouldn't be any more involvement politcally.

Adults can still purchase games without hassle. Mom can buy Little Jimmy Zombie Teabaggers 4 (as mentioned in another post) with no trouble. Now Little Jimmy can not. Problem is solved.

Re:Sounds fine

[crotherm]

Then why just video games? Are there laws against minors buying books, CDs, movies, etc that might fit those descriptions?

The line,

Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

would cancel out just about all the cartoons and comedies....

I now this is redundant, but let the parents do the parenting and not the state!!!!!!!

Re:Sounds fine

[ElleyKitten]

Why are you saying "Amen" to a post and then disagree with the main point? Movie ratings don't have any laws or legal enforcement. Why should video games?

Re:Sounds fine

[dyslexicbunny]

They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.

That may not be the standard everywhere else but I'm not overly traveled.

Re:Sounds fine

[kennygraham]

They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.

That may not be the standard everywhere else but I'm not overly traveled.

Because of company policy, and because the movie industry would take away some privileges if they didn't. They weren't required by law to check your ID. The fact that pretty much every theater in the united states has that policy is proof that you don't need it written in law.

Re:Sounds fine

[jythie]

That is not law, that is a theater's policy. A pretty common one though.

When I was a kid, I could walk into any video store and buy/rent R (or unrated) movies pretty easily.

Re:Sounds fine

[Dan Slotman]

Well that's the part that'll get tossed out when challenged in court. However, to address your main point, adults always judge content for minors. "That video game is too violent for children" is only a hop, skip, and jump from "You can't eat that cookie now because it will ruin your appetite."

Re:Sounds fine

[tepples]

That is not law, that is a theater's policy. A pretty common one though.

What about studios refusing to rent their films to theaters that don't have such a policy? Then the policy is backed by law, specifically copyright law.

Re:Sounds fine

[HTH NE1]

Because of company policy, and because the movie industry would take away some privileges if they didn't.

See, there's a rock and a hard place problem here. We don't want the ESRB's ratings be enforced by the law, but then we also don't really want to turn the ESRB into as corruptly powerful organization as is the MPAA.

Re:Sounds fine

[jythie]

*ponders*

Actually, I am guessing that such a series of events would fall under contract law since if a company is paying good money under a sales contract for copyrighted goods, the copyright holder can't just say 'well, we are not going to send you anymore' and throw away an agreement.

That being said, this is a bit of a stretch. While an agreement between theaters and studios can be enforced by law, this does not really make the policy 'law'. The goverment does not have independent authority to come in and audit if theaters are following the policy. Nor does it stop a studio+threater from writing up a contract that drops that clause.

Re:Sounds fine

[merreborn]

They are minors, and minors don't particularly need to be playing offensive games. If their parents don't have a problem with it, then the parent can easily purchase the game for their child.

There's a huge difference between "minors don't particularly need X" and "we need the government to prevent children from getting X with legislation and regulation!"

Minors don't particularly need to be seeing movies like Kids either, but there's no push for laws to regulate the movie/theater industry. They self-regulate instead.

Re:Sounds fine

[Damvan]

There is a problem with this. Many, many movies are editted to remove content in order to receive a certain rating. When was the last time you saw an "NC-17" rated movie? Not because no one made one, but because the studios would edit them to comply with a "R" rating.

We will see the same with games. How many "A" or "M" games will we see with these laws in place? My guess is few to none. They studios will simply force an edit of the content to get a "T" or lower rating.

Re:Sounds fine

[pla]

Minors don't need to be playing excessively violent or otherwise offensive games.

Neither do adults, but that has no bearing on the fact that some of us want to. Your point?



It needs to be crafted in such a way that it doesn't put unreasonable expectations on retailers, and doesn't indirectly infringe on an adult's right to acquire these games.

And while we add requirements, how about adding a reason to prevent minors from playing "violent" games? Guess what - We live in a violent world! We live in a world of life and death competition, tamed only by the thinnest veil of fiction we call "laws". Put two of the most pacifistic people you can find in a room with limited food, and see how long it takes one of them to kill the other.

Games just give people an outlet for the very real, natural aggression we all have that puts us at the top of the food chain.



Personally, I really don't see why the ESRB can't work like the voluntary movie rating system.

Put all the ratings you want on the boxes - I have no problem with that - It lets me rule out the games targetted at 8YO girls. But when it comes to enforcement of that? How about showing at least some sort of reason for enforcement. Because we don't all agree that kids need protecting.

