NY State poised to make selling violent games to minors a felony

Read it here.

It was 'Game Over' for NY legislators attempting to pass a bill that would criminalize the sale of certain computer and video games to minors, as the current session ended Thursday night before the measure could make it through both houses.

But sure enough, they have some extra quarters. With the two sides of the aisle finally agreeing on the bill's content, it is fully expected to pass muster and be signed into law by Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) when the session reconvenes in July.

The new bill is a compromise of two different versions proposed earlier this year, one supported by Assembly Democrats, the other by Republican Senators. Leaders from the two houses worked together to hammer out the details of the final proposition, which outlines four strategies in combating the sale of violent video games to underage consumers:

* Selling violent and obscene video games to minors would become punishable as a Class E felony
* Console manufacturers would be required to include parental-control devices in their systems
* Retailers would have to adhere to product labeling guidelines
* A state-established committee would be formed to oversee and study the issue
Critics of such video game legislation are quick to point out that two of these objectives are already at work. All three current home consoles feature parental-control technology right out of the box, and the ESRB already rates every single piece of certified gaming software prior to release (including Manhunt 2). No one seems to mind the formation of another committee, so long as gamers don't have to attend the boring meetings.

The "punishable felony" issue, however, is sure to raise the ire of the industry. There is currently no fine for selling a violent film to a minor, and even the sale of cigarettes or alcohol merely warrants a small penalty. According to New York's 3 Strikes Rule, three felony convictions are grounds for life imprisonment; irresponsible Gamestop employees could face a Shawshank future.

But not if the ESA has anything to say about it. Having successfully countered numerous anti-video game laws in the past by filing First Amendment suits, the game industry's governing body will surely fire off another one provided Gov. Spitzer signs the bill as expected. If history serves, that could prove costly to the state; a similar bill in Illinois cost taxpayers a cool million as Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) raided various coffers to fund his ultimately unsuccessful defense.

This is just stupid. :dizzy2:
I mean, come on- a felony? To quote the article:

Quote:

---

The "punishable felony" issue, however, is sure to raise the ire of the industry. There is currently no fine for selling a violent film to a minor, and even the sale of cigarettes or alcohol merely warrants a small penalty. According to New York's 3 Strikes Rule, three felony convictions are grounds for life imprisonment; irresponsible Gamestop employees could face a Shawshank future.

---

Who is going to tell?

If you want your child to play a violent game, then you can buy it for them, and they can be violent on their home PC. Unless the government wants to start to monitor the home PC (gah!) its a face-bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

Who is going to tell?

If you want your child to play a violent game, then you can buy it for them, and they can be violent on their home PC. Unless the government wants to start to monitor the home PC (gah!) its a face-bill.

---

Overprotective parents.

This is, of course, a ridiculous bill. :no:

:stunned:

I find it interesting that modern legislators (and not just in the US, this is a wider phenomenon) seem to be obsessed with the criminalisation of hitherto quite inoffensive members of the public, whilst actively reducing punishment for serious offenders.

With my tin-hat fully charged and sparkling, I might speculate that this has something to do with the drive to remove rights across the western democratic world. After all, felons and criminals lose a substantial range of rights and have their details logged on DNA databases and the like, often prior to charge rather than conviction, and kept on tap for the rest of their lives.

If I remove the hat and ignore the voices, it's probably just down to easy headlines for the politicians. Doing something serious about real crime is beyond them, so a few headlines pandering to the Daily Mail crowd (or US equivalent) about the "feckless youth" gets them off the hook for a few days. Even in that context, making it a felony is barking.

(And one could argue that TW games are about as violent as they get, with mass murder, assassination, war, pestilence and princes in sado-masochistic trysts with pachyderms... are we all off to clink?)

Can't see huge problems with this. They're just making it illegal for minors, rather than outright banning violent games. How is this different from making it illegal for minors to purchase liquor? To me this seems like a more mature approach, taking seriously the fact that certain games are designed for an adult audience and should be treated that way. At the very least this should raise awareness among parents that not all games are suitable, which arguably isn't the case right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Can't see huge problems with this. They're just making it illegal for minors, rather than outright banning violent games. How is this different from making it illegal for minors to purchase liquor? To me this seems like a more mature approach, taking seriously the fact that certain games are designed for an adult audience and should be treated that way. At the very least this should raise awareness among parents that not all games are suitable, which arguably isn't the case right now.

---

The principle is fine, it's the felony charge attached that's the over-reaction. It criminalises people for actions that are very low level, and according to the article, such criminal penalties do not attach for equivalents, such as selling violent films, or much more damaging actions like selling liquor or cigarettes to minors.

Especially in the light of the three strikes rule, it is barking. The only possible rationale would be the belief that exposure to violent video imagery causes irreparable psychological harm to young people - in which case, they should be shutting down Hollywood and the TV networks first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Can't see huge problems with this. They're just making it illegal for minors, rather than outright banning violent games. How is this different from making it illegal for minors to purchase liquor? To me this seems like a more mature approach, taking seriously the fact that certain games are designed for an adult audience and should be treated that way. At the very least this should raise awareness among parents that not all games are suitable, which arguably isn't the case right now.

