As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

New MA Bill: Video Games = Porn

ZahaladeenZahaladeen Registered User regular
edited March 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
The Massachusettes legislature is currently working on a bill that mimics Jack Thompsons Louisiana failed attempt at making video games with an "M" rating an "X" rating for minors.

STORY: http://gamepolitics.com/2008/03/17/massachusetts-will-consider-video-game-legislation-this-week/

I don't understand why this is a parental issue. As it is, this is over-reaching by the state and poorly done at that.

Zahaladeen on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    If I'm readng this right, it would be against the law for a retailer to sell an M-rated game to a minor, which is pretty much exactly how it works in the UK.

    I don't think it's possible in the US, with the constitution and all.

    japan on
  • Options
    Gorilla SaladGorilla Salad Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Didn't Minnesota just try and get a bill like this passed last week?

    Gorilla Salad on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Don't these always get struck down? Without exception? At this point it's a fairly substantial precedent.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    At what point is it bad to have to have permission from a parent to buy games deemed too violent? Does anybody around here get all up-in-arms that 12 year old kids couldn't go see Eyes Wide Shut unattended? I really don't get it. As long as the rating is reasonable, I see nothing wrong with this.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    It's a good idea for retailers not to sell M rated games to minors. It should simply be handled via self-regulation, like it is, like the movie industry is, like the music industry is, etc. There is no call for the state to step in here, and it is outside the state's rights.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I worry that eventually somewhere it's going to pass due to ignorance or prejudice or both, and set a precedent for other frankly stupid states/counties/judges to follow similar lines, instituting similar bans.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    amateurhouramateurhour One day I'll be professionalhour The woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I'm with hippie. Most game places I shop at wont sell to kids if the game is M rated, but what irks me are the parents that buy GTA or Manhunt for their eight year old.

    amateurhour on
    are YOU on the beer list?
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    It's a good idea for retailers not to sell M rated games to minors. It should simply be handled via self-regulation, like it is, like the movie industry is, like the music industry is, etc. There is no call for the state to step in here, and it is outside the state's rights.

    I thought there was some level of government regulation with regards to those things. Like, can a smut theater allow anybody they please in without legal recourse? I know the comic shop down the street from me was brought to court for giving some violent comic book to a minor, but I'm not so sure if it's a state matter or a civil matter.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    It's a good idea for retailers not to sell M rated games to minors. It should simply be handled via self-regulation, like it is, like the movie industry is, like the music industry is, etc. There is no call for the state to step in here, and it is outside the state's rights.

    I thought there was some level of government regulation with regards to those things. Like, can a smut theater allow anybody they please in without legal recourse? I know the comic shop down the street from me was brought to court for giving some violent comic book to a minor, but I'm not so sure if it's a state matter or a civil matter.

    Games rated AO are already illegal to sell to minors. Analogy fails. The other is civil.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    The problem is that it says violent video games are w/o artistic merit.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Scalfin wrote: »
    The problem is that it says violent video games are w/o artistic merit.

    Anyone who has played the source mod "The Hidden" knows this to be false.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Because it works so well with cigarettes and alcohol, right? You guys?

    With that said, I wouldn't regard the right to play violent games without your parents knowing about it as exactly inviolable.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    Because it works so well with cigarettes and alcohol, right? You guys?

    With that said, I wouldn't regard the right to play violent games without your parents knowing about it as exactly inviolable.

    What the fuck? How do you think that comparing modes of aesthetic expression to destructive mind-altering substances is going to move the debate in a positive direction?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The fact of the matter is this entire argument and legislation is centered around the idea that violent video games are a dangerous, corrupting force on par with cigarettes and alcohol, and needs to be controlled as such to protect kids from themselves. I hold this to be fundamentally wrong, and if parents wish to prevent their kids from seeing certain movies or playing certain games or watching certain television programs, that is their responsibility.

    Nevertheless, kids will want to do what they want to do. If you actually think this shit actually harms kids, then you better make a law to prevent kids from going to their friends' houses to watch Nightmare on Elm Street.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    Because it works so well with cigarettes and alcohol, right? You guys?

    With that said, I wouldn't regard the right to play violent games without your parents knowing about it as exactly inviolable.

    What the fuck? How do you think that comparing modes of aesthetic expression to destructive mind-altering substances is going to move the debate in a positive direction?

    Is there a debate here?

    Anyone in the room think this bill should pass?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Could this count as discourse, though?