I present myself as an example - I drank, smoked (and not just tobacco), played Doom and Postal, and although I won't brag about my sex life, didn't find myself wanting for companionship since turning 15 (and had more than adequate access to abundant porn before that, and the internet didn't gain popularity until my college years) - all while still well under 18.

And now? I have a stable job that gives me a healthy disposeable income, with peers who respect me; I don't smoke, don't drink to excess, don't do drugs (often); I have a healthy long-term relationship (though we both consider marriage a bad joke) with a monogamous partner of the opposite gender. Either I personally disprove ALL the paranoia about what we should do "for the kids", or you'd damned well better include some exceptions in your world view about helpless innocent li'l kiddies, for people like me who can "handle" it.

Re:Sounds fine

[FLEB]

Lately, though, I've seen more and more "Unrated versions" of movies out on DVD. I would consider this a rather good demonstration of how private policy can work with everyone-- The theatre organizations and distributors get their guaranteed level of "family-friendly" restraint on their turf, while the studios and movie-makers are taking advantage of the growing prevalence of home-theater to give the original film a proper distribution (backed in part by the theater run as an advertising device).

Re:Sounds fine

[Yartrebo]

You would think that would be illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act?

PS: What ever happened to that law? I don't hear about it much these days.

Re:Sounds fine

[Yartrebo]

Why shouldn't they be seeing that movie? In my book, it's a pretty good movie and I certainly would rather my kids watch that then a movie like Road Trip that glorifies immoral behavior.

Re:Sounds fine

[merreborn]

Road Trip is probably a better example. If I could go back and edit my post, I'd put that in. I just used the first NC-17 rated film I could think of.

The point wasn't the film itself :)

Re:Sounds fine

[ElleyKitten]

They ask for id where I grew up such that I was unable to purchase rated-R tickets myself. I could go were I to have an adult with me to purchase the tickets. I feel the same premise would work for video games.

The same premise does work for games. Games stores check ID before selling M-rated games. Sure, there's the occasional lazy clerk who just doesn't care, but there's also lazy clerks who forgeting to check ID at movie theaters or when selling R-rated DVDs. I don't see why people get all worked up over video games when they have the exact same system as movies.

Lacks value?

[SoCalChris]

Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

Hitler agrees. Let's burn all the games we don't agree with.

On another note, doesn't that describe just about every kids show on TV now? What literary, artistic, political or scientific value does "Mickey Mouse Clubhouse" or "The Doodlebops" have? No one is trying to ban those (Unfortunately).

/Godwined?

Re:Lacks value?

[eln]

Now I have that goddamned Doodlebops theme song stuck in my head. Thanks a pantload, Chet.

Re:Lacks value?

[91degrees]

On another note, doesn't that describe just about every kids show on TV now?

A good deal of them. And some of them are pretty violent. Tom and Jerry is one of the most violent shows ever if you use a fairly clinical definition of violence.

Re:Lacks value?

[Thansal]

hmmm...

To much beer for me? When I read that all I thought of was a Doppelbock. And now I want another good lager.

I actualy am against govn't oversite into this, for the same reason I am against govn't oversite into movies (remember, the movie ratings are 3rd party, volountary, and not enforced by the govn't). The ESRB does a good job (generaly, the hot coffe stuff was still silly), and I hope that we don't end up with laws on this.

Re:Lacks value?

[bockelboy]

Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

The question here is who does the burden of proof fall under? Does the government have to show, for every game they want to block, there is *no* serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value anywhere in the game for minors? That covers large swaths of human existence (Art is particularly broad; I'd argue that Bully can be argued as an artistic portrayal of childhood, given expensive enough lawyers) Or does the publisher have to prove that there is *serious* value in one of these categories?

Read one way, and it means that the government would have to do serious work in order to block even a single game. Read another way, it would mean that the game publishers would have to go through a lot of work to publish any game.

Hopefully it is the latter (burden of proof on the publishers). I'm no lawyer, but I think there's plenty of precedent showing that the burden of proof must lay on the government in the restriction of the First Amendment. That would mean this law would get thrown out all the quicker.

Re:Lacks value?

[Bigboote66]

Jack Thompson is a dangerous dope, but he law in question isn't as bad as you make it out. Read the original article - there's an "AND" between those three points. If the article is correct, lacking serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value is not alone grounds to restrict the game - it must also depict violence in a bad way and be patently contrary to prevailing standards (whatever that means).

-BbT

Exercise in futility?

[PingSpike]

Hasn't the supreme court tossed out everyone of the laws passed in states that old Jackie boy worked on?

Maybe thats why they want his help, so they can make sure that it gets thrown out. That way they can say they tried to 'fix the problem' and then blame it on the federal government.

Re:Exercise in futility?

[GWBasic]

Hasn't the supreme court tossed out everyone of the laws passed in states that old Jackie boy worked on?

When I turned 18, I was living in MA. Around that time, a friend's father was an exec for a local theater chain. Their clerks were giving us trouble whenever we'd try to buy tickets for R-rated movies.

I complained to my friend's father about the amount of difficulty that we were having legally buying R-rated tickets. It turns out that in MA, people DO call the police when they see underage people sneaking into R-rated movies.

My guess is that there is a desire to make an equivilent rules for volient video games. Frankly, if someone's able to get theaters to enforce R-rated movies, someone else will get stores to enforce restrictions on violent video games.

In related news,

[Vengeance]

Hamas is seeking Mel Gibson's aid in producing a series of films to inform and protect people from the Zionistic Entity.

Excellent Idea

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

I think this is an excellent idea. Any input by Jack Thompson will be so over-the-top loony that it will be doomed from the start. Getting him involved with anything pretty much guarantees failure.

Poor saps...

[Captain Sarcastic]

Which saps? Well, there are a few:

1) The politicians who are going to back Thompson's ideas, because the legislation that they will craft will end up getting tossed into the compost heap by the courts, leaving them looking useless;

2) The court judges who are going to have to listen to Thompson's drivel as he tries to support the bill;

3) The voters of Massachusetts, who are going to wonder, with all of the things that need doing, why their elected officials are politically grandstanding with this nonsense.

Groups 2 and 3 I have sympathy for. Group 1... sorry, I've used up my sympathy supply.

Re:Poor saps...

[mparcens]

I don't know how it is in other states, but here in Massachusetts, everything is political granstanding -- all the time.

Re:Poor saps...

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Taxpayers. Think about all the school books or wheelchairs for old people that this legislation and the related costs of having it ruled unconstitutional could buy.

Re:Poor saps...

[ivan256]

Don't have sympathy for the voters in MA. They *asked* for this. The state has a progressive rep, but it's only for token issues. The gay marriage thing could still go either way. You can't buy alcohol on the weekend... Hell, a recent ballot question for selling wine in grocery stores was shot down. The voters here only care about stereotypical "issues" that haven't been an issue in the state in decades, and recently, the letter next to the candidate's name on the ballot.

Re:Poor saps...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The politicians who are going to back Thompson's ideas, because the legislation that they will craft will end up getting tossed into the compost heap by the courts, leaving them looking useless;

...

3) The voters of Massachusetts, who are going to wonder, with all of the things that need doing, why their elected officials are politically grandstanding with this nonsense.

You are apparently *not* familiar with Massachusetts politics. The most one-party state in the union, with many politicians running unopposed year after year (Teddy, I'm looking at you). We basically take what they decide up the a** and ask for more here.

Re:Poor saps...

[matt_king]

Sure you can, we have been able to buy liquor on sundays for about 2 or 3 years now. At least it's better than New York, where you can't even buy beer and liquor in the same store...what sense does that make?!

Re:Poor saps...

[ivan256]

Sure you can, we have been able to buy liquor on sundays for about 2 or 3 years now.

Only near state borders, and around the holidays....

What always gets me in New York is how insulted the liquor store owners get if you ask them if they have beer. It's always something like "What do we look like, a grocery store?"

Re:Poor saps...

[Anonymous Coward]

All liquor stores I know of in MA are open between 12:00 and 5:00 pm on Sundays. All Sundays. I visit stores in and around Boston, Taunton, Framingham and Westborough. Can't speak for stores west of Worcester though.

Re:Poor saps...

[HTH NE1]

Just think what it must be like in Los Angeles, where they have to card you just for buying milk lest it get in the hands of certain minors who allow it to go sour so that they can get intoxicated on it! Talk about a nanny-state legislative nightmare!

Re:Poor saps...

