BREAKING - NY Senate Passes Video Game Bill 61-1

N

Nephlabobo

CAGiversary!
BREAKING - NY Senate Passes Video Game Bill 61-1

June 24, 2008
NY-lanza-bill.jpg
Moments ago the New York State Senate voted 61-1 to approve a bill proposed by Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Republican from Staten Island.
Sen. Lanza is seen arguing for passage in the photo at left. Sen. Thomas Duane (D) of New York City cast the lone dissenting vote.
The video game bill mirrors that passed yesterday by the State Assembly, a Lanza staffer told GamePolitics that the measure will now go to Gov. David Paterson for consideration. If Paterson signs the bill, it will become law in 2010.
Prior to that, however, the video game industry is likely to sue, arguing that the measure is unconstitutional.
UPDATE: We've got an mp3 of Sen. Lanza's final three minutes of argument in favor of the bill. Here's an excerpt:
If you look closely at this bill, [concerns expressed by Sen. Duane] are not valid. Let's start with speech. There's all kinds of speech. If we take an old-fashioned pinball machine and plunked it down here in the middle of the chamber, no one would call it speech. But when we put that up on a video screen, it does become speech and I acknowledge that. And it deserves protection under the Constitution... There is some confusion with respect to what this bill actually accomplishes... The word prohibition was talked about. I want to be clear. This bill does not prohibit the sale of any video to anyone...

This simply says that every video game sold in the state of New York simply should have a rating consistent with what the ESRB does presently in a voluntary way... it does work. But the problem with "voluntary" is that tomorrow someone can change their mind. Someone could decide tomorrow to no longer place ratings on these games. So this is not about prohibiting the sale, this is simply about providing information to parents...

Last year's version... that included a provision that would have made it an E-felony to sell these games, we all thought it was wrong. And we took that out. We worked with the [video game] industry. We worked with the Assembly and we do have an agreement here on a piece of legislation that I think will go a long way in allowing parents to make good decisions in regard to what is and what isn't appropriate for their chidlren...
​
Link - www.gampolitics.com



Sorry to everyone in NY State. :(
 
[quote name='Nephlabobo']
This simply says that every video game sold in the state of New York simply should have a rating consistent with what the ESRB does presently in a voluntary way... it does work. But the problem with "voluntary" is that tomorrow someone can change their mind. Someone could decide tomorrow to no longer place ratings on these games. So this is not about prohibiting the sale, this is simply about providing information to parents...[/quote]

FFS. Why is it that America has people in power that don't know shit about technology?

E-felony
Click to expand...

*facepalm*

IDK, MY BFF JILL?
 
So it essentially enforces an age limit to gaming?

I don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing. If it becomes illegal for kids to be buying these games that are rated FOR adults, it wouldn't really be any different than pornography. It will simply allow game companies to create games with that age in mind, without fear of retribution.

Granted, the game companies will see a decrease in sales, but this could be a good thing. It would, very seriously, allow parents to decide if their children should be able to play something because they are forced to buy it for them.
 
[quote name='Dunvane']So it essentially enforces an age limit to gaming?

I don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing. If it becomes illegal for kids to be buying these games that are rated FOR adults, it wouldn't really be any different than pornography. It will simply allow game companies to create games with that age in mind, without fear of retribution.

Granted, the game companies will see a decrease in sales, but this could be a good thing. It would, very seriously, allow parents to decide if their children should be able to play something because they are forced to buy it for them.[/quote]

Yeah, although it's difficult to say based on how it's kind of vague, I don't understand why there's always such an outcry against any legislation concerning video games. I think it DOES need some kind of reliable regulations for sales for more violent games, and maybe there needs to be more ratings than the ones we have (IE Halo 3 should not have the same rating as GTA4).
 
I live in New York and if this stops the sale of mature games to children then good. I like it when I'm in a store and I hear the clerk ask a customer for ID. If a kid wants a game their parent should be explained why the game is rated what it is and they can make a decision based on the info. Maybe it will keep some screaming singing kids off COD4.
 
Somebody mentioned something on that website's thread about not having a ESRB for old games would make old games illegal to sell if they weren't rated. If that's true thats probably the worst that could come out of this situation.

Kids shouldn't be allowed to buy certain mature games anyways, but at the same time the rating system needs to be revamped.

Should Halo be rated Mature? No.

Should freakin' Oblivion be rated Mature? No.

Should GTA be rated Mature? Yes.

It's late and I didn't read too much into this, so forgive me.
 
Lets waste time and tax payer money for "just in case" they decide to stop rating video games. Its not like games have been voluntarily rated for the last decade or anything. I swear if they put half of their time and energy in to something useful like helping jobless Americans or pulling our boys out of Iraq instead of stupid pointless bullshit like this....
 
