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

[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.

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?

[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...

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?

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.

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.

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