[matt_king]

Nope, state wide. It was like that prior to 3 years ago. It's a town=by-town basis how late they can be open on sunday, but you can buy beer & liquor in any non-dry town (only a handful of those) on sunday. In Boston I think they are open till 9pm on sunday.

Ah the old fox in the henhouse

[antifoidulus]

or in this case, the lawyer in the Intensive Care Unit.

Making this too difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking sales to minors...

OK. Harsh and enforced penalties to retailers for selling said games to minors. And properly educate parents and other adults about the rating system for games and that it would become their responsibility if their child does something stupid after playing a game they shouldn't be playing b/c mommy and daddy chose to ignore ratings and purchase the game anyways.

And I'd like to see no liability to the retailer or game publisher if parents or other family members choose to ignore that rating and purchase the game for a minor. That's the crap that gets me every time. "Ya, I shouldn't have bought it for him, but it's your fault for making it! Duh!"

Re:Making this too difficult?

['nother poster]

And you can link something stupid that they do to the video game? Riiiight! You can prove that their violence was because of GTA and not because they watched the three stooges or the WWE. My kids are already my responsiblity. Not yours. Buh Bye. p.s. I already understand the ratings system and find it laughable. Sort of like you.

Re:Making this too difficult?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post makes no sense. You're adding more to the OP and then saying it's laughable? Yes, you're kids are your responsibility. And it's good that you see that. But many parents give the impression that they would rather point a finger somewhere else - and there's where Jack Thompson would like to come in and help you point that finger.

And most logical people will see stupid things kids do are really not linked to video games any more than anything else... but again, people like Jack Thompson would like you to believe otherwise. That's the whole point. I think you misread everything.

Don't Do It Deval!

[blueZhift]

I sincerely hope that the new governor, Deval Patrick, will not choose to waste the taxpayers' money on legislation which has failed at each and every turn. There are so many more pressing problems and quite honestly, the elections are over, what upside could the governor see in signing such a bill if it were to make it to his desk. Just say no Deval!

Re:Don't Do It Deval!

[Anonymous Coward]

Deval Patrick reads /. comments now?

great!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the people who brought you Ted Kennedy...

Video/computer games & Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would any special laws be needed for video/computer games? I can think of no reason. Any "content neutral" laws (say, against defamation) already exist and do not need to be re-passed to make them applicable to video/computer games. There is no reason for making special laws for video/computer games. And there is no difference, so far as regulating content, between a book and a computer/video game.

But that won't stop the theocrats, like Jack Thompson, from trying.

Since when

[monkeypoo]

Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

Since when has Jack Thompson claimed that ANY game has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?

Mass taxpayer's lament

[zoward]

...and as a Massachusetts taxpayer, I can't wait to watch my tax dollars reimburse the EFF after they have to spend money to have the law tossed out as unconstitutional, like they have in so many other states...

Re:Mass taxpayer's lament

[Anonymous Coward]

As a taxpayer in Illinois, I welcome you to the club.

What gets me even more upset around here is the people complaining about us having to pay the EFF/video game industry for the lawsuit. They cannot understand why they as tax payers will have to pay this. When I inform them that this is the same case I told them about back in October before the elections, they only state "Oh?!?" I told them that Gov Blah (yep me again, the AC that always calls him Blah) put together a group to get a law written for video games. I told them that it was passed, and I told them that it would eventually be thrown out. After it was thrown out, I told them that we would have to pay for it with our tax dollars. Did they listen back then? Nope. Are they listening now? Still Nope.

I am still hopeful that at least one person a year hears what I am saying and they grow a bit wiser in regards to this issue.

Who Decides? If it is just in Mass does it matter?

[CubeRootOf]

Who decides which games are worthwhile for minors?

Who decides which games provide a minor 'serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value'?

Does Grand Theft Auto 'Tom Sawyer Edition' pass muster?

How about SCMRPG (or whatever) that just got pulled from the slamdance festival? That at least might have had historical value, as a rememberence of a national tragedy.

Blocking these games from being sold on the store shelf doesn't stop the problem: These kids think they want these games and they ask mommy and daddy to buy them. If mommy and daddy can't find them in Massachusetts, they will do what everyone else in the state does: Buy it in Nashua or Salem NH and avoid the sales tax too.

This will be a great benifit for gamestops and EBgames in NH. Way to go Massachusetts.

Jack Thompson's Response

[plaisted]

Jack Thompson's response:

Your "news" story about the Massachusetts video game bill is utterly flawed. do you journalist wannabes EVER talk to an original source, or do you just quoting other pro-gaming sites? this is ridiculous!

