BREAKING - NY Senate Passes Video Game Bill 61-1

[quote name='willardhaven']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]

That would just have to be clarified--make old games that came out before the ratings system exempt.

Not a huge issue anyway as that's going back a couple generations, most stores don't carry those games anymore, and most minors don't want to play old games anyway. So not a big deal to just exclude them from such laws.

[quote name='ElwoodCuse']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.[/QUOTE]

I know it's different issue, my issue is that no one's speech is being limited. Nothing is being banned.

It's just placing an age restriction on who can buy M rated games, just like we have age restirctions on pornography. There's more porn than ever, it's not hurt peoples ability to make or sell porn. Not selling M rated games to minors wouldn't hurt M rated game sales. Most stores won't sell to them as is. Laws like this are really just for show.

Now, I don't really care one way or the other about these types of laws--I just don't see a huge 1st amendment issue here. The first amendment gives people freedom of expression and speech, not freedom for stores to sell stuff to people of every age. No one's speech is being restricted in any way. No one is being forced not to make certain games etc. I don't see anyone's first amendment rights being infringed on here.
 
I don't see the fuss. Seems like another unenforceable law to me. Probably just a way for the government to stick their hands into a system (ESRB) that has been working so far.
 
Is it unconstitutional to restrict the driving age, draft age, voting age, age to buy cigarettes or alcohol? Annheiser Bush's 1st amendment rights are being trampled on because they can't sell their product to anyone under 21!
 
[quote name='daroga']Is it unconstitutional to restrict the driving age, draft age, voting age, age to buy cigarettes or alcohol? Annheiser Bush's 1st amendment rights are being trampled on because they can't sell their product to anyone under 21![/QUOTE]

Exactly. While one can argue that there is more valid reasons to restrict age for those things vs games and movies (and I'd agree that there are), I just still don't see any constitutional rights infringment.

I think the laws are pointless as they're not enforceable, but I don't see anyone's 1st amendment rights being trampled on by limiting M rated game sales to minors.

No one's speech is being restricted. At all. People saying it violates the first amendment to limit sales to minor is taking way to liberal a view of 1st amendment rights IMO.
 
[quote name='daroga']Is it unconstitutional to restrict the driving age, draft age, voting age, age to buy cigarettes or alcohol? Annheiser Bush's 1st amendment rights are being trampled on because they can't sell their product to anyone under 21![/quote]

When was the last time a video game got into a head on crash? When was the last time someone was shipped of to another country to fight a console war? When was the last time someone...wait, voting in the USA is pretty mugh a shit throwing fight. When was the last time video games gave anyone lung cancer or cause low birth weight in babies? When was the last time video games got someone drunk and nailed fat chicks? Comparing apples to orange my good buddy. I hart u Daroga.
 
[quote name='Kendal']When was the last time a video game got into a head on crash? When was the last time someone was shipped of to another country to fight a console war? When was the last time someone...wait, voting in the USA is pretty mugh a shit throwing fight. When was the last time video games gave anyone lung cancer or cause low birth weight in babies? When was the last time video games got someone drunk and nailed fat chicks? Comparing apples to orange my good buddy. I hart u Daroga.[/QUOTE]

Like I said above, clearly their are better reasons for having age restrictions on alcohol etc.

But that doesn't change the fact that age restrictions don't trample on people's first amendment rights. Again no one's fucking speech is being infringed on. They can make whatever they want. Stores just can't sell it directly to minors (under these laws). Most stores already don't sell it directly to minors as is. I just can't see a constitution issue here.

The only issue I see is with the Adults Only rating, since stores refuse to stock AO games, the console makers won't license AO games etc. There is a constitutional issue as people pretty much can't make AO games--unless they make them for PC.

Resticting sells of games to minors doesn't limit what type of games people can make at all. There are plenty of adult gamers, and minors can have their parents buy it for them if their parents are ok with it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just placing an age restriction on who can buy M rated games, just like we have age restirctions on pornography. There's more porn than ever, it's not hurt peoples ability to make or sell porn. Not selling M rated games to minors wouldn't hurt M rated game sales. Most stores won't sell to them as is. Laws like this are really just for show.

Now, I don't really care one way or the other about these types of laws--I just don't see a huge 1st amendment issue here. The first amendment gives people freedom of expression and speech, not freedom for stores to sell stuff to people of every age. No one's speech is being restricted in any way. No one is being forced not to make certain games etc. I don't see anyone's first amendment rights being infringed on here.[/QUOTE]

The counter-argument here is that it would hurt M-rated games. By placing a solid age restriction on M-rated games such that anyone who sells a game to a minor could lead to 1) Less retailers carrying M-rated games, just for ease of the sale or to minimize penalties, and/or 2) Game Developers will start watering down games to reach a broader audience/avoid the M-rating. #2 has been in the movie industry and R-rating enforcement, as evidence by Live Free or Die Hard getting edited to be less profane in effort to get a PG-13 rating.

