Mississippi Video Game Bill is Dead on Arrival
Mississippi Video Game Bill is Dead on Arrival
February 13, 2007
With little fanfare, a video game bill introduced in the Mississippi State Senate earlier this year has died in committee.Senator Gray Tollison, a Democrat, proposed the measure, SB2726, which would have mandated $100 fines for retailers who sold M-rated games to minors.
The bill was referred to the Mississippi Senate's Judiciary Committe, but failed to win approval. On January 30th it was listed as "died in committee."
It's not the first time Sen Tollison has proposed video game legislation. As reported by GamePolitics, a similar bill proposed by Tollison on 2006 also failed to move.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 07/04/09 at 03:48am
Michael Chandra: I missed out on Jack? =(
Michael Chandra: I missed out on Jack? =(
Posted 07/04/09 at 01:52am
Escanor94: hmm, looks like when someone gets banned all their comments are automaticly deleted
Escanor94: hmm, looks like when someone gets banned all their comments are automaticly deleted
Posted 07/03/09 at 11:46pm
Arcanagos: aww, did i miss the JT party? :(
Arcanagos: aww, did i miss the JT party? :(
Posted 07/03/09 at 11:00pm
Leet Gamer Jargon: Where's the recent JT bullcrap? Which comments section has he vomited on? EDIT: Nevermind; it's in the "Radio" thread.
Leet Gamer Jargon: Where's the recent JT bullcrap? Which comments section has he vomited on? EDIT: Nevermind; it's in the "Radio" thread.
Posted 07/03/09 at 09:17pm
BearDogg-X: I wonder what the Metropolitian Moron of Miami said in response to my comment saying that he got a dose of his medicine on the SGC09 Debate thread?
BearDogg-X: I wonder what the Metropolitian Moron of Miami said in response to my comment saying that he got a dose of his medicine on the SGC09 Debate thread?
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:51pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: He gets offended with a bunch of flowers.
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: He gets offended with a bunch of flowers.
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:49pm
GoodRobotUs: LOL He takes offence at the fact he might have *chosen* to be crazy?
GoodRobotUs: LOL He takes offence at the fact he might have *chosen* to be crazy?
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:47pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: He warned me to get a lawyer after I called him "crazy by his own choice"... that´s libel for him
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: He warned me to get a lawyer after I called him "crazy by his own choice"... that´s libel for him
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:45pm
HilaryDuffGta: "libel" what did he threaten now?
HilaryDuffGta: "libel" what did he threaten now?
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:44pm
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Was fun to be threatened for "libel" again.
Rodrigo Ybáñez García: Was fun to be threatened for "libel" again.
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:26pm
HilaryDuffGta: hey so what did i miss??? the usual spam of "crap"
HilaryDuffGta: hey so what did i miss??? the usual spam of "crap"
Posted 07/03/09 at 06:15pm
FlakAttack: Jack ruined his chance to have civil debates with us here. Glad you banned him (again).
FlakAttack: Jack ruined his chance to have civil debates with us here. Glad you banned him (again).
Posted 07/03/09 at 04:04pm
Krono: Unexpected is probably the best word to describe it. Particularly as no decent reason is given.
Krono: Unexpected is probably the best word to describe it. Particularly as no decent reason is given.
Posted 07/03/09 at 03:59pm
GoodRobotUs: Just heard about that myself... kinda unexpected
GoodRobotUs: Just heard about that myself... kinda unexpected
Posted 07/03/09 at 03:58pm
Krono: Huh, apparently Sarah Palin is resigning.
Krono: Huh, apparently Sarah Palin is resigning.
Posted 07/03/09 at 03:34pm
GoodRobotUs: Sounds like he's been mainlining the Angel Dust again
GoodRobotUs: Sounds like he's been mainlining the Angel Dust again
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:50pm
ezbiker555: I'm back. Just in time too, my Jack Thompson sense were going wild
ezbiker555: I'm back. Just in time too, my Jack Thompson sense were going wild
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:47pm
DarkSaber: You mean "playing with himself"? :-P
DarkSaber: You mean "playing with himself"? :-P
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:16pm
Matthew: Oh, Jack's back? I guess he got bored of playing single-player.