Jack Thompson, Attorney

-source

Godwin's law

[jstomel]

Godwin's law, this thread is officially over and Jack Thompson wins. I don't like it any more than you do, but the slashdot croud can always be counted on to resort to emotional rhetoric ASAP.

Re:Godwin's law

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be a corollary to "Godwin's Law" that some asshat will mention it in any sufficiently long discussion.

Re:Godwin's law

[mqduck]

Godwin's law, this thread is officially over and Jack Thompson wins. I don't like it any more than you do, but the slashdot croud can always be counted on to resort to emotional rhetoric ASAP.

Goodwin's law, though amusing, irritates me. GP's comparison was apt. Maybe you should take a look at the way the Third Reich outlawed all "degenerate" art and consider the analogy before you go yelling "hyperbole!"

Re:Godwin's law

[jstomel]

If GGP can't come up with a less inflamatory comparison than the Third Reich then the phoenomena he is addressing is not a trend, it's an anomoly. If he can come up with a less inflamatory comparison then he should use it to avoid the appearance of an appeal to emotion. The thing about goodwin's law is that, while it looks amusing it is actually a very apt tool. If you compare someone or something to Hitler, the Nazis, or the Hollicast then you are not making a logical argument, you are making an appeal to emotion.

Re:Godwin's law

[Anonymous Coward]

If GGP can't come up with a less inflamatory comparison than the Third Reich then the phoenomena he is addressing is not a trend, it's an anomoly.

Didn't != can't

If he can come up with a less inflamatory comparison then he should use it to avoid the appearance of an appeal to emotion.

Who are you to say what he "should" do?

The thing about goodwin's law is that, while it looks amusing it is actually a very apt tool.

The only thing it's "apt" at is suppressing valid arguments with "zomg he said teh forbidden wordz!!!11one"

If you compare someone or something to Hitler, the Nazis, or the Hollicast then you are not making a logical argument, you are making an appeal to emotion.

Are the Nazis and everything related to them somehow outside the realm of logic now?

Re:Godwin's law

[SoCalChris]

What you're missing is that the comparison I made to MA & Hitler was meant to be taken in humor. Hence the "/Godwined?" at the end of my comment :)

Re:Godwin's law

[geminidomino]

Godwin's law, this thread is officially over and Jack Thompson wins. I don't like it any more than you do, but the slashdot croud can always be counted on to resort to emotional rhetoric ASAP.

 
Goodwin's law, though amusing, irritates me. GP's comparison was apt. Maybe you should take a look at the way the Third Reich outlawed all "degenerate" art and consider the analogy before you go yelling "hyperbole!" Offtopic, (but hoping to lessen parent's annoyance. It's a humanitarian effort!):
That's because the mouth-breathers who squawk "Godwin's Law! Thread over!" don't actually know what Godwin's law is.

Godwin's law states ONLY "As the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1."

There is no rule that states the thread is over, or that the other side wins, or any other such bollocks. It's a pseudo-mathematical theorem.

Re:Godwin's law

[shaitand]

"Godwin's law states ONLY "As the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1."

Since the limitless possible points to be made in a discussion actually aren't limitless at all; wouldn't that law be true of any comparison?

Re:Godwin's law

[geminidomino]

"Godwin's law states ONLY "As the length of a discussion thread increases, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1."
 
Since the limitless possible points to be made in a discussion actually aren't limitless at all; wouldn't that law be true of any comparison? Indeed it is.

Enjoy those civil rights lawsuits, Mass!

[elrous0]

I guess you guys must have a lot of extra tax money to blow on attorneys fees, huh?

-Eric

This is just a codification of the Miller Test

[Pluvius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

The Supreme Court has been using this test for decades to determine whether or not a work is obscene. If a work doesn't pass the test, it can be banned from sale not only to minors, but to anyone in the United States. But very rarely does a work not pass the test, since the SLAPS test ("serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value") has been affirmed to allow even pornography. This law will do nothing to video-game sales.

Rob

let me tell you about court judges in MA

[Anonymous Coward]

My roommate and I had an argument which resulted in him asking me to leave our apartment of which I was a co-signer on the lease. I told him he had zero authority to get me to leave and the next day two police show up at the door and tell me I'm forced to leave because he got a restraining order against me.

