Slashdot Mirror
Indecent Game Sales Now A Felony In New York
Gamespot reports on the final passing of New York senate bill A8696, legislation proposed just last week, that now makes it a serious felony to sell or rent a violent game to minors. The bill makes it illegal to sell a console without parental control options and establishes a group to second guess the ESRB's rating decisions. "'This bill is impermissibly vague,' EMA president Bo Andersen said in a statement. 'A8696 seeks to apply real-world standards of violence to the fictional and fanciful world of video games, an environment in which they have no meaning. As a result, retailers and clerks will not and cannot know with certainty which video games could send them to jail under A8696. It was depressing to hear members of the Assembly note the constitutional problems with the bill and then state that they were voting for it.'" The senate seems to have no fear of possible overturn of the bill, and claims it's only thinking of the children.
sold to a minor don't even warrant a class E felony, and they have prove harmful effects.
You mad
Just ruled unconstitutional. C'mon, a "serious felony". What about movies with equivalent ratings? And books. Books have no rating systems at all. My six year old niece can go and buy any Diane Steel or Stephen King book and I would not recommend either to an immature audience.
My twitter
I'm not a citizen of the USA, but I thought felonies were very serious crimes, like assault, or bodily harm. Not selling violent video games to children, yeah, it's probably a "bad" thing to do, but making it a felony seems a bit over the top.
We all knew the kid growing up who had the porn, whose parents didn't care, and who had the latest violent-est video game. I guarantee that this will not slow down kids' exposure to such games, because they'll all just congregate at ol'johnny's house to play re-bloodening 3. It might slow down individual sales, but if exposure to the game is the problem, then consider it as unsolved as ever. In fact, making the games harder to get usually makes them more attractive to kids, as in "this one must be really bad, lets go to johnny's and see!"
stuff |
It's funny, in a sick way, that a lot of the politicians that are quick to place restrictions on video games and music seemingly don't care a bit about violence in the entertainment industry. Like everything else, you only need to look at the money to figure out why.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
They can point out constitutional problems and still decide to vote for it knowing it can be overturned; sounds like a whole lot of political "I need something for my re-election" garbage. I imagine the exceedingly gross penalty stands for nothing more than a Get Tough (tm) on non-crimes stance.
Honestly, what is happening in this country where we've lost sight of what really matters?
Oh god my... I can't believe i wrote that...
You mad
I actually at first thought to myself 'Is this for real or an onion piece?', but then it dawned on me that such bad legislation is par for the course. Sure one could say ignorance of the law is no excuse, but come on, ignorance of what someone else may think of as violent or indecent contrary to an already established rating system? I'm in the military, and I value what this country was built upon, but I have serious problems with what it has become and where it is going. The vote of the people doesn't even matter anymore. Content publishers and big money pay wages to the political machine that far outweighs the repercussions of going against popular belief and thinking of the people they are supposed to serve.
Or violence in real life. For that they sell yellow ribbon bumper stickers.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Nothing!! That is just the solution actually.. Leave the parenting to the parent and make parents responsible. Sadly, most parents want it the other way around anymore.
Who has time to be bothered by a troublesome kid.
Sure glad the kids at school, now I can have some peace.
Isn't there some kind of camp or afterschool activity I can send my kid to
Why don't you go play over at some one elses house
Parents don't raise their kids anymore, they expect government to do it, and government in turn wants to put THEIR religious and moral beliefs on our children, and punish the parents who disagree with THEIR views.
"Well, there goes my idea of opening a game shop where all the employees are topless women."
You'll likely scare away most of your customers; they're not accustomed to the real thing.
Damn, with this law in place, how will I get my kicks selling violent video games to minors? You know what someone ought to do is create a video game where you earn points by distributing violent games to minors!