---

Of course - it's playing violent games that turns kids into psychopaths, not watching violent movies, listening to music that glorifies death, or living in a culture which reveres methods of killing (eg guns).

No, of course not :wall:

I'd be happy to see this come in if similar laws were passed preventing the spread of the real dangers to society...

(And that's ignoring the fact that the proponents of this bill are ignoring digital distribution - both legal and illegal - which would make their farce of an idea impossible to implement)

No, mainly I see it as a step forward from their usual talk of wholesale banning of violent games. The matter of making it a felony is disturbing, true, but this is just one example of a such extreme measures being applied with worrying frequency. It's not the punishment I wish to defend, but the principle that politcians are at least recognising that not all games are meant for children.

That doesn't take away from the fact that there are other forms of entertainment that play a far greater role in glorifying violence, such as violent rap music; my post isn't exclusive to acknowleding that, so no need for head-bashing Sapi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

It's not the punishment I wish to defend, but the principle that politcians are at least recognising that not all games are meant for children.

---

Yes, because we can't have parents figuring out what

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

M 17+

means, can we?

Also, the money that kids use to purchase violent video games certainly doesn't come from their efforts as day-laborers.

The only effect of this bill: more people will download games instead of buying.

It's really as simple as that. Nothing else will happen at all. You wont see any reduction in violent games.

The children! For God's sake, will someone think of the children?!?! ~:eek:

Violent crime has fallen by 60% since Doom was first published. Clearly, video games are serial-killer enablers.

Old people rarely approve of the chosen media of the younger generation. That's the real story here, those pesky kids with their rock'n'roll music.

My parents usually asked when I was young and the rating was higher than my age. Back then I bought mostly flight sims so explaining my mom that I don't shoot at people directly but at planes was often sufficient. But my parents still cared about what I played and my dad never let me watch movies that were 16+ before I was 16 IIRC. Could be that he loosened up a bit since I was 15 but in general my parents made sure I don't end up a violent guy roaming in the streets to beat up little kids. However the fact that not all parents do that and some simply don't care what their kids do until the kids become violent against their parents even, means that the government has to do sth and not just watch parents breed little criminals. It's the duty of the government to make sure I'm not robbed by little criminals other parents raised, especially since I'm not allowed to shoot them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

It's the duty of the government to make sure I'm not robbed by little criminals other parents raised, especially since I'm not allowed to shoot them.

---

No question, but putting away a forgetful store clerk for life because he forgot to ask for an ID a few times is not a proper way of doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

My parents usually asked when I was young and the rating was higher than my age...

---

Huh.

I played Doom, Heretic, Hexen, Duke Nukem, watched violent and explicit programs and could not care less about any of it. I turned out fine. Perhaps it's because my parents actually did some PARENTING and explained to me that shooting someone else in the face is not OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

I turned out fine.

---

That's what you say. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Perhaps it's because my parents actually did some PARENTING and explained to me that shooting someone else in the face is not OK.

---

Hey, my parents did that as well which is part of why I was allowed some things earlier, I don't remember the details but they didn't suppress me or anything, like I said after a short discussion I was usually able to convince them(at a time when they still paid for my games, mind you), later on they would give me advice but not outright stop me from buying what I wanted. Then again, I never even wanted games like Doom.:laugh4:

Clickety

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

That's what you say. ~;)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Clickety

---

Clearly, I must say that I trouble myself when I have sex with dragons while shooting an Ingram in the air with one hand and holding a cigarette and beer bottle in the other.

"Sexcuse me! But what a good is all the violence in the world, unless it is tempered, with limitless sex, bring on the limitless sex!"-GWAR, Sexecutioner

lolololol~D ~D ~D

seriously if the government so abhors violence i say replace it with sexuality, we're half way there anyway plus look at the advantages. One is brutal and cruel, we are taught since our birth it is bad and many would conclude it promotes aggresion.
The other is a wholly natural and neccesary reaction to feelings of love and affection.
which sounds better to you?

Sex can be violent, my friend. ~;)

I wouldn't personally subscribe to the S&M side of things myself though. Too, ah, dangerous.

AdrianII: That link is huge. It's not hard to grasp the point though. "Moral panics." :sweatdrop:

Think of the books! With kids unable to play violent computer games they'll have to go to the library! They'll discover violent heroes such as Conan, who likes to drink, chase skirts and hack at people with swords! Even in the homes they're not safe, as many otherwise empty bookshelfs still hold the family photo album and the bible received at the wedding. Your parents in ages-old clothing doing ancient stuff is such horror that you might actually open the bible instead. And as we all know the Old Testament is extremely violent, glorifying the death toll of the latest smiting in chapter after chapter.

Our course is clear. There must be age checks in libraries, book stores and homes. Anyone who gives minors access to violent books is a communist - or possibly perverted - and should be dealt with as such.

Think of the job security for yours truly... Put down that copy of ManHunt2 and slowly back away

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Think of the job security for yours truly... Put down that copy of ManHunt2 and slowly back away

---

Where, in the grand hierarchy of convicted felons, would "violent video game seller to a minor" lie? Below mother rapers and father stabbers, but above father rapers and mother stabbers? ~D