Matthew: Oh, Jack's back? I guess he got bored of playing single-player.
Posted 07/03/09 at 01:05pm
Andrew Eisen: I'm leaving most of his comments up but he'll be banned again shortly.
Andrew Eisen: I'm leaving most of his comments up but he'll be banned again shortly.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I don't think most of these politicos have it out for games in particular. As I've said again and again, violent video games are a hot-button family values issue right now. These legislators are just looking for easy votes among the soccer moms, and they don't care how much dough the state has to spend for their little publicity stunts. After all, it's not like it's their money that's being spent.
$100 is a pretty large fine if it's levied on the person who sold the game, as opposed to the company. When I worked at an Electronics Boutique, that was more than 1/3 of a week's pay for me.
This is what we need to see more of. There will always be idiots who want to write these bills. That's going to have to be accepted until such time as most of the legislature in the country is from a generation that grew up with video games. Having the bills die in committee because said committee knew the bills were foolish is really the best possible result for the present. It keeps the bills from becoming law, it keeps things out of the courts where it costs a fortune, and it makes the legislator who wrote it look foolish.
The article said it would fine "retailers," but the text in the link does say "person," so I guess that makes sense.
DECLARE WAR ON INCOMPENTENCE
[url=http://Gray.Tollison.JustGotOwned.com]own3d![/url]
The bill didn't even make it out of committee Daniel, so once again there is nothing to worry about.
@AJ
Either someone lied to you or you live outside of the U.S. There are no government based regulations that fine people for selling M rated games to minors. All attemps to do this have been ruled unconstitutional and rightfully so. Beyond obscene speech for adults or "obscene to minors" speech for minors the government can't regulate/restrict or censor Free Speech materials.
I know there's nothing to worry about. Why do you think I said, "Another one bites the dust?"
And it's a good song. Although I didn't know Freddie Mercury died...
How could you have missed it? It was big news at the time and they held a massive tribute concert a few months later. I was only 10 years old at the time but even I remember that.
I really don't know >.
Basically, I said to AbsumZer0 it may have been before I got into classic rock or something; or I simply don't remember.
And then I agreed with Benji in that, I do believe the store has the legal rights to place fines against employees who don't follow the policies they set.
If you think the ratings board is too restrictive on M rated games then that is a different issue, but this bill actually seemed pretty intelligent. Another state had a bill that would have charged a misdemeanor to anyone selling or giving a game to a minor. That would have held a parent criminally responsible for buying a game for their child (which I can't imagine being constitutional since a child can do most things with parental consent).
This allows children to at least have access to the game if a parent deems it allowable. Tollison's bill was a pretty intelligent attempt to force the parent to act, something that is at the heart of this issue of violent video games being in the hands of children.
Additionally, bills like this may actually make MORE games available. Developers are likely to push the envelope if there is legislation affirmatively blocking the sale to minors. Countries with extremely restrictive ratings boards like Germany and Australia may follow suit and allow more games to be sold.
If for no other reason, I'm ready for children to not be on Gears of War multiplayer.
The problem is the government is NOT ALLOWED TO MANDATE THE RATINGS. That falls to the retailers who are getting better.
If the 15 year old in question is mature enough to handle it, I see no problems. I mean, to be honest, by the time I was 15, I was looking at porn.
I think it's a question of maturaty more than age; although, I do think there is proper ages. 15 is basically the cutoff.
And I don't want the government telling me what I can or cannot buy, or a kid for that matter. If they're allowed to do that, who's to say they can't start restricting our freedoms further? It's the parents' job to be parents.
"The federal government could mandate the ratings if a law were passed allowing them to."
No they can't, such laws are unconstitutional and rightfully so. Minor's have First Amendment rights and the government can't restrict the access of Free Speech materials such as violent games to them solely because they think it's unsuitable or inappproprate. That responsibility lies solely with the parents. The only case in which the government can restrict minor's First Amendment rights is if the Speech in question is "obscene to minors" or if there is showing of absolute proven harm of which when it comes to violent media there is none.
Also i really see no problem with a 15 year old playing any M rated game out there. By that age they can handle it just fine. Hell, the average 15 year old can handle porn fine to, IMHO. It's not like they don't already have sexual feelings.