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.'"

Comments

Huh?

[Xacid]

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.

Re:Huh?

[snl2587]

You mean a mandated tool. As in, parents don't simply exercise good parenting and choose a console model with the ability to lock out games (or actually monitor their kids, but we don't talk about that now do we?). Every console will be required to have the functionality to lock-out content at the consumer's cost.

I realize that there is no direct contradiction to freedom of speech/expression, but two problems arise. First, by including this backdoor all the pieces are in place for an immediately enforceable ban. Second, the law is done in the "think of the children" vein, which seems to validate poor parenting skills by making it society's fault. And that makes it a silly law.

Re:Huh?

[Sandbags]

Here's a law I'd like to see, lets punish the parents who fail to discipline their children. If a kid is off the rails, lets ensure the parent is actually involved in the process, and if not, lets fine them, punish them, I'm even OK with kicking their asses!

If my kid comes home with a video game i don't approve of, i take it. Simple, done. Once they're done buying their friend a new copy, after 4 weeks of allowance is saved up, they'll not likely do it again.

If you can't hold your kids to the same rule, teach them what you allow and don't allow under your roof, then they'll run all over you, and when outside your house, behave exactly the same way to others.

The only fault society plays in bad parenting, is the same lax attitudes that currently apply in schools seem to also apply within DSS. Everyone is afraid to get sued for telling someone to their face they're a bad parent. I'm not proposing we should get back to the way things were in the 50s, but at least how they were in the early 80s would be a marked improvement!

Re:Huh?

[scipiodog]

but poor parenting skills are society's fault.

Really? What is "society" then? It's you and I (and others, of course.) I don't know about you, but I can assure you the I am not responsible for their poor parenting skills!

I think the key point here is that the government really has no fundamental authority to force the producers of the games to, in effect, "help" parents do their job. It sort of makes the game company partially responsible for raising the child.

I think it's akin to a law being passed in the 1960s mandating that National Geographic magazines bundle every single issue with a special paper cutter to enable parents to cut out offending indigenous booby photos if they don't want their children to see them. To me, it's about that logical.

Re:Huh?

[AP31R0N]

Bad parenting is the root of all evil.

i think i saw that in some /.'s sig.

And yes, Joe Bob's parenting problems become my problem when Joe's kid mugs me, or my taxes support him.

Re:Huh?

[geekoid]

"What is "society" then?"

If you can't answer that question, you shouldn't have replied. And your post indicates you have no clue.

"I think it's akin to a law being passed in the 1960s mandating that National Geographic magazines bundle every single issue with a special paper cutter to enable parents to cut out offending indigenous booby photos if they don't want their children to see them"

No it's not, not even close.
It's just a label on a box as an indicator to let parents do their job.
As for putting "parental control" on video game , don't they all already have that? the Wii does, and I'm pretty sure the PSIII does as well.
TV's do, Cable boxes Do. It's just a tool for parents.

And there is a difference between indigenous boobies, and beat someone to death with a baseball bat.

Re:Huh?

[CodeBuster]

The grand parent does make a good point, albeit in an oblique manner, when he states that he, as a member of society, is not responsible for the poor parenting of others. If someone decides to become a parent then we, as third parties, have no say in that decision (i.e. there in no licensing required by society to have children). It follows then that since we had no input on their decision to have children (and rightly so in my opinion) we also have NO responsibility for those children other than to grant them the same basic negative rights that we all enjoy as members of a free society (i.e. the right to an opportunity, the right not to be unduly interfered with, etc). Now let us apply these principles to the context of the New York video game law:

There is no contradiction between free speech and requiring accurate labeling of the content of products so that everyone can see what it is that they are buying. I don't think that there is anyone who disagrees with labeled ratings for video games PROVIDED that every adult (minors are under the control of their parents until they reach the age of majority) is free to make their own decision, to buy or not to buy, once that information has been conveyed without further undue interference which leads into the second part of the law:

The mandatory parental controls on consoles are a technical measure that will create inconvenience and possibly hinder the ability of third party adults to fully enjoy and use the console that they have paid for. This is where the law crosses the line into unconstitutionality. Indeed, as others have pointed out, this DRM type of system leads easily to censorship or outright bans at the pleasure of the politicians at some future date (and the parental DRM controls WILL be abused in precisely that way in the future with the state taking on the role as "parent" to us all). This is the part that many of us here on Slashdot find most objectionable.

Why the Censorship tag?

[LWATCDR]

"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.

Because Violent Video Games are Hiding so Well

[hardburn]

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.

Fine.

[kellyb9]

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.