Knee Jerk reactions by the legislature are not new to New Yorkers. I have three words: Rockefeller Drug Laws. At the time they were the harshest penalties in the United States for drug possession. From the article:
... or more of heroin, morphine, ... opium, cocaine, or ... marijuana .... or possessing four ounces or more of the same substances, was made the same as that for second-degree murder
the penalty for selling two ounces
So this isn't an overreaction by the New York Senate - it's standard operating procedure! Even better, the laws weren't reformed for over 20 years. Just goes to show why we're the most dysfunctional state government in the country.
Or, God forbid we actually try implementing some reasonable restrictions on handgun ownership in this country. Because, after all, if we did, then we'd turn into a totalitarian dictatorship where violent crime would be even worse, just like what happened Canada.
You don't know the same parents I do.
Most parents I know think they are at war with the schools because schools (an extension of the government) are trying undermine them as parents and raise the kids however they see fit. They whine and complain when the schools assign a lot of homework because "we don't have time to do anything as a family".
Of course, all they do as a family is eat fast food while watching TV before the kids lock themselves in their rooms for the evening so that Susie can show her boobs to boys on the internet while Johnny takes emo pictures and writes in his blog about how his parents hate him because they won't buy him the BMW he wants.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
then we'd turn into a totalitarian dictatorship where violent crime would be even worse, just like what happened Canada.
Or Britain?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I consider myself, as does my wife teachers as well. We don't like homework in excess, but we use school homework as family time with our kids. We sit down, help them with it, explain things they don't fully understand, and put our learned spin on things so they have multiple views to expose them to things having more than one way to be solved. Our kids eat usually home cooked meals with us. Eating out is used for days that have excess stuff (doctors appt's and or such things), and pizza on pay days (twice monthly).
Because the law abiding citizens this imposes restrictions on.........THEY are the ones we must stop. Aside from recent issues (VT) there have been only flies among 757s where legal gun owners are the ones who commit violent crimes. Many legal gun owners actually STOP crimes. Why should that matter... Feel good legislation is where it is at, man
Say it with me: THE US IS NOT CANADA
It might well be possible to reduce or eliminate handgun sales in the US, but it won't be possible in the same way, nor on the same timescale, as any other country.
Remember, the mindset under which this country was founded led to the right to go about armed (aka "bear arms", yo) being written into the constitution. This nation was founded on individuality, and not on doing what one is told.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Proposal:
Should a legislator vote for a law/bill later found by a court to be unconstitutional that legistlator shall immediatly be dismissed from their post having been essentially found to be "acting against the constitution". Such shall not apply to direct attempts to modify the constitution.
Am I the only one that's tired of having their life inconvenienced for everybody's else's children? It's not my fault you're too lazy to watch what your kids are buying/playing. Why is the New York legislature even wasting time on this?
You know what to do. Contact the ESA, tell them about this law. Contact the judges, inform them. Contact the New York Government. Give em your criticisms. Remember, our voices speak louder.
Individuality? Not doing what one is told? Maybe for some elite subset of the intellectual population, but I've remarked no difference between normal Europeans and normal Americans in this regard.
I believe a bigger problem is the fact that the average American almost worships his Constitution. Rather than asking if a given law is good or bad, he asks if it follows the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, which gets in the way of any rational debate. Please remember that, living in the XVIIIth century, the Founding Fathers were obviously out of touch with what is happening (what was will happen? what would happen? I hate tenses) in the XXIst.
Le français vous intéresse?
I didn't say that things were precisely the same today as when the nation was founded.
But certain legacies from that time are still alive and strong today.
I take your meaning, but I also want to reiterate the point that those who forget the lessons of the past are condemned to repeat them. The freedom of speech is necessary so that men can speak their minds and influence those of others. The freedom to bear arms is the only way to guarantee the freedom of speech. I could go on down the list, but the fact is that there are points at which force is the only valid response. When you get there, yes, the system has failed. But the old adage about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots remains true.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The NES, SNES, Genesis, Atari, Game Boy, etc.
