View Full Version : Michigan To Pay ESA $180,000 Over Violent Game Law
Javery
12-01-2006, 04:19 PM
This is good stuff. Hopefully JT and other video game detractors are paying attention.
"States that pass laws regulating video game sales might as well just tell voters they have a new way to throw away their tax dollars on wasteful and pointless political exercises that do nothing to improve the quality of life in the state," commented ESA president Douglas Lowenstein. "In nine out of nine cases in the past six years, judges have struck down these clearly unconstitutional laws, and in each instance ESA has or will recover its legal fees from the states.”
He added: “What's worse, the politicians proposing and voting for these laws know this will be the outcome. Our hope is that we can stop this pick pocketing of taxpayers and start working cooperatively, as we have with several states and elected officials, to implement truly effective programs to educate parents to use the tools industry has made available -- from ESRB ratings to parental control technologies."
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=11939
fred_h_haddad
12-01-2006, 04:46 PM
He sounds like an arrogant bastard. The reason State Legislatures exist is to protect & defend their citizens and that's all Michigan was trying to do.
And "free speech" has limits. Such as not selling porn to children (including games). Surely Mr. Lowenstein would not object to State politicians banning the sale of "Playboy Mansion" to minors? I hope? Then again maybe Lowenstein doesn't care if children get access to porn; which is why we need politicians: To curb the excesses of people like lowenstein who only sees dollars, and no morality.
I hope Michigan turns around and passes another law- this time banning the sale of "Adult" and "Mature" games to minors.
Show Mr. Lowenstein that the morality of children will be protected, despite his arrogance.
That's funny, because Michigan has their own cases of real-life Grand Theft Autos (DETROIT, FLINT, etc.).
Go there, pray to Christ you don't die.
He sounds like an arrogant bastard. The reason State Legislatures exist is to protect & defend their citizens. That's all Michigan was trying to do.
The problem is the same laws have failed everywhere else. The state<might I add a state which has no money & huge problems> decides to stick its tax payers money on the line. This was nothing more than a vote/attention grab by those who ran for office in this past November election. Well they won re-election and basically stuck the taxpayers with a $200,000 advertising tab.
Javery
12-01-2006, 05:21 PM
He sounds like an arrogant bastard. The reason State Legislatures exist is to protect & defend their citizens and that's all Michigan was trying to do.
And "free speech" has limits. Such as not selling porn to children (including games). Surely Mr. Lowenstein would not object to State politicians banning the sale of "Playboy Mansion" to minors? I hope? Then again maybe Lowenstein doesn't care if children get access to porn; which is why we need politicians: To curb the excesses of people like lowenstein who only sees dollars, and no morality.
I hope Michigan turns around and passes another law- this time banning the sale of "Adult" and "Mature" games to minors.
Show Mr. Lowenstein that the morality of children will be protected, despite his arrogance.
Please don't tell me you are comparing video games to porn and please please please do not tell me that our entire country should be subject to an arbitrary moral code. No law will ever be upheld making it a crime to sell M rated games to minors - who decides what is suitable for children? Some jackass politician? No way in hell. It is the parents' responsibility to raise their kids and teach them right and wrong - not the government's. Period.
fred_h_haddad
12-01-2006, 05:33 PM
Javery - You are against legislating morality & For allowing sale of "adult" or "mature" games to minors? Okay. You support the sale of Penthouse videos or alcohol to minors too? This was nothing more than a vote/attention grab by those who ran for office in this past November election.
The law was 6+ years old & dates back to 2000 (or earlier). It had nothing to do with the recent election.
Kayden
12-01-2006, 06:27 PM
What a very dense little skull you have.
What he said was, it is not the government's position to dictate morals. If parents want to let their 12 year olds play/buy Manhunt, they should be well within their legal rights.
And what's wrong with porn? Is there something inherently wrong with sex or nudity? Chances are the kid posess one of the two sets of genitles showcased and will no doubt be using them at some point.
Javery - You are against legislating morality & For allowing sale of "adult" or "mature" games to minors? Okay. You support the sale of Penthouse videos or alcohol to minors too?
The law was 6+ years old & dates back to 2000 (or earlier). It had nothing to do with the recent election.
rabbitt
12-01-2006, 06:40 PM
They really are wasting time and money. At least the ESA got money back on this one.
Ub3rChief
12-01-2006, 06:48 PM
I think it should be up to the parents to watch their kids.
Also, playing mature/adult games (or watching porn, for that matter) doesn't make a kid bad. Shoot, I was playing mature games at 8 or 10 and I'm not doing too poorly.
Lowenstein is right in blasting the congressmen - they know what will happen, but they want the plug.
RegalSin2020
12-01-2006, 06:58 PM
Well this is the rightfull outcome unlike the OJ Simpson trial. Speaking of which seeing how Orental James is innocent and all shouldn't somebody pay for his court fees?
Again they should just make games a type of media and rate them.
ElwoodCuse
12-01-2006, 08:47 PM
Javery - You are against legislating morality & For allowing sale of "adult" or "mature" games to minors? Okay. You support the sale of Penthouse videos or alcohol to minors too?
Stop with the "but they can regulate porn so they should be allowed to regulate video games" argument. The courts have already explicitly rejected this.
And alcohol is an even more ridiculous argument. It is well-documented that alcohol can do serious harm to people of all ages. There is no such evidence for video games.
FriskyTanuki
12-01-2006, 09:58 PM
This has happened already to Illinois and I'm sure this won't be the last since states are still trying to push these things past the ESA and will always fail.
fred_h_haddad
12-02-2006, 09:50 AM
And what's wrong with porn? Is there something inherently wrong with sex or nudity?
A 13-yr-old shouldn't be able to walk into Barnes & Noble and buy Penthouse. Or the videogame Playboy Mansion. It should be forbidden by law.
Not until he's 18 (adult) should he be granted total freedom.
IMHO.
Javery
12-02-2006, 10:15 AM
Javery - You are against legislating morality & For allowing sale of "adult" or "mature" games to minors? Okay. You support the sale of Penthouse videos or alcohol to minors too?
The law was 6+ years old & dates back to 2000 (or earlier). It had nothing to do with the recent election.
Kayden pretty much nailed it but I'll add a little...
Of course I am against legislating morality. This is America - why should I be subject to someone else's morals? And of course I don't want minors to be able to walk into a store and buy "adult" or "mature" games all by themselves but parents are the ones who should be watching their kids and making the decisions as to what is appropriate and what is not. When I was 14 there was no way in hell I could come up with $50, get a ride to the mall, buy the game and then come home and play it without my parents knowing about it. Also, while were at it lets start making laws regulating movies, books, music, the internet, etc. It just doesn't work and we can't be dumbing down society so everything is suitable for children.
Bottom line is that you just can't make it illegal (i.e. a crime) if someone sells an "adult" or "mature" game to a minor. It's impossible to draft something like that because "adult" and "mature" have different meanings to everyone and the end result will always be an unconstitutional law.
gamereviewgod
12-02-2006, 10:43 AM
H
And "free speech" has limits. Such as not selling porn to children (including games). Surely Mr. Lowenstein would not object to State politicians banning the sale of "Playboy Mansion" to minors? I hope?
Games are considered free speech. Porn is not. Playboy Mansion isn't porn. There is no on-screen sex, and I don't believe there's much in the way of nudity either. If they ban sales of Playboy Mansion because it's M, then they'll slowly begin banning others.
Should they federally regulate the film industry as well? R rated movies are a perfect comparison.
Maybe they should federally force ratings on books too. It's a slippery slope.