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
Ok, I'll give it a shot.
The Mayor of Boston asked me to draft a bill, on his behalf, for the Massachusetts legislature. Mayors get to do that in Massachusetts.
First of all it's got this arrogant condescending tone that's just hilarious to imagine. It's like one of those cases where someone's attempting to sound superior, but just ends up sounding ridiculous.
Then there's the fact that if the mayor of the smallest town in Massachusetts asked a random out of state lawyer to draft legislation on some random issue and they began shopping it around to the state legislature, they'd be laughed out of the state's political circles. The only reason they're getting listened to is because it's the mayor of Boston that's pushing for this. That JT doesn't seem to realize this is amusing.
Then of course there's the little fact that I'm fairly sure that the other 49 states don't have laws forbidding mayors coming up with legislation and talking the state legislature into giving it a look. Only most of the time it'd be the mayor themselves drafting it, or more likely talking about their idea with one of their buddies in the state legislature, and the two of them draftings something. I mean, when you're enough of a politician to become a mayor of some place, you usually know a lot of the guys higher up the food chain. You used to work with them when they were mayor of some place, you've chatted with them at parties, you've golfed with them, etc.
Which kind of brings me to my last point. ANYONE can draft legislation and talk a lawmaker into pushing it. People do it all the time when they write their senators and congressmen to urge that action be taken on something. Of course most don't go further than "There ought to be a law about this." but it's not like they're forbidden from suggesting language. The real trick of the matter is getting the face time to explain your idea for a new law, and getting the politician you're talking to to agree that it's a good idea and they'll get it into committee and back it.
I am twenty and I guess I overreacted there. I just hate Jack Thompson and his lies. He is a bum and I have been against the idea that these games are bad for a long time. I have been fighting it for eight years and I could never tolerate someone saying that these games are bad, in any way. I couldn't stand it. It pissed me off worse than anything. I defended these games more than I defended myself even. Sometimes, when people said negative things about me, I could take it, but I could never let a negative comment about violent video games go. I think that about explains why I react the way I do.
@ Grahamr
I didn't actually have to throw up. I said that to add emphasis to what I was saying. I hate this proposed legislation because I can't stand it. Anti-game legislation is bad.
@Mass residents
Sorry your money is going to be wasted.
You're right. Jack Thompson will lose and Massachusetts will be sorry they listened to Jack Thompson. He will lose again and his record as a lawyer will look even worse. I hope people stop listening to him soon. I just get furious when I hear that he is trying to say that violent video games are as bad as pornography. That makes me angrier than anything else ever could. Nothing can get me nearly as mad as the lies of anti-game activists. They need to lose more fights.
You're 20 right? You're roughly one year away from a large part of your life changing. You might need to examine a few things before that happens. I understand that games are great. I play them myself (and I also understand that this is "Gamepolitics") but just by reading your statements I have to say that really, there are far more important things in life. How about war? Famine? The people dying non video game linked deaths? I too think it's bad that people are attempting (if I could underline attempting I would.) to link pornography and video games but why get furious over it? I can understand Mr Thompson's drive even if I disagree with his methods. I don't want to see legal action take the place of a parent's responsibility any more than you do but invectives and tirades about the injustice of it all are not going to change a single thing. We can do our best to calmly dissuade our nations political figures as much as possible. That is all we can do; try. Write local politicians, write state and federal folks too. Don't sink to his level. And please keep in mind that even if you don't remember the things you say (Like Mr Thompson.) two seconds later, others will.
And who gets to make the decision on which games "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors?" And how can they apply the same standard to all minors? There are plenty of fifteen-year-olds that can appreciate an M-rated game with a deep storyline that a nine-year-old might not be able to grasp...
"and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
It depends, but in the case of a 15-years old like x(wai)x had said, or even a 14 years old, it won't take long for both the ages to know the difference between fantasy and reality.
But as the sentence said, violent horror or any genre games has serious literary, artistic, politicalor scientific value, maybe not for the children but it can be made possible though, for the teens and adults. But what about porn? Ah yes, porn lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
People tend to abuse movies and games with porn (Hot Coffee mod). Cannibal Holocaust and Cannibal Ferox and Don't Answer the Phone! (AKA Hollywood Strangler) are porn (due to rape, sex and torturing of naked women, that's sick).
At least Saw movies are expert than the ones above. I know Saw III has nudity but at least it doesn't contain any rape or sex.
I disagree with your pose on Jack being a 'decent guy' outside of his self-delusional antigame war..
The man has proven himself uncapable time and time of upholding a civil level of conversation and behaviour when someone disagrees with him, be the subject games or not.
In other words, he's the kind of person who'd get angry at you for leaving greasy shoe-marks on HIS part of the sidewalk.
Some portions of this article sounds interesting. May be you have some links where I could read more about this topic?...