None of them have parental controls. Does that mean selling classic systems is illegal? Or do the old ones get grandfathered in?
Well of course. " The senate seems to have no fear of possible overturn of the bill, and claims it's only thinking of the children."
c tually-think legislation, and it was the evil activist judges who knocked it down. Once again that pesky 1st Ammendment puts our children at risk.
Yeah, of course they don't fear it being overturned, which it will be on plain 1st Ammendment grounds just like every other law like it that has ever been passed. What does it being overturned cost them? Nothing, not a damn thing. They passed the happy-feel-good-think-of-the-children-but-don't-a
If we actually looked badly upon legislators passing blatantly unconstitutional laws that they know will get overturned and waste taxpayer money, then they might possibly have some fear. But as it stands, the people they are catering to would be pleased as punch to throw out free speech if it gave them the illusion that the government is taking care of their children for them. This is nothing but upside for those politicians.
The enemies of Democracy are
but I am beginning to hate the children. They keep getting in the way of all our fun. Maybe we should have less children so we don't have to think of them so much.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
A) See wildly unconstitutional bill, supported by a zealous minority.
B) Realize that if you vote for it the zealots will vote for you and if not they'll bully you in the media.
C) Realize that the bill will be immediately overturned by the judiciary, who are not under the same vote pressure.
D) Pass the bill, reap the rewards, trust the judges to do their jobs and shut down the bill.
Lame, cheap and easy. All it costs is voter money and wasted time, but tax money is free so who cares!
This is why we call it politics instead of governance.
Not just because of invasion. One of the main purposes of a militia is to keep the government in check. That whole "Enemies, foreign and domestic" thing.
As a free society, a side benefit of having arms is using them for other purposes, including self defense, sustenance (hunting, and I think hunting without taking the meat is extremely wasteful), and any other purpose that does not infringe on the rights of other law-abiding citizens.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
The portions of the Constitution that deal with how the government is to be run are debatable, IMO. If you want to change the manner in which Senators are elected, that's fine by me (17th Amendment).
However, if you honestly want to change the Bill of Rights, I will fight you to the death. Those are the portions that secure individuals our freedom. I would not even think of letting you change the Third Amendment, let alone the Second. The only way in which the Bill of Rights could be improved would be to give freedom, not take it away.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Handgun restrictions vary heavily from state to state.
For example, here in New Jersey, it took 3 written reference letters and 6 weeks of processing for my law-abiding honors-student volunteer firefighter friend to get his gun permit.
Transporting the gun requires that the gun be unloaded with the ammo kept away from the gun. The gun must be in the trunk. The gun must be locked in a safe.
There's a great deal of restrictions out there. The problem is that it doesn't do anything to discourage those who have acquired their guns illegally, like my other friend who owns an unregistered shotgun with a shaved off serial number.
I got nothing against children themselves, but I am so sick and tired of politicians hiding behind, "but it's for the children," bullshit. The didn't seem to be nearly as many problems with children before we had millions of laws "for the children."
Thinking of the children...I live in New York and I'd far prefer kids and teens spending their free time indoors playing a violent video game like GTA than hanging out outside spraying graffiti, destroying property, or any of the much worse things they get into when they are bored and have time on their hands.
Sure, there are some kids who'll go pick up a DIY radio kit, code, or play basketball in their free time. But judging from the kids on my block in Brooklyn there are plenty who are not adept enough or self-motivated enough to do those things, but quite capable of doing harm if not directed or distracted.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Asking retailers to follow a rating system is just fine, and intrudes on no adult freedoms. I think the problem with this particular bill are two fold:
1) It's makes it a felony, which is a bit harsh for what it's trying to do. As far as I know, selling cigarettes to minors is not a felony, for example.
2) It doesn't proscribe any metric by which permitted and verbotten games are determined. To return to the cigarette analogy, every retailer that sells cigarettes knows what a tobacco product looks like. Not every video game store clerk knows what a "voilent" video game box looks like.