Sounds good to me. Prohibiting the sale of M-rated games to 14-year-olds? All for it. Yeah, if mommy buys it for little Timmy, whatever, but Timmy has no place buying that shit himself.
 
Am I the only one reading the articles?

If signed into law it would require new console systems to be equipped with parental controls, would create a 16-member governmental advisory council and would mandate that ESRB ratings be displayed on game packaging.
Click to expand...
The first doesn't matter, all home consoles (maybe not the Wii) have parental controls. The ESRB wasn't going to shut down any time soon, so #3 doesn't matter either. A government advisory council doesn't sound like it could do much of anything. So why are you feeling sorry for anyone?
 
[quote name='Lieutenant Dan']Unless there is something more to it than the OP's post, I don't really see a problem with it.[/quote]


gamepolitics is once again struggling to justify its own existence. one day, it may come in handy.
 
Who cares? Most everyone here on this site is old enough to buy their own M rated games. If a kid wants a M rated game, he can pay an adult to buy it for him. Doesn't matter.
 
Underage gamers rush to internet websites to buy their M-rated games now. Way to go, idiots. You just lost millions of dollars in tax revenue a year!

Seriously though, this bill is basically meaningless. They can't enforce it unless they put a cop in every store, which they won't do.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Underage gamers rush to internet websites to buy their M-rated games now. Way to go, idiots. You just lost millions of dollars in tax revenue a year!

Seriously though, this bill is basically meaningless. They can't enforce it unless they put a cop in every store, which they won't do.[/QUOTE]

Actually with the recent tax law changes they will still collect taxes on the sale of those games.
 
[quote name='SpikeJonez']bullshit, we have first amendment[/QUOTE]

What's that have anything to do with this?

There are laws about selling R rated or NC-17 rated movies to minors.

There's no first amendment issues here. People can make whatever kind of games or movies they want. People under a certain age simply can't buy it themselves.
 
[quote name='Nibi']Underage kids will still be buying M rated games and fucking around on xbox live.[/QUOTE]

No question about that. What I'm hoping to see more of, though, is penalties on dumbass clerks who sell GTA4 to 15-year-olds, without even a second thought. Check them IDs, dammit!
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']What's that have anything to do with this?

There are laws about selling R rated or NC-17 rated movies to minors.[/QUOTE]

No there aren't. There are laws against selling pornography to minors, and none of them have anything to do with MPAA ratings.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']No there aren't. There are laws against selling pornography to minors, and none of them have anything to do with MPAA ratings.[/quote]

Exactly.

Games should not be any less protected by the First Amendment than any other medium.

I don't understand why anyone would defend this proposition, I don't even really care about M-Rated games.
 
The real problem with the law is the potential for small makers being forced to pay for a rating (I assume the esrb charges). This could hurt the growth of xboxlive and psn, or at least raise prices a small bit. Furthermore I do not see how user-created content could be distributed. Would Little Big Planet levels be allowed to be distributed without a ESRB rating?

While in principle I don't see restricting sales as a particularly bad option, the law could potentially cause far more trouble than good.
 
[quote name='thelonepig']Everything about this makes perfect sense other than the waste of time and money that it took to write, debate, and pass it.[/quote]

That's OK, most of us pay it a little less attention than when our local reps out on Long Island say and do some of the dumbest freaking things we've ever seen.

Man, I sure wish I could do jack and vote myself a five-figure pay raise. That would just be swell!
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Exactly.

Games should not be any less protected by the First Amendment than any other medium.

I don't understand why anyone would defend this proposition, I don't even really care about M-Rated games.[/QUOTE]

Actually, video games enjoy freedoms other mediums do not. Let's take this law for instance. It requires that all future game consoles must include parental controls. Sounds very similar to the V-chip that's currently in every television being sold today.

What about the non-government controlled rating system they say all games must feature? Sounds an awful lot like the rating system every TV show currently features.

Since TV implemented these rules it has only gotten raunchier and more "mature", if anything. Really, this isn't a big deal.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']No there aren't. There are laws against selling pornography to minors, and none of them have anything to do with MPAA ratings.[/QUOTE]

Really? Maybe it was just state laws back when I used to live in WV. Store and theaters could get fined for letting in people under 17/selling an R-rated movie to a minor.

In any case, if there aren't laws there should be. It's the only way to force companies who only care about making money to card everyone and not sell R-rated movies or M-rated games to minors.

I still don't see the first amendment issue. No one's rights to expression are being infringed on. People can make whatever kind of games or movies they want.