The affidavit he filed with the court? Says I play "violent videogames" and as such it placed him "in fear of imminent physical harm." Three different hearings on the same case, a different judge each time, each judge ready with the rubber stamp. At no time did my roommate have to present evidence or prove a thing.

For the curious, the violent videogames I play were HL2:Day of Defeat and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.

Re:let me tell you about court judges in MA

[Dunbal]

The affidavit he filed with the court? Says I play "violent videogames"

For the curious, the violent videogames I play were HL2:Day of Defeat and Prince of Persia: Sands of Time.

      Marry me? :)

Re:let me tell you about court judges in MA

[j-turkey]

My roommate and I had an argument which resulted in him asking me to leave our apartment of which I was a co-signer on the lease. I told him he had zero authority to get me to leave and the next day two police show up at the door and tell me I'm forced to leave because he got a restraining order against me.

LMAO! OK, blatant abuse of the legal system isn't that funny, but I'm not surprised about that kind of thing occuring in MA. It's the unquestioning victim mentality in MA that allows for abuse like you experienced. I had a friend who was hosed by MA laws like that which err a bit too much on the side of the accuser (in my friend's case, tenant protection laws).

Re:Who Decides? If it is just in Mass does it matt

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this means that Jack is going to be paid for that? Stop financing the devil!

Correlation and not causation

[callistra.moonshadow]

Blocking the sale of video games due to content will not stop violence in kids. It's less about what the kids are allowed to watch or play, and more about what they select and are enabled to experience by their parents. A child with emotional problems may commit crimes regardless of playing violent games. The playing of violent games is more likely a symptom of a troubled psyche as opposed to the game causing the emotional trouble. I think this is what is at issue. I'm not condoning excessively violent games but I think that the folks that go out trying to block a thing to stop another thing have missed the point.

My two cents.

Cally

Re:Correlation and not causation

[__aaclcg7560]

Actually, the video game industry is not paying their fair share to the political parties. Microsoft, for example, didn't pay a dime to the politicians until the anti-trust lawsuit convinced them otherwise that they would have fewer problems if they paid the politicians. Whenever there's a large amount of money being made, the politicians want their hush money.

Allegory

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an allegory to help make sense of this situation.

Remember that one episode of Metalocalypse where Dethklok does the concert in the remote frozen location? Okay, good.

The evil assassin dude who dissected live people? That's Jack T. and the Massachussetts state government.

Skwisgaar and Toki represent the hapless gaming public.

And Dethklok's bespectacled business adviser dude is the Entertainment Software association's legal team.

By now you can probably see where this is going...

Do these people live in an alternate reality...

[pembo13]

where real life is not violent? And the last place were violence exists is in video games? Because I can understand detesting violence, but video game violence should be the least of their worries. Have they ever watched National Geography Channel and see a squad of hornets wipe out what is essentially a entire civilization of honey bees?

Re:Do these people live in an alternate reality...

[Anonymous Coward]

but video game violence should be the least of their worries

Well, it is like those against abortion who do nothing to help the fetus once it is brought into the world through birth. For instance, late term abortion (very, very rare in and of itself) is generally used in cases where the fetus is underdeveloped and so has no to next to nil chance for survival beyond hours. Who exactly is supposed to pay for the heroics measures (not counting the surgery used just to facilitate the birth in the case of underdevelopment) taken to keep the fetus alive once it leaves the environment of the mother's body? Wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere, say health insurance for children who are going to survive more than a few hours? Or poverty-prevention programs in the greater community? Or to fund research into diabetes, leading to a cure that saves hundreds of millions of lives each and every year?

Like people who are against violence focussing on imaginary violence in video games, I find too many people fixated on abortion think that late-term prohibition is just so very important in spite of the harm to society caused by expending our nations' resources on keeping underdeveloped fetuses alive for a very short time once outside the mother's body, just so that an abortion does not take place.

Real world violence is a fact of life. It is time for our collective governments to do their job of preventing actual violence, not fake violence, and protecting us all from the harsh environment of the real world. Words on a page, images on a screen are not actual violence. Even video is just a bunch of pictures shown in quick succession. Depictions do not actually hurt you.

Btw, I saw that episode. Evolution in action.

Re:Do these people live in an alternate reality...

[Yartrebo]

Violence against humans is far rarer in real life than in video games.