    I could play devil's advocate if need be. It's always nice to have an opposing view point to sharpen your own views against.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    Gorilla SaladGorilla Salad Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    No. I think everyone in here knows that it won't pass and is just wasting money.

    Gorilla Salad on
  • Options
    JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I look at it sort of like this. I would accept this bill passing like I would a bill passing which said we should teach ID in schools as an opposing theory. A fundamentally stupid, blind idea based on Old World perceptions, ignorance and Youth Culture prejudice.

    A little less radical or contemptible, but along similar lines.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Because it works so well with cigarettes and alcohol, right? You guys?

    With that said, I wouldn't regard the right to play violent games without your parents knowing about it as exactly inviolable.

    What the fuck? How do you think that comparing modes of aesthetic expression to destructive mind-altering substances is going to move the debate in a positive direction?

    Is there a debate here?

    Anyone in the room think this bill should pass?

    What about "why do politicians pull this bullshit?"

    i.e. why do we allow them to waste our tax dollars on bills that will not pass, and then later on court fees to the companies that challenge the law?

    Shadowfire on
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Because we tend to vote for them because of legislation like this, because we are dumb?

    Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • Options
    PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Because it works so well with cigarettes and alcohol, right? You guys?

    With that said, I wouldn't regard the right to play violent games without your parents knowing about it as exactly inviolable.

    What the fuck? How do you think that comparing modes of aesthetic expression to destructive mind-altering substances is going to move the debate in a positive direction?

    Is there a debate here?

    Anyone in the room think this bill should pass?

    What about "why do politicians pull this bullshit?"

    i.e. why do we allow them to waste our tax dollars on bills that will not pass, and then later on court fees to the companies that challenge the law?

    The politicians are doing this for political capital among parents who don't understand why little Jimmy doesn't act exactly like they did when they were his age.
    Also, if we ruled the world, this wouldn't happen, but we would have so many other problems that I don't even want to think about it.

    Picardathon on
  • Options
    Gorilla SaladGorilla Salad Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    If this forum ruled the world? Well, I'm sure we could scrape by. It's the other sub-forums you have to worry about.

    Gorilla Salad on
  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I'd go along with this only if it meant that parents who bought their kid GTA would then be unable to complain - surely they would be in trouble for providing a minor with X-rated material?

    Rhesus Positive on
    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh hey, more legislation of morality, how's that working out I wonder?

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • Options
    FuruFuru Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Gafoto wrote: »
    Oh hey, more legislation of morality, how's that working out I wonder?

    Considering a law like this was passed in Louisiana and then immediately repealed by a higher court and the state itself fined, not too good.

    Furu on
  • Options
    EtelmikEtelmik Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Ugh, "legislation of morality." That phrase never helps the debate. I mean, that's what a law is--legislated morality. If you are fined for speeding, it's because you violated legislated morality.

    On to the topic--politicians are corrupt and we're heading to a period I feel is similar to the 1870s through 1900. Which sucks, really.

    Etelmik on
  • Options
    EchoEcho ski-bap ba-dapModerator mod
    edited March 2008
    Etelmik wrote: »
    If you are fined for speeding, it's because you violated legislated morality.

    I'd say it's more for violating safety.

    Echo on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    Etelmik wrote: »
    If you are fined for speeding, it's because you violated legislated morality.

    I'd say it's more for violating safety.

    You'd be right. Speeding isn't a public-order violation, and public-order violations are a waste of tax dollars.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Victor15bVictor15b Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Even if this law goes into effect it will have a null effect.

    Who will enforce these laws?

    When I was a teenager, I would go see R rated movies with my friends all the damn time. Never was carded once. What makes this video game rating system any different?

    Sure, WAL MART has a policy of not selling M rated games to minors, but the 16-17 year old kids working the checkout counters for minumum wage usually don't give two shits about what you buy

    As a matter of fact I can only remember ever being carded once in my entire life (for something other than alcohol that is) and that was when I tried to buy a CD with explicit lyrics. When the lady told me I couldnt purchase it, I simply went 3 checkout lanes over and bought it from someone else.

    Victor15b on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Victor15bVictor15b Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    Victor15b on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    BECAUSE IT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF LEGISLATED REGULATION. If industry self-regulation never works then there is a need for the state to step in. Fucking christ, sometimes I want to go ahead and shit on the bill of rights just to spite teamkillers like you.

    Edit: What you just described, simply going to another counter, it doesn't work with products where the cashier can be thrown in jail for selling them to you, does it?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    It basically says that without legal penalties for selling violent games to minors, there is no enforcement.

