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

[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

[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.

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?

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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!"

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?

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?