Slashdot Mirror
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.
Already thrown out multiple times. This will be tossed on the junk heap with all the others.
First Mitt Romney, now this? Massachusetts, you used to be cool, but now y'all have a lot to answer for.
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!
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).
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.
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.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
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.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
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!"
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!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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.
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?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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
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.
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?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft