January 9, 2007 -
If you thought the video game industry's uninterrupted string of federal court victories might discourage states from proposing further legislation, think again.GamePolitics has confirmed that the Massachusetts legislature will soon take up consideration of a video game bill of the "harmful to minors" variety. This is the same legal concept traditionally used to block distribution of pornography to minors.
The proposed legislation, which does not yet have a primary sponsor, would block underage buyers from purchasing any game which:
- depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors
- is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors
- and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.
According to spokesperson Lynne Lyman of Boston's Office of Human Services, about a dozen members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives are prepared to sign on to the bill, as are some state senators. The bill enjoys the backing of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino as well as other influential community members.
Lyman told GP the bill is patterned on Utah's, which Massachusetts officials believe has the best chance to succeed. However, the Utah bill, which failed to clear the state legislature in 2006, is very similar to Louisiana's video game law, which was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge. The legislature in Utah is expected to reconsider the video game bill in 2007, albeit with a new sponsor.
Lyman also confirmed that controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson assisted in drafting the bill. Thompson was the author of the Utah and Louisiana bills.
Of his involvement, Thompson told GP:
The Mayor of Boston asked me to draft a bill, on his behalf, for the Massachusetts legislature. Mayors get to do that in Massachusetts. Secondly, it is very much like Louisiana. The difference is that these people intend to win the court fight, unlike the knuckleheads in Louisiana. That bill was constitutional. They took a dive because of (ESA boss Doug) Lowenstein's threats.
Thompson's "knuckleheads" reference pertains to the ugly feud which developed between the activist attorney and Louisiana officials, particularly Attorney General Charles Foti and Deputy A.G. Burton Guidry. The "threats" comment apparently pertains to remarks made by Doug Lowenstein to the effect that, "Signing this bill into law would no doubt hurt the state's economy, essentially hanging up a 'Stay Out of Louisiana' sign on the state's borders for video game companies."
Speaking of Massachusetts, GP readers may recall the recent controversy there involving the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (MBTA) in which a number of local officials and prominent citizens successfully lobbied for a ban on M-rated game advertisements on buses and trains.
GP: We originally broke this story on Monday evening, but we're bumping into Tuesday's coverage due to its impact on the gaming scene.
Comments
yes, that would be. thank you for the correction in logic.
I hope a majority of the readers here were still able to understand what I was trying to say/suggest.
The way to break a bad law is to follow it to the letter. If a game has any form of any "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value", then the law is a carte blanche to sell the game, including Grand Theft Auto.
Taking this law out is easy - write to your congressmen and state that this law does the exact opposite of what it claims to do, and state exactly why. There's more than enough cut-n-paste material available to handle this without problem.
I'll have to look into that. If there is a way to get in I deffanitly would go. I might be able to get some of my friends to go to. The more the merrier right. ^_^
GTFO
This has nothing to do with religion. I'm so sick of hearing sh*t like this. Most people are passively religious anyway.
That has essentially been his strategem. If you remember, in previous interviews, he has often compared his tactics to those that lawyers had used to eventually take down big tobacco years earlier; claiming that while similar lawsuits against them had failed, eventually one passed. He has stated that he believes that the same thing will happen against the video game industry, that all it takes is for at least one law to pass and then, as he put it, "the floodgates would open."
Now while this may sound good on paper, personally it sounds dubious to me, at least where video games are concerned. If only because of the fact that, despite what JT continually claims, there has been no hard demonstrable evidence that video games cause tangible harm, unlike cigarettes which were conclusively proven to have tangible detrimental effects on one's health. At least the lawyers going up against big tobacco had the backing of the Surgeon General's report, not to mention medical evidence, which was a lot more compelling as opposed to the "evidence" Jack and his like profess, which has been shown to be tenuous at best.
I would be interested to know, however, from any of the legal experts here, about how valid Jack's strategy is and if it is as likely to succeed as he claims.
I remember someone speaking about something like that in Louisana, all you had to do was fill out some sort of card and you could speak at the capitol on an issue.
Maybe get a few dozen gamers down there to speak on why this will end up hurting the state and it's residents in the long run. Of course only intelligent gamers should attempt this (god knows they don't want to hear from some 12 year old gangsta gamer or something like that)
Yes, we know you're partisan. Give it a rest.
"Is he trying to draft these stupid bills in every state?"
I think JT is "gaming" the court system ... and looking at the longer strategy (yes, I just attributed the ability to develop a strategy to this man). States may be irrelevant. The failed court cases he has championed (and/or abandoned) around the country have taken place in different federal court districts. Just my opinion, but I think he is shopping for a sympathetic federal court (not just a judge) ... hoping to find an activist federal judge of any persuasion (con, neo-con, or liberal) who will support his Point of View when a law (if passed) is challenged in court.
I think ultimately, he is looking for the following situation: Pass a Law. Have it survive a federal constitutionality challenge at the federal court level (possibly due to judicial activism). The industry would of course, appeal any verdict that went against the industry, possibly going straight up to the Supremes. He may have some belief that a more-or-less morally conservative Sumpreme Court would either decide in his favor or decline to take the case, in which event, he wins.
Although this IS the same state that continues to re-elect people like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to represent them, so its not out of the question
a ban on producing legislation that is made to prevent/censor games unconstitutionally, getting retailers to have more enforcement on the handing out of video games (i.e. enforcing the ESRB and having parental consent for individuals attempting to get a game not for their age group), and educating the public on video games and the ESRB.
First off, does anyone actually have a record of Jack Thompson's career? I'd be interested in seeing exactly how many court cases he has actually won and how much legislation he has successfully drafted that was passed. I just would like to see what makes politicos actually think that he can be of service to them.
Second:
"and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
I actually would LOVE to see that pass. When laws made it illegal for strip clubs to allow full nudity (thus the stickers over the nipples) unless it was art, at least one strip club started doing "naked shakespeare" so that it was okay. Well how about some shakespeare games? That would have literary or artistic value. Titus would be a good example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Andronicus
Or political? Well then, lets create the most offensive war situation ever. Scientific? How about a realistic depictation of what happens to the human body when flayed.
I dare Massachusetts to challenge our industry as such. It will be the goriest revolution EVER.
While JT may not show any signs of giving up, I'm at least somewhat comforted in the knowledge that he's being increasingly viewed as a crank - albeit a crank with a law degree that seems to use the legal system like a blunt instrument. He can tout his recent Nightline appearance all he likes, but in the end it really didn't do anything for him. If anything, it only showed to most of America how much of a nut he is and how idiotic his "crusade" really is. We keep saying here how he shouldn't be allowed any kind of platform from which to spout his lies, but upon refelction, I say give him all the airtime he wants! If it means that more people will finally see how much of an idiot he really his (and we all know how good Jack is at shooting himself in the foot), the faster his career will self-destruct.
I hope you didn't have any social benefactors who needed that money guys because this one is going to hurt you.
It's really funny because the city just spent an insane amount of money redoing the ticketing system on the T. They built brand new Charlie Ticket stations at every T stop, as well as new scanners on the trains. On top of that there's an exorbitant amount of reconstruction going on in Boston, and that's outside "The Big Dig" which will never be finished.
This to will fail, and this to will cost US taxpayers money.
It's the responsibility of each industry to watch it's own ass and take the steps to ensure it's as well-defended as possible; pointing out the failings of another entertainment sector is an even bigger waste of time than these laws.
It's unreasonable to expect the industry to babysit people's children, but I don't think it's too much to suggest that the games industry take every reasonable step to make sure that they can defend against accusations of irresponsibility.
Educating parents isn't going to be a difficult thing to do, and if they'd taken the initiative a few years ago and made more of an effort in POS information about ESRB ratings and game content - as well as a bigger effort from retailer chains to prevent sales to minors - we'd be in a much securer position and be better placed to argue against accusations of peddling violence to children.
Yes, it's ultimately the parent's responsibility to raise their children and monitor their entertainment intake, but that's not to say that there's nothing resting on the industry's shoulders. There's a limit to the games industry's sphere of influence, but it needs to be much more active and effective within that sphere if we're going to see an end to these legislative efforts.
As for this whole stupid thing in Massachusetts, I can't wait for it to blow up in their faces and if they make to to the point Louisiana did, I hope they lose a lot money on this doomed to die bill. If they're smart, it'll be withdrawn and won't even make it to a actual vote... Can't wait for Jack's ranting and raving when he loses........ Again.
So yeah, I can't wait for this law to be shot down, in flames, again.
As a federal employee, there are people I work with daily who somehow were able to graduate from high school...
There is more than enough evidence to show any person that this legislation will never pass.
If I were a resident of the city of Boston and MY money went to pay some failed lawyer to draft some legislation that has failed time and time again.... well, I might just have to call the mayor's office and the local press.......
Spelling never was my strong suit, unlike history and technology, but I digress.
You make some good points, and some not so good points.
You do have a good point, the industry could do more in regards to enforcing it's self policing policy, as while the big box stores are doing great jobs, the smaller retaliers are not. However, and forgive me for paraphrasing as I'm away from my notebook and don't have the Ruilings infront of me, but each judge in each case has made the following or similars statments.