    Which leads to the conclusion that legal penalties are needed. Which I think is the opposite of the intended destination.

    kildy on
  • Options
    Victor15bVictor15b Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    BECAUSE IT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF LEGISLATED REGULATION. If industry self-regulation never works then there is a need for the state to step in. Fucking christ, sometimes I want to go ahead and shit on the bill of rights just to spite teamkillers like you.

    Edit: What you just described, simply going to another counter, it doesn't work with products where the cashier can be thrown in jail for selling them to you, does it?

    Relax. Address the issue, not the person.
    kildy wrote: »
    It basically says that without legal penalties for selling violent games to minors, there is no enforcement.

    Which leads to the conclusion that legal penalties are needed. Which I think is the opposite of the intended destination.

    No, the conclusion is the legislation is pointless.

    Victor15b on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    kildy wrote: »
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    It basically says that without legal penalties for selling violent games to minors, there is no enforcement.

    Which leads to the conclusion that legal penalties are needed. Which I think is the opposite of the intended destination.

    Someone get this man a new car because he's a winner!

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2008
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    BECAUSE IT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF LEGISLATED REGULATION. If industry self-regulation never works then there is a need for the state to step in. Fucking christ, sometimes I want to go ahead and shit on the bill of rights just to spite teamkillers like you.

    Edit: What you just described, simply going to another counter, it doesn't work with products where the cashier can be thrown in jail for selling them to you, does it?

    Relax. Address the issue, not the person.

    Teamkillers cease to be people and become part of the issue when they decide it would be funny to gun down team-members.
    Victor15b wrote: »
    kildy wrote: »
    It basically says that without legal penalties for selling violent games to minors, there is no enforcement.

    Which leads to the conclusion that legal penalties are needed. Which I think is the opposite of the intended destination.

    No, the conclusion is the legislation is pointless.

    Yeah, right, that's why there are no laws against selling anything to minors. Nice job.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Victor15b wrote: »
    Yeah, great, your anecdote about how industry self-regulation doesn't work is really a great argument against legislated regulation. Think before you run your face.

    Explain to me how its not a great argument.

    BECAUSE IT'S EXACTLY THE FUCKING ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF LEGISLATED REGULATION. If industry self-regulation never works then there is a need for the state to step in. Fucking christ, sometimes I want to go ahead and shit on the bill of rights just to spite teamkillers like you.

    Edit: What you just described, simply going to another counter, it doesn't work with products where the cashier can be thrown in jail for selling them to you, does it?

    Relax.
    kildy wrote: »
    It basically says that without legal penalties for selling violent games to minors, there is no enforcement.

    Which leads to the conclusion that legal penalties are needed. Which I think is the opposite of the intended destination.

    No, the conclusion is the legislation is pointless.

    I think you're missing a logical hop here.

    You're arguement is that when you bought things store policy said you couldn't have, you just had to find a sales rep that would ignore store policy.

    This says that in it's current unlegislated state, store policy is not enforced enough and has too minor a penalty attached to it.

    The obvious logical result is that the policy needs a much larger penalty to force employees to follow it. Jail time is a pretty large penalty that gets people to break rules a lot less.

    You really are stating a case where the only logical end point is "we need laws to cover this". You may want to change to a freedom of speech arguement, or stick with pointing out that movie ratings aren't legally enforced, either.

    kildy on
  • Options
    Victor15bVictor15b Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    kildy wrote: »

    You really are stating a case where the only logical end point is "we need laws to cover this".

    No, the logical endpoint is that the legislation is pointless.

    Victor15b on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Edit: What you just described, simply going to another counter, it doesn't work with products where the cashier can be thrown in jail for selling them to you, does it?

    It really, really does. Cf. alcohol and cigarettes.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Victor15b wrote: »
    kildy wrote: »

    You really are stating a case where the only logical end point is "we need laws to cover this".

    No, the logical endpoint is that the legislation is pointless.

    Explain. If it is well known that selling minors something will result in jail time, you're saying people will still not stop selling them said something?

    I know I won't buy beer for minors no matter how much they ask, because it risks a generally steep penalty. And the cashier at the liqour store will definately not do it.

    However, we all know how easy it is to get into an R rated movie as a minor, and that's because it's unregulated.

    I really need you to show your work here, because I can't find a single method that your post leads to the "we shouldn't clamp down on this" angle that supports self enforcement as a viable option.

    kildy on
Sign In or Register to comment.