Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Labeling Law Passed In New York
chareverie writes "A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games that are already rated, as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010. The law has caused an uproar with civil rights groups who claim that such a law is unconstitutional. A legal challenge is already in the works by the New York Civil Liberties Union who cite that similar laws that have been brought to courts in California, Illinois, Minessota, and Washington state have been deemed as unconstitutional. NYCLU legislative director Robert Perry also says that the 'new law is a "back door" way of regulating video game content.'"
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious. It may be redundant but I don't see how it's censoring anything. Unless of course it's been decided that controlling what your kids have access to is limiting free speech...
I'd prefer this than straight up banning. And I'd consider putting the power *and responsibility* back in the hands of the parents a good thing. All this is in my opinion is a tool to facilitate that.
Additional labels for video games seems like another toothless measure to do... what, exactly, that isn't already done by existing legislation? And a single state in a single country enforcing parental controls in a product that is distributed world-wide? Good luck with that.
If you want to crack down on video games, why not crack down on retailers that sell the games to underage consumers? Much like undercover cops in liquor stores watching to see if the cashier cards the 14 year old, it wouldn't be hard to enforce age verification in brick-and-mortar game retailers. Of course then you'd have to deal with taxpayers who find out that their dollars are going to support cops standing around in video game stores making sure Johnny doesn't spend his paper route money on the newest naughty game. Much easier to write broad, sweeping legislation that you don't have to worry about enforcing, since it simply cannot be enforced.
because so many parents read the labels on video games and use the lockout features :)
"A law just passed in New York now requires labels for violent content in video games"
This doesn't censor anybody or anything.
"as well as having parent-controlled lockout features installed in consoles by 2010"
So a VChip for consoles. No more censorship than the TV VChip and will be uses about as much.
I can see complaining about the cost of this law, the effectiveness of it, or even if it is redundant but censorship? Just what liberties are being taken away by labeling?
And please no "slippery slope arguments". I want to know how providing the consumer more information is a bad thing? Now the vchip in the console I can see problems with cost but outside of that what is the problem. It will not effect any adult unless they are dumb and turn it on and forget the password.
I can see how it may be unconstitutional but only because it could be seen as the state interfering with interstate commerce. But that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
So you take a game like "Grand Theft Auto", which is named after a felony, and comes with subtitles like "Vice City", and which has a back cover talking about guns and gangsters, and if that's not enough for you, comes with an M rating with a clear label of "Blood and Gore Violence". Apparently after seeing all that, some people's first thought is that it's a game about rainbow-colored horses galloping across fields where the trees blossom lollipops.
Parents should have more than enough information already about what games are violent or not. If they're still buying them, then that's their fault, not the gaming industry.
Not a typewriter
People want the future in Wall-E. We want the government (or some company) to do everything for us.
Parenting? Nah let the schools do it. If they screw it up, we'll bitch about it.
Health Care, Insurance, Food, Fuel, Houses. I want the government to do it.
Opinions, TV, Media. Just let the government tell me what I think, as long as I can see Jamye Lynn Spears' retarded baby.
How is this different then the requirements on food packaging? Why isn't there an uproar over adding new requirements on food packaging?
You have no idea what you're talking about.
In Beuharnais v. Illinois, Judge Jackson said "The 'liberty' which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
This means that the Supreme Court is NOT Incorporating the full First Amendment to the States' Constitutions, but more of a "watered-down" version. Again, this is not full Incorporation, it's partial Incorporation, even of the First Amendment.
See: Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 502-503
See: Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 10
Conflicting? Absolutely. And also in full support that you are completely wrong, as usual, because you see it in black and white, and I am correct, as usual, because I see it as shades of gray. As is usual, you will only pull sites that propose to preach to your choir, so I provided you with sites that preach to mine, in addition to easy-to-look-up court rulings documenting the proof that the SCOTUS has not fully proposed Incorporation of any Amendment.
Fine, then put the label on movies too. There's no reason video games and cds should be differentiated from any other form of entertainment.
A small safe should suffice for keeping the kids out of your stash. If you can afford a game console, and a game, you can afford the $20 for a small safe. Of course, once the kids decide that they are going to play the game when they are not supposed to, it doesn't matter if the game is out in the open, hidden, locked up, or is at someone else's house.
yes, this is true. the ESRB has had content labels on their products since 1994. The problem is, retails and retarded parents don't read the labels.
I'm a parent and a gamer. My kid isn't playing violent games any time soon. I read the labels.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I would go a step further. People really need to consider what they are getting into when they have children and I have a strong suspicion that most parents fail to do this. If you're struggling to maintain your lifestyle with children, chances are you probably couldn't afford that lifestyle with with a comfortable margin before children.
When you raise children you have the financial obligation to support them, the societal obligation to properly socialize them, and the personal obligation to nurture them and reach their full potential.
If you cannot fulfill all three of these obligations you should not be raising or having any children. If having additional children would call into question your ability to to carry out these obligations for your current offspring, then you should not have more kids!
Whether it be among my personal friends, acquaintances, or through the news, I am utterly dismayed at the lack of forethought people seem to show when having children. Some people want to have a child merely because it would be self fulfilling or "neat." Some people want to have children because their parents or some other family member is pushing them. Some people want to have kids because, well you're supposed to have kids. These reasons by themselves are all frankly, absurd and abhorrent.
No one should choose to have and raise a child for purely personal reasons. Raising a child is a selfless act. When you have a child you owe a fiduciary duty to it to look out for its best interests and put them above your own. If you do any less, you are not giving the child the proper upbringing it deserves. You should be prepaired for the physical, mental, financial, and emotional stress (and it is stress) of raising a child before you even think of having a child. You should especially be prepared for the financial burden, as it can compound the other three. If you are not capable of doing this, then by all means you should not be having kids.
Again, think before you breed. That's if for my rand.
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
testing