" Given the industries efforts as self policing, when compared to similiar efforts by other media industries, it is a violation of the 14 amendment to single them out for further restrictions without including music or movies in that demand."
Again, not an exact quote, but one like it has appeared in every ruling thus far. SO, again, until the anti gamers start targeting other industries, there argument is flawed and doomed to death from the get go. The industry has done it's part, until the other industries are in line, then I say leave the games alone.
Now, on your second point we can agree somewhat. Games are being unfairly targeted. But as far as I'm concerned, part of the problem is that the industry has never made an effort to point out the hypocracy of the attacks on them. As an example. Leeland Yee attacked games until his bill got put in injunction, yet failed to mention that he gets millions in campaign dollars from the Movie industry. Hypocracy.
As to the effect of violent media, while there may be an effect, theres no evidance as to there being any direct link to violence. If there were, these laws wouldn't be shot down all the time.
As for my argument about JT, ask the PTC what a slander suit can do to you. They had to pay the WWF millions for slander. The industries image is already tarnished ,and wont get fixed by PR and Education at this point, the industry has to stop the lies and critics first, then pr and education can fix there image.
The whole point of the lawsuits is not money, it's to stop the lies and BS, the industry has 10 billion dollars a year in revenue, more this year from what i hear. It's not like they have to worry about the money. They should use that financial and legal muscule the got to put the hurt on JT and MSM to get the lies and BS to stop. Then they can use pr and other methods to fix there image.
Overall, it's not that your ideas about Pr and such are bad, but the time for that passed years ago. Right now theres to much lies and bs in the MSM and from JT for such ideas to work. We need to shut the liars up first.
I"m not trying to be mean man, but the fact is, playing nice nice is what go the industry into this spot in the first place. They sat around for so long doing nothing to counter there critics that now the critics have a massive edge .
But hey, everyone has there own opinion. Agree or not, we dont' have to fight about it.
Yet the movie industry (DVDs) is doing significantly worse than video games. Why are video games demonized, and movies not?
As for Jack Thompson; I said all that needs to be said here: http://www.kobrasrealm.net/kobra/jackthompson.php
His crusade is nothing more than a means to keep his name in the papers.
The sad thing is, Hillary Clinton will probably help him if he comes to New York.
I doubt that Mass would be dumb enough to alienate some of its better paying job markets.
Is it just me, or does that really cover pretty much every game?
Does the bill layout a method that does not include the ESRB for determining these standards?
If not, and the bill is then meant to rely on the ESRB ratings, it automatically becomes unconstitutional (IIRC, laws cannot be used to enforce private standards [like the voluntary rating system of the ESRB] with regard to public consumption).
Wasn't that one of the general arguments that struck down the LA and Utah bills (other than the fact that the laws could not realistically be enforced)?
Theory? and my dad are going to be in Boston!!!!! (Well, theory? lives there)
GAHH, EXELLENT TIME TO FILE A BILL, FREAK! MY DAD WILL BE FILIMNG THERE FOR MONTHS!!!
“Trying the same thing over again and expecting different results.”
Or is that abject stupidity? I can never remember which.
Andrew Eisen
/sarcasm
One thought related to the subject: Jack is up for 2 charges of contempt of court I believe? When do those come into play and does anyone know what impact that will have on his ability to promote or defend the bill if found guilty?
I'm going to find the email address of the mayor to verify that the mayor actually asked him
The Political Machine could lack political value to Republicans since, heaven forbid, you can win the election fairly with a democrat. http://totalgaming.stardock.com/games/?id=PM
In regards to literary value, if you can't realize that many games have a plot very similar to books and movies, you head down a very slippery slope. This also covers the artistic aspect. If books and movies get protection as art, so do video games.
The only question now really is how much will the industry be awarded in legal fees to be repaid when this bill goes down in flames.
As for scientific value... what form of entertainment do the majority of people engage in that could be considered 'scientific'? that one is BS.
Fingers crossed that never happens, because unfortunately whatever America does, Australia is soon to follow. :(
Funny, if it was constitutional, why did it lose miserably in court?
Oh right, activist judges, silly me. ;)
Is this man capable of EVER accepting the fact that he can't just override the highest law in the land willy nilly? Where does he think he lives, Canada? :P
Is there a difference? ;)
eventually the politicians will realise that tax payers hate to see half a million dollars flushed down the drain to defend an unneccessary, and unconstitutional bill, and stop contacting JT
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6163854.html
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Bwahahahahahaahahahahaahah! :D
*wipes tears away*
Oh, I needed that.. thanks. :)
I have a feeling that somewhere in the not-so-distant future, JT will write another letter that reads "...the knuckleheads in Massachusetts."
No offense to the people in Massachusetts mind you.