"The bill would also require that mature-themed games sold at retail be kept in an area beyond the access of minors."

I thought we all ready had a place for games like that, its called "that dude behind the register". Obviously you can't leave the store with out buying the game, and I'm fairly shure that if a 6yo tryed buying a Mature game, he wouldn't sell it to them. It's not like the cover of the game is like the cover of a nude mag or video or something, so i dont see why we should develope a whole seprate room just for them.

[...] It’s about time. We’re just sick and tired of all those whipper snappers, running amok in our deatmatches and stealing all our kills. Rep. Aurelia Greene (D) and Rep. Keith Wright (D), patron saints of mature gamers, have both proposed laws which ban the sale of violent video games to minors in the state of New York, and hide them away in an adults only section of the store. Rep. Wright’s law concentrates on more scandalous forms of violence and racism, while Rep. Greene seems generally down on the whole general of video game violence. Keith Wright’s law would require an ID check for anyone appearing under the age of 30 attempting to buy a violent video game, which seems to work so well at keeping alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of minors. [...]

@Jeff

The law you're referring to has been toast for a while now. The federal judge ruling on it declared it unconstitutional last March. The state has yet to try again.

Also, somebody please do something about these goddamned spammers.

[...] It’s about time. We’re just sick and tired of all those whipper snappers, running amok in our deatmatches and stealing all our kills. Rep. Aurelia Greene (D) and Rep. Keith Wright (D), patron saints of mature gamers, have both proposed laws which ban the sale of violent video games to minors in the state of New York, and hide them away in an adults only section of the store. Rep. Wright’s law concentrates on more scandalous forms of violence and racism, while Rep. Greene seems generally down on the whole general of video game violence. Keith Wright’s law would require an ID check for anyone appearing under the age of 30 attempting to buy a violent video game, which seems to work so well at keeping alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of minors. [...]

[...] It’s about time. We’re just sick and tired of all those whipper snappers, running amok in our deatmatches and stealing all our kills. Rep. Aurelia Greene (D) and Rep. Keith Wright (D), patron saints of mature gamers, have both proposed laws which ban the sale of violent video games to minors in the state of New York, and hide them away in an adults only section of the store. Rep. Wright’s law concentrates on more scandalous forms of violence and racism, while Rep. Greene seems generally down on the whole general of video game violence. Keith Wright’s law would require an ID check for anyone appearing under the age of 30 attempting to buy a violent video game, which seems to work so well at keeping alcohol and cigarettes out of the hands of minors. [...]

[...] Now, I’m sure that everyone that’s got the gaming industry tabbed for their own political purposes - like Senator Lieberman, Senator Clinton, and most recently, NY State Assemblywoman Aurelia Greene of the Bronx - will be up in arms. Why, that Playstation! Teaching kids how to drive! Why, next thing you know, viddogames will be responsible for teaching kids how to give wedgies! And how to become sex pushing pimps! Why, that’s only a short stroke away from them abusing our wildlife! [...]

forget the last message. Apparently some news sites are reporting the bill as recommending age 30 and under. Text of the actual bill says 18 unless it has been redacted from a earlier version.

This is the email I just sent to the big guys...basically the same post from earlier....just changed a few words here and there.
Thanks Tyetheczar
Why do you politicians always say that you are thinking about the poor helpless children being exposed to “murder simulators” (a Jackass Thompson quote) when you try over and over to ban rocknroll…er I mean video games.
Oh, those poor helpless kids with roofs over there heads, food on the table, clothes on their backs.

Meanwhile right at this very moment a child is being beaten, another raped, and another has abusive parents or other abusive adults. Thousands upon thousand of other children are hungry, dirty, lack proper education, do not have access to regular health care, are homeless, countless others have no parents.
Why aren't these issues more important to you than violent video games?

I know, because a poor helpless abused child can't vote. If they could (like the soccer moms that you love) then you would care. You and all gamebashing/protect the kids politicians are dispicable liars and scum. You make me sick.

In my opinion, not 1 more dollar should be spent on the “war on drugs” or banning violent video games while there are child smuggling sex rings, homeless/abandoned/ or unloved children.

To me these issues are infinitely more important. It sickens me that there are so many abuses of children in this country that no one seems to care about. Especially the (you)politicians.

I do not get it. I am a parent. I will and have taught my children that video games are make believe. I tell them that in the real world you cannot go and bash someone over the head with a baseball bat….but in the video game you can. I do not need you or someone else "protecting" my kids by wasting taxpayers money on proposed laws that (if you had half a brain) know would never pass.

Video games are no different than fantasy books were in the 1700’s. They are no different than rocknroll was in the 50’s. Conservatives FEAR change…always have, always will. I sometimes wonder what will be the next medium that the religious intolerant conservative nuttchuggers go after next. Maybe it has not been invented yet.

Someday this madness will stop and video games will be no different than movies, music, books, etc. And the religious right/neocons will move on to something else to fear, hate, and will want to ban/eradicate.