In real life, you die once (hopefully many years from now) and most people kill exactly zero other people. In some video games (pretty much any FPS game), you kill a person or creature every few seconds.

I'm against this law, but only on 1st Amendment grounds.

More waste of taxpayer money

[WidescreenFreak]

Lets see. How many governments in the U.S. have already had this type of law bitch-slapped into oblivion? How much taxpayer money was spent in the process? Consider that a federal judge recently ruled that virtual porn is not the same thing as real porn and even extended that down to child porn! So what makes these idiots in the Mass. legislature think that they can come up with a law that can successfully supercede such precedent? What, is the Big Dig not enough of a tax money vacuum?

And Jack Thompson?! Wow! What's the Mass. legislature going to do next? Ask Ted Kennedy for help with a law banning alcohol or ask him to help with educating kids about driving safely over bridges? Why not also ask G. W. Bush for help drafting a law supporting embryonic stem-cell research? Asking Dick Cheney to make PSAs about shotgun safety is probably in their list, too. Good grief!

Look, I don't necessarily like those types of games either. I keep joking with my wife about letting my soon-to-be 7-year-old daughter join me in a game of Unreal Tournament 2004. But if I'm not paying attention to what my kids are playing and I'm not teach my kids right from wrong, that's my problem, not the government's. The same goes -- or at least should -- for any parent.

Re:More waste of taxpayer money

[Dunbal]

Why not also ask G. W. Bush for help drafting a law supporting embryonic stem-cell research?

      Or a peace plan for the middle east. Or any other region of the world, for that matter. Sorry, couldn't resist!

Re:More waste of taxpayer money

[WidescreenFreak]

Well, I was going to add "or ask him about his military victories as CiC", but I figured that my point was already made. :)

Re:More waste of taxpayer money

[Yartrebo]

"Consider that a federal judge recently ruled that virtual porn is not the same thing as real porn and even extended that down to child porn!"

Considering that the only reason child porn is illegal is because some child had to be violated to produce it, virtual child porn definitely should be legal. At the very least it will make breathing room for more mainstream porn as all the attention gets drawn there.

Everybody knows...

[QueePWNzor]

If someboy makes a law to prohibit adult videogames, kids will see gore-games even more. GTA gained (or at least didn't lose) popularity when it became AO. When the drinking age was raised to 21, more teens binge-drunk. If you intimidate kids, it'll backfire.
Besides, laws like that have been passed/struck-down, passed/struck-down, passed/struck-down, etc. for years. It would only legally be possible if the state or country started its own ratings board, as only government agencies can say who can get arrested. Kids'll get all the games anyways.
Just leave that job to the parents; if you think parents have no power, you should see teens against the law. Don't intimidate the kids, and problems won't skyrocket.

Won't last long

[Miraba]

Even if it does pass, the courts will be only too happy smack it down at the first chance they get; they're pretty well known for slapping the legislators when they act out of place.

News Flash

[mgabrys_sf]

Massachusetts gets ready to hand ESA and their lawyers large pile of money.

ESA representatives report, like our hat? It's made of MONEY! Hey wan't to know what's for lunch? MONEY!

1 Word

[Nom du Keyboard]

Nannystate.

Denny Crane

[HTH NE1]

This will be tossed on the junk heap with all the others.

I hope so, but then I also look forward to it lasting just long enough to be ridiculed in an episode of Boston Legal.

OT: State alcohol laws

[Captain Sarcastic]

I still hold that Kansas has some of the most archaic, arcane, and anachronistic alcohol laws (hey, at least I liked the alliteration!) in the U.S. Among them:

1) Liquor stores must have a specific green-and-red neon sign that shows in the window during operational hours (Why? I suspect that some neon sign maker must have had a brother-in-law in the legislature...)

2) Liquor stores are the only places that can sell any beer stronger than 3.2% or other form of alcoholic beverage (although they never do complain about cooking sherry or lemon extract in grocery stores).

3) Liquor stores are officially not supposed to be open on Sundays (although they are saying that this is a county-by-county/city-by-city decision now).

Personally, I like to quote from Alan Dean Foster's book The Tar-Aiym Krang, which said "The planet Moth had no drinking laws. Only sober ones."

Utah Bill?

[BaronHethorSamedi]

The article mentions the MA bill will be patterned on the Utah bill that was booted by that state's legislature in 2006.

If even conservative Utah legislators figured this would run afoul of the 1st Amendment, I'm not sure how this became an issue in Massachusetts.