First amendment has nothing to do with being able to sell your stuff directly to minors.

[quote name='elwood731']Actually, video games enjoy freedoms other mediums do not. Let's take this law for instance. It requires that all future game consoles must include parental controls. Sounds very similar to the V-chip that's currently in every television being sold today.

What about the non-government controlled rating system they say all games must feature? Sounds an awful lot like the rating system every TV show currently features.

Since TV implemented these rules it has only gotten raunchier and more "mature", if anything. Really, this isn't a big deal.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. This kind of stuff is good for us adult gamers. Have a good ratings system, build in parental controls, laws about selling directly to minors etc. and you totally put responsibility in the hands of parents.

The politicians have little to bitch about if kids are only playing M rated games because their parents buy them for them and/or don't use parental controls.
 
i can understand limiting pornography to minors, but to punish some poor sales clerk for accidentally selling GTAIV sounds dumb.

the parents should be the ones to watch the children and know what they are doing. but in this day in age parenting is done by TVs and politicians.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I still don't see the first amendment issue. No one's rights to expression are being infringed on. People can make whatever kind of games or movies they want.

First amendment has nothing to do with being able to sell your stuff directly to minors.[/QUOTE]

Yes it does. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively invalid. Requirements like this are a content-based restriction on speech, and the government has a very high burden to overcome to justify such a restriction. This burden has so far never been met.

Don't pull the "I don't see how this is a First Amendment issue" card, that's because you don't know what you are talking about. Case law has made it very clear that video games are protected by the First Amendment, and that laws restricting their sale to minors violate this protection.

Pornography is illegal to sell to minors because it is obscene for minors and thus receives no First Amendment protection (Ginzburg v. New York). Governments have tried to use this line of reasoning for video games and it was explicitly rejected because outside of those PC pron games that no console maker would allow and no mainstream store would sell, video games aren't obscene for any age group.
 
There should be laws on selling M-Rated games to kids. God knows parenting has gone out the fucking window nowadays and they need to do something to make up for it. I mean if the parents bought the game for his child after knowing the specifics of the game like it's violence and stuff then ok. I think if a child got carded for buying a game and the parent was there it might make them think.

Now games should NOT be toned down or not of that bullshit. Games should be as violent as they want to be, but there should be laws to make sure kids don't play them when the parents don't give the ok.
 
This law does nothing. It's a token gesture to justify politicians' jobs. Besides, the kids who this law was written for anyway (the naughty ones) are accustomed to the internet and all that entails *cough* porn & torrents *cough*. So all it does is add another law to the books.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']God knows parenting has gone out the fucking window nowadays and they need to do something to make up for it.[/QUOTE]

That's fine, but "crappy parenting" is not an excuse to violate the Constitution
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']No there aren't. There are laws against selling pornography to minors, and none of them have anything to do with MPAA ratings.[/QUOTE]
Yep

This is a little fishy. Why pass legislation for a non-issue? Like he said, it works. The whole issue of "well it might disappear one day" reasoning is a load of crap. If that were to happen then MAYBE consider it then. Also remember to consider passing laws against every other medium.

Seriously though, this is a deliberate attack( though its common), solely, on video games and all of you are like "meh, seems fine". You don't hear legislation going around about "Hey, we have to prepare for if the MPAA disappears one day."


There doesn't need to be a law.
Stop saying there does.
The current system works.
Read the FTC reports.
 
[quote name='Dunvane']So it essentially enforces an age limit to gaming?

I don't see how this is necessarily a bad thing. If it becomes illegal for kids to be buying these games that are rated FOR adults, it wouldn't really be any different than pornography. It will simply allow game companies to create games with that age in mind, without fear of retribution.

Granted, the game companies will see a decrease in sales, but this could be a good thing. It would, very seriously, allow parents to decide if their children should be able to play something because they are forced to buy it for them.[/quote]

The game ratings were never supposed to be used to restrict the sale of a video game. It was put in place to let the parents know the content of the game. This is what happened to the PA labeled CDs in the 90's. When the PA label came out, it was a warning, now most stores don't sell them to minors. I am just sick of government parenting the kids and not the parents.
 
[quote name='elwood731']Actually, video games enjoy freedoms other mediums do not. Let's take this law for instance. It requires that all future game consoles must include parental controls. Sounds very similar to the V-chip that's currently in every television being sold today.

What about the non-government controlled rating system they say all games must feature? Sounds an awful lot like the rating system every TV show currently features.

Since TV implemented these rules it has only gotten raunchier and more "mature", if anything. Really, this isn't a big deal.[/quote]

TV is a little different due to the fact that it's controlled by the FCC. Anything broadcasted over the air has to be in line with the FCC, which is why you see those mandated tv ratings.