Either way you slice it, it's not hard to believe that a selling to Minors penalty may lead to fewer M-Rated games being made. So, while it may not be directly saying "don't make m-rated games", market type stuff may.
 
[quote name='infinitepez']The counter-argument here is that it would hurt M-rated games. By placing a solid age restriction on M-rated games such that anyone who sells a game to a minor could lead to 1) Less retailers carrying M-rated games, just for ease of the sale or to minimize penalties, and/or 2) Game Developers will start watering down games to reach a broader audience/avoid the M-rating. #2 has been in the movie industry and R-rating enforcement, as evidence by Live Free or Die Hard getting edited to be less profane in effort to get a PG-13 rating.

Either way you slice it, it's not hard to believe that a selling to Minors penalty may lead to fewer M-Rated games being made. So, while it may not be directly saying "don't make m-rated games", market type stuff may.[/QUOTE]

I see that.

It's just still not a first amendment issue. It's not censorship by the government. It's publishers deciding they can make more money by not having an R rating or an M rating. So while that could suck, it's not government censorship and thus not a 1st amendment violation.

I don't think you'd see it much with games though. Most people buying a lot of games are 17 or older anyway, and from all the 12 year olds on live it's clear that tons of parents have no problems buying M rated games like Halo 3 or CoD4 for kids anyway.

Movies are different as a lot of people under 17 do go to the movies by themselves a lot and can't get into R rated movies. It's easier to get a parent to buy a game for them, than to go to the movies with them and their friends/date etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Like I said above, clearly their are better reasons for having age restrictions on alcohol etc.

But that doesn't change the fact that age restrictions don't trample on people's first amendment rights. Again no one's fucking speech is being infringed on. They can make whatever they want. Stores just can't sell it directly to minors (under these laws). Most stores already don't sell it directly to minors as is. I just can't see a constitution issue here.

The only issue I see is with the Adults Only rating, since stores refuse to stock AO games, the console makers won't license AO games etc. There is a constitutional issue as people pretty much can't make AO games--unless they make them for PC.

Resticting sells of games to minors doesn't limit what type of games people can make at all. There are plenty of adult gamers, and minors can have their parents buy it for them if their parents are ok with it.[/QUOTE]

So as long as you can make whatever game you want then restrictions on selling the game don't really matter?
 
[quote name='mkg12']So as long as you can make whatever game you want then restrictions on selling the game don't really matter?[/QUOTE]

Not in terms of first amendment rights and just limiting it's sales to people 17 and over.

Everyone 17 and over can buy it, those under 17 can have an adult buy it for them. No one's freedom of speech/expression is being restricted.

It's murky when you have something like AO ratings and most stores refusing to carry them and especially the console makers refusing to allow such games on their consoles.

But even that's not a constitutional issue as it's not the government or a governmental agency banning the games from the consoles--it's the companies who own and product the consoles. Private companies can limit speech, what can be on their systems etc. all they want. The 1st amendment only deals with censorship by the government.
 
[quote name='Cao Cao']...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.[/quote]

Government shouldn't have to bail out someone who took out a loan above their means. I feel it is a waste of goverment resources to try and bail out all these loans. People need to pay the price of not paying back the money they borrowed. On the same note, the Mortgage industry shouldn't have loaned money to people who couldn't really afford it. Both sides did it to themselves.

They won't loose any sales of M-rated games. Several stores enforce it now as policy but you still get the 8-year-olds on GTA acting immature and annoying. That's not going to stop with any new legislation.
 
Here's my solution.

Games are programs. They can alter their content on the fly. Allow games to read in the rating-limitations of any console they're loaded onto, and allow games to edit their content appropriately. So, if a game programmed to make use of this that was rated M was loaded on a T-or-lower machine, the game could remove blood/drug/alcohol/sex as needed, so that it would effectively be a T-rated game. Sure, may be a little harder on developers, but the ability to penetrate a large portion of the market would be worth it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's just placing an age restriction on who can buy M rated games, just like we have age restirctions on pornography.[/QUOTE]

It's "just" violating the Constitution. Just because they aren't saying "no violent games for ANYONE" doesn't mean it's ok.

Pornography and video games are not equal in the eyes of the law. You can't regulate them the same way.

Here are two cases which clearly explain how this is a first amendment issue and why laws like this run afoul of it.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/kendrick.html

http://www.mediacoalition.org/legal/idsa/index.htm
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']It's "just" violating the Constitution. Just because they aren't saying "no violent games for ANYONE" doesn't mean it's ok.
[/QUOTE]

It's not violating the constitution IMO. The 1st amendment deals with your own speech and your own expression. The government can't limit that. They can't tell people not to make violent games, porn, R rated movies, NC-17 rated movies etc. Rulings that such things do violate first amendment are poor rulings that are stretching the intent of that amendment too far IMO. And it's hard to make to much of these state court rulings--it really needs to make it to the US Supreme Court level for us to really see if these fit 1st amendment violations. I'd suspect the case of limiting sales of games to minors would not get struck down.


It may not be "ok" in your eyes, but it doesn't violate the constitution IMO as no one's speech or expression is being limited.

I don't see what the issue is here, other than for whiny minors who's parents won't buy M rated games for them. And there's probably a lot here given the shitty quality of posts, all the posts about high school etc.

Speaking of age limits, I'd love to find a game forum with minimum age requirement of around 25! :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But they can limit the sell of it to minors.[/QUOTE]

They can limit the sale of pornography to minors. They cannot limit the sale of violent media to minors.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']They can limit the sale of pornography to minors. They cannot limit the sale of violent media to minors.[/QUOTE]

They certainly can. You just don't think the can. Like I edited my post, the US supreme court has not ruled the latter. And even the state cases you listed were a bit different, since they involved essentially arcades, game playing in public etc.--businesses that would probably close if the rules were put in place. Game sales in stores wouldn't have that barrier to over come since most stores already ID for M rated games.

It's the same concept. Limiting the sale of something deemed inappropriate to minors to people over a certain age.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me as I could more easily by violent material having negative effects on kids than I can sexual material (obviously excluding violent porn).

I personally don't think either have wide spread negative effects. The point is if you can ban the sells of porn to minors and not be violating the constitution, the same can be easily applied to violent games, R rated movies etc.

It just needs to come before the SCROTUS, and I'd think the would not strike down a state law limiting M rated game sales to minors.

Again, I just don't see the issue, other than for our 17 and under CAGs. When you guys get older maybe you'll look at it differently. I'm sure I'd have thought differently about it when I was much younger than I am now.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']They certainly can. You just don't think the can. Like I edited my post, the US supreme court has not ruled the latter.[/quote]

No, they really can't. The reason the Supreme Court has never said so is because they already agree with the rulings that they can't, and unless some renegade circuit rules otherwise there is no reason for them to hear such a case.


And even the state cases you listed were a bit different, since they involved essentially arcades, game playing in public etc.--businesses that would probably close if the rules were put in place. Game sales in stores wouldn't have that barrier to over come since most stores already ID for M rated games.
Click to expand...

Those are just the original cases. They have been cited to overturn exactly the other kinds of laws.


Seems perfectly reasonable to me as I could more easily by violent material having negative effects on kids than I can sexual material (obviously excluding violent porn).
Click to expand...

You didn't even read what I posted then, because the Eighth Circuit was wholly unimpressed with the "it COULD have an effect" argument and said the complete lack of hard evidence was a big reason why such laws are unconstitutional.

I personally don't think either have wide spread negative effects. The point is if you can ban the sells of porn to minors and not be violating the constitution, the same can be easily applied to violent games, R rated movies etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah you definitely didn't read what I posted, because the court also said that the reasoning behind banning porn sales to minors cannot in any way apply to doing the same with video games.

It just needs to come before the SCROTUS, and I'd think the would not strike down a state law limiting M rated game sales to minors.
Click to expand...

You are 100% wrong. If the Supreme Court wanted to overturn this, they would have done so already. They let the Circuit Court rulings stand because they agreed with them.

Again, I just don't see the issue, other than for our 17 and under CAGs. When you guys get older maybe you'll look at it differently. I'm sure I'd have thought differently about it when I was much younger than I am now.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the government isn't allowed to do things the Constitution says it's not.
 
I think there should be new ratings--maybe MORE ratings by the ESRB.
We all can agree that a game like Halo isn't a big deal in terms of that M rating it has.. but games like GTA are probably borderline that "Ao" rating.

But whatever. I'm for them trying to prevent kids from buying M rated games..this way, when a school shooting happens and they wanna blame video games we can say "WELLLLL PARENTS! WHY DID JIMMY HAVE THIS GAME? :whistle2:k". Realistically, that will never happen.. but still
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']No, they really can't. The reason the Supreme Court has never said so is because they already agree with the rulings that they can't, and unless some renegade circuit rules otherwise there is no reason for them to hear such a case.
[/quote]

Maybe, but the cases you link to do deal with different things than stores selling M rated software to minors. Maybe other cases are out there.

All I can say is I'd be surprised if the supreme court struck down such a law and I'd be very opposed to the ruling. Limiting sales to minor is in not limiting expression or speech--developers can make whatever they want. Buying a game does not equal any kind of expression.


You didn't even read what I posted then, because the Eighth Circuit was wholly unimpressed with the "it COULD have an effect" argument and said the complete lack of hard evidence was a big reason why such laws are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that porn has negative effects? Just another example of our dumbass countries ass backwards views on sex and violence.

You are 100% wrong. If the Supreme Court wanted to overturn this, they would have done so already. They let the Circuit Court rulings stand because they agreed with them.
Click to expand...

They didn't feel a need to get involved. That doesn't mean they'd rule differently if a state passes a law like this, and the case comes before them with someone challenging that a law limiting sales to minors is unconstitutional. There's no way to know what would happen.

The issue is that the government isn't allowed to do things the Constitution says it's not.
Click to expand...

We're just going to go in circle's here because you think it's unconstitutional (probably because you're in high school and would be affected by the law) and I don't think it's unconstitutional to limit sales to minors.

We'll just have to agree to disagree--that's the nature of consitutional issues. Even among the Supreme Court Justices--take today's 5-4 ruling banning the use of the death penalty for child rapists.

Constitutional issues aren't black and white, it's applying a crappy, vague 200+ year old document to modern society. There's always going to be a lot of arguing over how to apply various clauses to certain issues.

I don't see limiting sales of products to certain ages as in any way violating the free speech/expression clause. You do. We'll just have to drop it. I spend way to much time arguing with people on this site who are young, stubborn and think they know it all!

[quote name='lilboo']I think there should be new ratings--maybe MORE ratings by the ESRB.
We all can agree that a game like Halo isn't a big deal in terms of that M rating it has.. but games like GTA are probably borderline that "Ao" rating.

But whatever. I'm for them trying to prevent kids from buying M rated games..this way, when a school shooting happens and they wanna blame video games we can say "WELLLLL PARENTS! WHY DID JIMMY HAVE THIS GAME? :whistle2:k". Realistically, that will never happen.. but still[/QUOTE]


Totally, they need more ratings since they can't use AO. And enforcing the ratings is just good news for gamers as it puts responsibility 100% back on parents. Parents have no excuses then.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Again, I just don't see the issue, other than for our 17 and under CAGs. When you guys get older maybe you'll look at it differently. I'm sure I'd have thought differently about it when I was much younger than I am now.[/quote]

I am almost 28, but that doesn't stop me from caring.
 
Looks like most of us are over the 17 year-old range anyway...which is why I guess most don't care about this happening.

I find it a little annoying, if not a bit unfair. Games should be treated the same way the system for movies and music are; a teen or younger could potentially buy an R rated movie with no problems (unless the store itself doesn't allow this).

To pass this on the games industry shows how little they value it as a medium. Apparently, we're still mostly children. :eyeroll:
 
Hey people, don't care about something unless it directly and obviously will affect you. If you do care, then you probably are among the directly affected group. Correct, Dmaul1114?
 
[quote name='Rig']Looks like most of us are over the 17 year-old range anyway...which is why I guess most don't care about this happening.

I find it a little annoying, if not a bit unfair. Games should be treated the same way the system for movies and music are; a teen or younger could potentially buy an R rated movie with no problems (unless the store itself doesn't allow this).

To pass this on the games industry shows how little they value it as a medium. Apparently, we're still mostly children. :eyeroll:[/QUOTE]

I agree with that. Minors shouldn't be able to buy R rated movies or M rated games. Though again I'm not sure we need an unenforceable law to do this, pretty much all the major stores have policies of not selling to minors already.

I just don't think such a law should be deemed unconstitutional.


[quote name='mkg12']Hey people, don't care about something unless it directly and obviously will affect you. If you do care, then you probably are among the directly affected group. Correct, Dmaul1114?[/QUOTE]

I was just being facetious with that as I was getting annoyed at the back and forth and as usual questioning why I waste any time on this fucking site.

Anyway, people should care if rights are being infringed on. But it takes damn, fucking broad reading for the first amendment to think rights are being infringed on if these types of things became laws rather than just store policies.

People could still make any game they wanted, and they could still get it in anyone's hands. Just if a person is under 17 someone else has to buy it for them. I just personally don't see any infringements on first amendment rights there. It's just a hassle for people under 17 who have money to buy a game themselves. That's all IMO.

People should care about their rights, but some people are just way too fucking sensitive to any minor, perceived infringement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top