This sort of bill tries to class violent material with pornography, and approach that has been disallowed by virtually every jurisdiction to have considered the question. The Utah text is even more bizarre, criminalizing the sale or exhibition to minors of anything depicting "inappropriate violence"--a more legally hazy term would be difficult to imagine, and the definitions in the bill did nothing to clarify it. Included in the definition of "inappropriate violence" is "graphic violence used to shock or stimulate." Doesn't this cover pretty much any depiction of violence imaginable? Why is violence depicted, if not to shock or stimulate in some way?

I don't have any real problem restricting the access of minors to this sort of material, but isn't there some way of doing it besides criminalizing the retailers? I mean, I'm sure we can count on responsible parents to step in and...oh, wait...

Verification?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The proposed legislation, which does not yet have a primary sponsor ..."

How about a name of any indirect sponsor? No names or quotes from any MA Commonwealth official makes me wonder how real this proposed bill is. Not that I can't see the rats on the Hill pass something like this, but still, verification is really needed here.

Besides with the recent regime change the legislators are going to be busy at the "public trough" to deal with such trivial matters.

So they're banning 99% of all games?

[r_jensen11]

Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

Now, nobody in their right minds would say that Gran Turismo is offensive or too grotesque for minors, but how does it apply to any of four categories in a serious manner?

Re:So they're banning 99% of all games?

[geminidomino]

Actually, you have your boolean operators messed up. It's ANDs, not ORs.

Encouraging distribution

[Sigma 7]

I'm not a lawyer, but I feel that this law is designed to encourage distribution of violent games to minors. In particular, it needs to meet all three of the following:

• depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors
  
• is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors
  
• and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

The first list item means that mintors are permitted to play SWAT 4, Rainbow Six, and other similar games - the violence within the game is not intended to be offensive (nor will it be considered as such) because the protagonist is supposed to be supressing criminals. In the case of Swat 4, a perfect score involves minimizing deaths and faults, while Rainbow Six requires a fast and effective sweep. From there, you will hear arguments stating that Half-Life is no different (since you are using a forward-firing weapon to defend yourself), which is then extended to Quake, Doom, and onto more violent games - similar to most slippery-slope patterns of arguments. There are ways to derail this slope, but the law is still flawed.

A minor, as you know, is under the age of 18. A 'M'ature rated game contains content that may be suitable for 17+ (and if you carefully read it's description, it is not an exclusive restriction as compared to the AO rating.). Effectivly, the law is either toothless, or prevents 17-year-olds from buying content they should be permitted to.

Nowadays, a game that lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value is few and far between. Since most games have modding capability and the tools to create such mods, that's instant access to the game. Likewise, Deus Ex has a massive amount of political value.

There's also the piracy aspect - if you cannot obtain something legally, you turn to the black-market (or equivalant thereof). The affected people most likely know how to download the torrent file and install. Whether or not there are actual damages for normal cases of piracy, the actual damage to the software producer is $0 if the potential customer is not legally permitted to purchase it to begin with.

This is a great example of the letter of the law being too deformed to promote the spirit of the law - if the law was followed to the letter (assuming that it survives the first amendment), the flow of games to minors would be increased. This is in comparison to the laws of a nearby country, which don't fall into the fad of treating video games as different from movies.

Phew!

[4D6963]

The proposed legislation, which does not yet have a primary sponsor, would block underage buyers from purchasing any game which [...] lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.

Good, for a minute I thought they would prevent kids from playing Pac Mac.

No wait..

I know I'm awfully off-topic but..

[4D6963]

Am I the only one to think that Jack Thompson looks an awful lot like Jon Stewart in 20 years?

This is unexpected

[pissedoffamerican]

They allowed gay marriage, which in itself is a very liberal thing to do, then they pull this crap. What a bunch of fags. ;) (I'm not bashing gays, they deserve the same rights as everyone else. But lets not get started on that topic. :P)

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, there is no amount of legislation that can adequately protect children from any type of media so long as the parents are doing their job right. If you cannot be bothered to teach your kid right and wrong, and won't actually take the rating seriously, its your fault when the kid blasts everyone in their school up. Ratings are WARNINGS. PG stands for parental guidance, which means that the parents use their discretion to choose when they think their kid can tolerate the content if the significance is explained to them. In other words, kids need to have the context explained to them before the actions can have a meaning.