And the suffering of the poor helpless children will go on, and on, and on.

Please act like you care about people less fortunate than us, or better yet, go to a homeless shelter and explain to those starving/unwanted/abused children that they can't eat because you had to waste more money on ridiculous video game laws.

Most games are kept beyond access to all the customers at most gaming specialty stores. But then, what if a minor gets an M rated game in their hands at the store? What can they do with it? Well, if they open it, they can be charged for shoplifting for one. And if they take it to the counter the store can simply refuse to sell it to them.

I just emailed the big guys over there,(an earfull) oy. Speed over to here and back me up, oy. We should all do this to everybody, oy. Party on, dudes, oy!

Politicians don't know when to stop. Putting violent video games in the same category as pornography makes me furious. Pornography is harmful and violent video games aren't. They shouldn't be restricted and I believe that violent video games are the greatest invention ever made.

Politicans love wasting taxpayers money on stupid legislation that they have to know by now will fail, don't they.
Well i guess so long as it gets them votes from the SUV driving soccer moms and doesn't cost then anything, they don't give a damn.

When video games are outlawed, only outlaws will have video games.

:P

Yes, because everyone knows that Microsoft programs in how to crash a plane into the World Trade Center. :)

@Snakestream

@Snakestream

I think they already did the 9-11 thing. I coulda sworn people were complaining that Microsofts' pilot simulators were so realistic that it was the method of choice for training for that exact scenario.

30?!? That's got to be a typo.

ha! What a joke....

Does anyone find this kind of ironic?

First the anti game crowd says that games are bad because of violence in general

Now they are saying they are bad because of violence against people of a with a certain skin color?!?

So now according to the anti-game community, violence in wrong only when its against a certain ethnicity?!?

Can't say I find it very suprising considering that its politcally incorrect to make racial jokes against anyone who isn't white, but its completely ok to say anything you want about white people *rolls eyes*

What's the word... Deja vu?

Hey, how about wasting our tax money on something useful, like... oh, say, *education!* What a novel idea!

Proposed New York Law Would Block Sale of Violent Games to Minors...

Yesterday GamePolitics reported on a New York State bill designed to block minors from purchasing games with racist or religious violence. Now comes word of a second video game proposal before the legislature in Albany.

The measure, A02024, is sponso...

Surely this woman intends to ensure that the youngsters that are unable to purchase violent video games won't be fighting in Iraq...

90% of the time it’s Democrats

Reps may be big on "judging morality", but they temper it with a reluctance to interfere in industry. If it was punishing unruly teens alone, I think Reps would have no problem proposing it, because the little buggers are clearly guiltly. Dems on the other hand have no problem telling industry what to do, because they know best...

Does anyone notice it is still manily the Censorcrats, uhh i mean Democrats propsing these kinds of bills. Yes, Republicans have done it to but 90% of the time it's Democrats. God, i wish the Libertarian party was in power. The two main U.S. political parties suck.

@MaskedPixelante

If at first you don't succeed, pretend you're protecting a different demographic and try again.

Eventually some kind of scare tactic will make it past a sympathetic judge, right? ;)

Doesn't anybody actually look it up?

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02024

It doesn't say "30" anywhere - just "18"

Also, status:
01/11/2007 referred to consumer affairs and protection

Oh loving joy, another stupid legislation. Jimmy, how many does this one make

"I dunno, I lost count after 53"

I... am speechless that someone else would try THIS again. I mean... does anyone, ANYONE, care about the precedent set by the OTHER failed video game legislations, or do they think that they'll make it constitutional by broadening the definition of violence?

Even if either bill gets passed by the legislature, they still need to be signed by the governor before becoming law (as far as I know). And if governor Eliot Spitzer (former NY Attorney General) actually signs either one, I'll lose all respect for him. He should know (more than anyone) that a law like this will be challenged and struck down right away.

Should we laugh because we've seen this before or should we cry because we've seen this before?

Dead in water....waste of money....you cant legislate this,you could form a committee to create something that would educate parents over ratings and such but that would be.... effectuate...

@Eldritch2k4

Not sure if you're new here, but this stuff has been discussed half to death already. But for the sake of exposition, I'll lay it out for you anyway :).

"People under 18 are not allowed to purchase lottery tickets, Playboy, cigerettes, alcohol, tickets to rated R movies, etc."

I hear this argument a lot, but the truth is that these things simply aren't comparable to video games.

Concerning alcohol and cigarettes, those things have been prove to have a detrimental effect on young people. In the case of video games, the closest that "experts" have is some poorly done, biased, short-term studies whose results are blown completly out of proportion. Furthermore, neither of those things are free speech, they cannot convey ideas or messages, while video games can (hence you hear the whole "1st Amendment" argument a lot). Lottery tickets-which are a form a gambling, which is shown to often cause addiction and is not a form of free speech either-also falls under this.