Either way, its a stupid law that took too much time and money to debate.
I am sure New York has much worse problems on it's hands. As much as minors illegally possesing hand guns and drugs might seem like a minute problem...

If they want to pass this law for Music, Movies and Video Games, that's fine. But to single out video games is bull crap. Selling a kid GTA IV is no worse than selling him Saw IV or any other torture porn movie that is Rated R.
 
[quote name='Sir_Fragalot']There should be laws on selling M-Rated games to kids. God knows parenting has gone out the fucking window nowadays and they need to do something to make up for it. I mean if the parents bought the game for his child after knowing the specifics of the game like it's violence and stuff then ok. I think if a child got carded for buying a game and the parent was there it might make them think.

Now games should NOT be toned down or not of that bullshit. Games should be as violent as they want to be, but there should be laws to make sure kids don't play them when the parents don't give the ok.[/QUOTE]

Uhh, no. If the clerk refuses to sell the game to the kid, the kid gets their parents to buy it and then complain to the manager to get the clerk fired. And the law still doesn't deal with a parent buying an M rated game for their kid.

The First Amendment issue has already been clarified. I'm a bit surprised how apathetic some people are and how they're so willing and eager to give away their rights. These bills are, and have always been, a large pointless waste of taxpayer's money, because they've always been overturned as unconstitutional.

I certainly wouldn't support the throwing away of money.
 
To steal a line from Craig Ferguson, it must be such a relief to the person whose house was just foreclosed on to know that their elected officials are working hard to... impose laws on video games.

EDIT: Found it:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbiMa48QjdY[/media]
Kicks in around 3:35
 
[quote name='B:L']Uhh, no. If the clerk refuses to sell the game to the kid, the kid gets their parents to buy it and then complain to the manager to get the clerk fired.[/QUOTE]

The clerk would not get fired. At a big retailer he would be doing his job. If the parents were angry then the clerk or manager should explain that the game is rated mature and it is store policy not to sell the game to children. If they still get mad then there is something wrong with them.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Yes it does. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively invalid. Requirements like this are a content-based restriction on speech, and the government has a very high burden to overcome to justify such a restriction. This burden has so far never been met.

Don't pull the "I don't see how this is a First Amendment issue" card, that's because you don't know what you are talking about. Case law has made it very clear that video games are protected by the First Amendment, and that laws restricting their sale to minors violate this protection.

Pornography is illegal to sell to minors because it is obscene for minors and thus receives no First Amendment protection (Ginzburg v. New York). Governments have tried to use this line of reasoning for video games and it was explicitly rejected because outside of those PC pron games that no console maker would allow and no mainstream store would sell, video games aren't obscene for any age group.[/QUOTE]


Agreed, thanks for saving me the time to write a long post.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']Yes it does. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively invalid. Requirements like this are a content-based restriction on speech, and the government has a very high burden to overcome to justify such a restriction. This burden has so far never been met.
[/QUOTE]

But no one is being restricted from what they can say, or put in a game. Just on who can buy that game--adults.

I just don't see the argument. It seems the same as being able to cuss in public, but not in a school--you're not limiting what people can say, just where they can say it.

I'm not saying that's the current interpretation of the 1st amendment when it comes to those things, but that's how it should be IMO.

Developers can put whatever they want in a game, that doesn't mean someone under 17 should be able to buy it themselves.

I see no reason to be upset over this, unless you're under 17 and mommy won't buy you M rated games.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But no one is being restricted from what they can say, or put in a game. Just on who can buy that game--adults.

I just don't see the argument. It seems the same as being able to cuss in public, but not in a school--you're not limiting what people can say, just where they can say it.

I'm not saying that's the current interpretation of the 1st amendment when it comes to those things, but that's how it should be IMO.

Developers can put whatever they want in a game, that doesn't mean someone under 17 should be able to buy it themselves.

I see no reason to be upset over this, unless you're under 17 and mommy won't buy you M rated games.[/quote]

Maybe I'm getting mixed signals but from what I read, unrated older games will be illegal no matter who buys them, or at least the law could be interpreted that way.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But no one is being restricted from what they can say, or put in a game. Just on who can buy that game--adults.

I just don't see the argument. It seems the same as being able to cuss in public, but not in a school--you're not limiting what people can say, just where they can say it.[/QUOTE]

You are confusing yourself. This is not time/place/manner, this is not the rights of students. The governments don't make those arguments when they go to court, they argue that they have met their burden to restrict protected speech. And the courts always say they haven't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top