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.'"
It requires that the nature of the game be clearly posted - not restricted. Although with some games, I think a 'WARNING: MAY CAUSE VIOLENT BEHAVIOR - difficulty due to poor control/interface design rather than actual challanging gameplay' would be ideal. But that's getting off topic.
It requires that parental lockouts be put in place. The thing about those is, they are optional by the user. Nobody is /forced/ to turn these on when the game is used in their consoles. It's simply required as an option.
I guess the point is that they are requiring information to be given. It's like a nutritional label on food, or the MPG rating with a car (though I don't think the latter is required). In this case, it's the content nature of a game. It's not like they are saying "Don't sell violent games".
As I said in a previous comment, the text of the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Bill of Rights into State Constitutions.
Where in the Fourteenth Amendment do you even see the word "rights"? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Red Flayer?
Do this, my socialist friend: go and read on the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Supreme Court, in 1873, decided that the Fourteenth Amendment did NOT cover "rights" but exactly what it was written to cover: privileges and immunities, such as citizenship. It was not to guard against State dismantling of the Bill of Rights, but to protect some second level "rights" which are considered ones of privilege and not inherent.
Your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is flawed, because you have not read it, nor studied it. Yes, the Supreme Court has taken a pro-Incorporation view on this Amendment, but it has not been fully implemented, so we just don't know how SCOTUS can interpret some State laws as violations but not others. Without a full implementation of Incorporation, there is no Incorporation.
ESRB ratings don't work because Grand Theft Auto IV is in the same damned category as Warcraft (The RTSes, I'm not familiar with the MMO game).
Somehow I doubt the government would do a better job at defining labels though.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
I couldn't have said it better. It sounds to me like the typical knee jerk reaction of self proclaimed 'civil rights' advocates. I am *all* for parents being able to control what content their kids are exposed to. If the kids don't like it then they can try to get emancipated...and pay their own way through life. Or just wait until they are 18 and then go their merry way.
I don't think there are any consoles being produced that don't already have parental controls. Please feel free to add any that don't, this doesn't include hand-helds right?
It protects "life, liberty, and property" against arbitrary deprivation by the States. In my book -- and that of every Supreme Court to have addressed the issue -- most of the things in the Bill of Rights are pretty fundamental to "liberty" and thus included within the meaning of the word "liberty" in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Certainly, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment covers citizenship. Just as certainly, the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Voting Rights Clause, and Privileges and Immunities clause, among others, of the 14th Amendment refer to things other than citizenship.
But the word "right" is in Section 2, and the word "liberty" is in the Due Process Clause of Section 1.
Actually, no, "privileges or immunities" does, despite the fact that the clause in which it appears is popularly labelled the "Privileges and Immunities" clause. If you are going to argue about which words and phrases are and are not used in the text of the Amendment, you should make sure you know which words and phrases are, in fact, used in the text of the Amendment.
No, they are terms with different meanings; the protection of "privileges or immunities" in one provision of an enactment does not exclude the protection of "rights" or "liberty" in some other provision of the same enactment. Note that incorporation is not a product of the "Privileges and Immunities" clause
No, its still you that needs to read the 14th Amendment.
True. However, this does not make it right to merely do as everyone else does by being a bad parent; it only makes it understandable. If we are to allow this kind of scapegoating to occur, it will further erode personal responsibility.
Poor parenting skills may be blamed on society not setting a good standard but this claim is as valid as saying "The flame is at fault for burning down that store, I just happened to hold the lighter" or "I was just swinging my fists. It's your fault for being in the way!" If we look at these things in a case by case manner, we can see that there is some amount of blame to go around to all sources. Don't rest too easily by generalizing that most, if not all, comes from one input while the rest remains trivial.
And how truthful will the stickers be?
Quote:Connecticut State Senator Gayle Slossberg (D) is eager to do something about the rape scene in Grand Theft Auto IV, she told the New Haven Advocate.
Too bad there isn't a rape scene in the game, whoops?
http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/06/25/connecticut-state-senator-alarmed-over-non-existent-rape-scene-gta-iv
This is the sig that says NI (again)
What you mean to say, and almost did say, is not if there's demand, but if there's financial incentive, which are not identical things. Then there's the fact that really good ideas (like the seat belt) don't always translate into financial incentive, and so have to be mandated.
In a capitalist market, demand = financial incentive. If consumers aren't willing to pay for it, but just want it anyway, that is not demand. I don't agree with seat belt mandates either. And that is a perfect example. Automobile manufacturers have gone *way* beyond seat belts when it comes to safety of their vehicles. All of their own accord (heheh). This is because consumers *demand* safety with their money. They are willing to pay the extra cost in order to drive a safer car. This is why billions upon billions of R&D is pumped into crash testing, impact resistance, and newer concepts of cars even include a separate inner compartment that is elastically attached to the outer hull of the car.
All of this provides just as much, if not more safety in a car crash for the passenger than the antiquated technology that is the seat belt.
Government is all about legislating what is moral. It's called criminal law.
Erm, no. Criminal law is the right of the government to enforce its laws by removal of civil rights from a citizen. It has nothing to do with morality. That is a far different branch of philosophy. The term is only useful in contrast to Civil Law. Which is the case of the government arbitrating between two citizens.
As for the philosophy behind what the government has a right to make into criminal activity, I am a firm believer of the stance the U.S. Constitution takes on this.
The government is mandated to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
That's it.
Also, arguments about legislating morality are pretty much irrelevant to this discussion, since we're simply talking about a labeling requirement and the inclusion of a feature that allows (and does not require) content discrimination.
A legislation is made. The legislation is justified on moral, not legal or functional grounds. I.e. "we are making a law that requires labeling for the good of the children". That is legislated morality.
All of your arguments are based on the very short-sighted "but it would be nice" reasoning. Yes, it would be nice if all video game console manufacturers labeled their games and provided lock-out features. It would also be nice if companies only charged an extra 5% on top of the cost of production for their products. I will say this once more, and hopefully it may sink in.
It. Should. Not. Be. Law.
I'm not sure how it is with VG retailers, but when I worked at Suncoast (video store) there was a company policy against carding people to prevent selling adult videos (think Playboy) to underage people. Forget about carding for the rated-R movies. The only time we could ask for ID was if they were paying by check.
End of line..
I was watching the documentary "Heavy: The History of Metal.". They were talking about how the PMRC made a big deal out of the fact there was explicit lyrics, and that the kids might actually hear this. There were senate hearings. They interview Dee Snyder(Twister Sister) , expecting him to be a blithering idoit. He wasn't. The PMRC was succesful in the 'WARNING; this album may contain....'. Tommy Lee of Motley Crue was ecstatic, they had the first label ever. When asked why, he said "this is the best advertisding ever. How many kids are going to buy this knowing that they had these lyrics in them." true enough! Many bands thanked the pmrc for the extra ash in there pocket. Wouldnt this be the same effect that the publishers would realise if this were to pass?? Not so much on the lockout stuff for the conolse just the labling.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
yet another one