As for porn, yes, that is restricted to minors, but only if it falls under the Miller Test, which only deals with pornography, not violence. Many bills similar to this one have tried to copy-and-paste the Miller Test to apply to violence, but each time, that approach is shot down by the courts. This is largely because violence is much harder to define than porn. While porn always entails the same mature theme (sexual intercourse), violence in games could mean anything from jumping on Goombas' heads to blowing off the heads of terriosts with an M4. Additionally, while porn usually does not offer much in the way of artistic or liteary merit, some violent games, like Rainbow Six: Vegas or Halo, have excellent storylines on par with virtually anything you might find in a book or movie. So you see, you just can't use the same definitions for the two. They are completly different things.

Dealing with your argument with movies, your reasoning would only work if minors were, in fact, LEGALLY blocked from seeing R-rated movies. However (contrary to popular belief), the MPAA is 100% voluntary, just like the ESRB. There is no movie equivalent to this bill on the books. Thus, we are not asking for games to be exempt from "restrictions" placed on movies, but for the games industry to not be treated unfairly and be given restrictions that are not applied to movies. This is where the "equal treatmeant under the law" argument comes in.

One more thing, the reason many of us are opposed to these bills is not because we want to take parents out of the decision-making process of content for their children, but for these two reasons:

1: These laws accomplish virtually nothing, because in most cases, the parents ARE the ones buying these games for their kids (From the "pulled it out of my ass" department, but the stats are out there, I assure you). The reason for this is that these laws don't adress the key problem here: Education. Countless parents still don't understand games, and will often buy M-rated titles for their kids just to keep them happy. This bill (and those like it) won't help this situation at all, because-as you said-it doesn't adress the "parents" part of the equation. Many thousands of dollars are the taxpayers' money is being wasted defending these bills (The highest amount is Illinois' bill, totaling at about $500,000), money that these politicians should KNOW will be wasted (If the recent defeats of almost identical legislation is any indication). Don't you think that money might be better spent on trying to educate parents which games may or may not be appropiate for their kids, instead of on futile attempts to try and legislate the problem away?

2: This was a especially a biggie when these bills first started popping up: It's called the chilling effect. As you may know, most of these bills will fine any retailer who sells so much as ONE M-rated game to a minor. Unfortunately, this means that selling GTA to a 10-year old and selling Halo 2 to a 16-year old will be treated the same, although you seem to believe that this issue is mostly about GTA. Anyway, this means that some major retailers (like Wal-Mart) may refuse to carry M-rated games at all, for fear that they may face fines and government scrutiny. This will force game developers to water down their content-and, most-likely, their stories and artistic merit too-in order to get enough sales to make ends meet. This will have a devestating effect on the creativity of a medium that has been shown by the courts to enjoy free-speech protection.

I understand where you're coming from. Even the remote possibilty of a minor accessing controvesial content can worry many of us. However, these bills are not the way to address the issue. We need education, not regulation, so that we will both get what we want.

I agree that the media’s coverage of people committing violent acts as a result of the violent video games they’ve played reflects poorly on the video game industry as a whole. I also agree, and many research studies have shown, that mental illness is the primary cause of people committing such despicable acts. I believe that the media doesn’t focus on this fact as much as they could, instead deferring to the more sensationalistic idea that “the video games influenced the murderer.” However, when determining who should be able to purchase violent video games, we must consider the fact that there ARE troubled young people who might be affected by a game that allows them to systematically destroy life. There have not been any research studies showing, for example, that depressed teenagers aren’t affected by exposure to interactive violence. We restrict the purchase of certain items (pornography, alcohol, and so forth) under the assumption that young people, generally, aren’t mature enough to enjoy them responsibly. While I agree that adults should have unrestricted access to these materials, this bill only restricts access to teenagers. Considering the possible implications of selling violent material to young people who may not be able to process and enjoy it responsibly, the sale of video games with mature themes should be restricted to adults.

it should be the parents job not the states to prevent kids to play these games

I live in Michigan where we already have something like this passed, barring the sale of Rated M games to anyone under the age of 17 without an adult present. I used to work at a Gamestop and trust me, the laws are a waste of time. I forget who it was, but you who said that the parents are the ones buying the games you are absolutely right. Even when we would reject the sale of those games to kids they would just come back with their parents and get it. But the kicker is when the PARENTS come back to the store and yell at US for allowing them to buy it! I lost count of how many angry parents I had to deal with after they bought their 12 year old GTA without reading the box, just to get their stupid kid to shut up. I think we need laws about good parenting, not violence in video games. That's my two cents. Those laws are a huge waste of resources.

Nooo!

Won't happen. We need better input from the actual gamers on these bills...

As a 12 Year old gamer. I say that this is stupid. Any 18 year old here will be able to drink, drive, smoke, do anything they want. And they wont be able to buy a video game?

Anyways If this law goes on to Canada. I know I have my share of violent video games and they can't take that away from me. And if you can't buy violent video games. then steal em. The internet is a great place to download copies of a video game.

Hi there...Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..what a nice Wednesday