Sure he can use the ESRB rating to make a judgement, but then he's usuing a different metric than the law, and possibly facing a felony charge while the girl accross the mall selling the pack of smokes knows exactly what she's doing and facing a lesser charge.
At least, that's my truck with it. (I didn't do my fact checking on the cigarette sales laws, so I could be wrong and they could be felony charges too, but I find that unlikely)
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Do you really think that you can "contain an errant government by force"? The right to gun ownership might have made sense as bar against government overreaching in the 18th Century - but today - there is no way you or me or any 10,000 of our friends together can stand up to the government in armed rebellion. The armament gap between governments and citizens has now increased to the point where citizens might as well be unarmed, naked and crippled if they go up against government troops. The best you could hope to do is wage an annoying guerrilla war and pick off a few soldiers before they kill you. Don't be encouraged by the success of the Iraqis. They are only doing as well as they are because of U.S. unwillingness to be seen using excessive force - not a likelihood in the case of internal rebellion.
If what you call 'personal freedom' is so aptly represented by the right to bear firearms, I'd say you have a really strange idea of 'freedom'. IMO the most important representatives of personal freedom are freedom of speech, freedom of thought, political preferences, sexual preferences, the right to decide what you do with your own property, the right to proper health care and education, even for the less wealthy, etc. etc. etc. Guns of all things *don't even occur to me* when thinking of personal freedom...
Still, the USA are famous for their bad public health care for large groups of people, their hypocritcal views on sexuality and different sexual preferences, strong commercial lobbies that dictate politics instead of common sense, government censorship, irrational soft drugs (why is smoking a joint not'personal freedom') and alcohol policy and so on. Yet the *one* thing that virtually no 'free people' from other parts of the world (the right to have guns) care about, seems to be the only fucking thing that matters when it comes down to 'freedom'.
You just enjoy your guns... err.. freedom...
No, the best thing you can do is to do your fucking job and at least slow the march of evil for a little while, rather than joining it (or laying down and taking it) for your own greed. Another term is useless if you're not helping anyway.
When you grow up you'll learn that you need to pick your battles. If this is the one end-all issue that you'll go to the wall for, then yes, you do. Otherwise, you're out on your ass before you can do anything actually useful. And for what? A bill that has a modest chance of becoming law and no chance of getting past the Supreme Court? Don't think so. This is election bait, and if you were in office, you'd have just fallen for it.
This is why the cute, ideological, naive first-term representatives are often one-termers.
I disagree. It's working in Iraq. It worked for YEARS in Afghanistan against the Soviets (and I'm sure they were using excessive force). It has been working in certain South American countries. I also think that the unwillingness to be perceived as using excessive force would be multiplied domestically, but that's just my opinion with no real facts to back it up. Assuming that you are correct, and that there's no way citizens could fight federal and state governments, the possession of firearms is still a deterrent to local government corruption (where it's likely more needed anyway).
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
I was a little worried when I read this...
Uh-oh...
Whew! Saliva... ok then...
Perhaps, but the military is made up of citizens as well, including friends and relatives. If something like that came about here how do you know that the government would still have the entire military following its orders? Just a thought.
~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
The store owner, the store, or the minimum-wage employee who sells an M game to a kid who is 17 years 11 months old, and looks like he's 21.
Yeah... that's what I thought.
I agree with your first statement in spirit, but not in wording. Certain rights are inalienable, and belong to men regardless of what a government says. However, freedoms are taken away all the time, since people are not willing to do the work necessary to hold on to them. You don't have to look hard to find examples.
;)
To answer your question, it's because they are the cornerstone rights that make up the foundation for a free society. The founding fathers wrote the rest of the Constitution as well, but I could care less about most of the document. As I said, those parts detail the how, not the why. Hell, if you want to take out some of the "enumerated powers" of Congress, I'd be more than happy to let you. Commerce Clause, anyone?
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher