game-bill
Latest
Veto override for Utah game bill still possible, improbable
Utah-based newspaper Deseret News recently ran a piece about the extraordinary measures Utah state legislators would need to take to resuscitate HB 353, which enforces strict penalties on retailers who sell M-rated games to minors, following Gov. Jon Huntsman's somewhat unexpected veto. The paper claims "legislative sources" are reporting neither the Utah House nor Senate have the votes to reach the two-thirds majority to override the veto -- though this may end up being the smaller of two hurdles supporters of the bill will need to clear.The larger obstacle standing in the way of HB 353's sponsors is cold, hard cash. Earlier this year, the legislature canceled an "interim study day," effectively saving the state $25,000. In order to call a legislative override session, the state would essentially spend the funds they saved due to the cancellation. Hopefully, they have the good sense to just let the thing die -- on the off chance that they should manage to pass the bill once more, they'll almost certainly be paying more than $25,000 to the ESA for legal fee reimbursement.[Via GamePolitics]
GamePolitics speaks with federal game bill sponsor, ESA deems bill unconstitutional
GamePolitics has an interview with Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb), one of the congressmen, along with Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), attempting to pass a federal law forcing retailers to check IDs before selling M- and AO-rated games. One of the better moments in the interview is when GP asks Rep. Terry what game he was talking about when he stated there are titles players could score point for virtual rape. Terry responded, "That's a good question. I don't know of any [specific games] offhand... I just used the rape, pillage and plunder line..."The ESA has publicly come out against the bill, with CEO Mike Gallagher saying that the bill is unconstitutional. He states the ESA shares the representatives' goals of "ensuring children are playing parent-approved computer and video games," but points out that all consoles now have parental settings which can be used to make sure kids play only the games their parents allow.
Minnesota game law's only recourse is Supreme Court
GamePolitics reports that the 8th Circuit Court has declined an "en banc" review of the Minnesota "fine the buyer" video game law, meaning the only place left to run for the currently unconstitutional law is the Supreme Court of the United States. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson hasn't said whether she'd go that far, but if she does pursue it and the justices decided to hear arguments, it would be the first time the Supreme Court dealt with a video game law case .With the United States Supreme Court's current makeup, a game law case could go pretty badly for the industry. Justice Antonin Scalia has said if a game law banning the sale of mature-rated games to minors ever made it to the docket he would affirm it, but that's not what the Minnesota law is about. The question before the court would be whether Minnesota would have the right to fine a minor $25 for attempting to buy an M- or AO-rated title.
Mass. legislators considering 'games-as-porn' bill
Tomorrow the Massachusetts legislature will discuss a bill that would make it illegal for minors to buy video games deemed too violent by the state (not through ESRB ratings such as M or AO). No similar law exists for movies, music or books. House Bill 1423 is dubbed a "games-as-porn" bill because the rationale used to prevent minors from buying violent video games is the same used on porn. The original bill was drafted by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino (pictured) with assistance from Jack Thompson and legislative sponsor Rep. Linda Dorcena Forry (D).GamePolitics points out HB1423 is based on a failed Utah bill and, given the history of other similar bills, it seems odd that Massachusetts would potentially be putting itself (and taxpayer dollars) at risk of repaying the ESA for fighting this bill in court.
Failed Louisiana video game bill sponsor speaks out
Following an embarrassing defeat of his unconstitutional video game bill, Louisiana Rep. Roy Burrell (D) wrote an op-ed piece in this morning's Shreveport Times. The newspaper had previously criticized him and it seemed he was attempting to explain himself. The naive representative worked with Jack Thompson to pen the bill that would not only eventually get defeated, but would force Louisiana taxpayers to pony up the $100,000 in legal fees to the ESA for wasting their time fighting the bill. From the op-ed piece Burrell still doesn't quite get what's wrong.Burrell (pictured with Jack Thompson) writes, "I am offended The Times and one federal judge would question state legislators' commitment, integrity and legal knowledge because of a controversial constitutional court ruling on the protection of the First Amendment Right of free speech. Like me, during the legislative process, legislators never knew they would vote unanimously on HB 1381, only to have it struck down by a federal district judge, then publicly criticized by him and the media for doing their legislative duty. This is appalling. Conversely, they should be commended and not humiliated on standing up finally for children and families against the powerful entertainment industry."So, not only was Burrell "humiliated," but he ended up costing taxpayers 100 grand. He says it's worth it if it stops one child from being harmed by "mind-altering harmful ultra-violent video games." Burrell closes saying, "It is difficult for me to ignore the facts that explicitly sexual and ultra-violent video games are severely and adversely affecting our children's behavior." Sorry Roy, no facts, you just got Jack.[Via GamePolitics]
Massachusetts tries Jack Thompson's failed Utah game bill
Massachusetts' legislators have been offered up HB 1423, a game bill which seeks to "restrict the sale of video games wih [sic] violent content to minors." "Harmful to minors" is defined as content describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, "so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors." Section four of the bill is where the civil rights lawyers are going to have a field day. It states a game is harmful to minors if it "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors." That's about as broad as making brush strokes with Mr. Fantastic's super powers.Why does this all seem oddly familiar? This bill was created with the assistance of Jack Thompson and similar versions were shot down in Utah and deemed unconstitutional in Louisiana. Mayor Thomas Menino, one of the petitioners of the bill, was one of those who pushed through a ban on M rated game advertisements on the subway and got very upset during the infamous Aqua Teen Hunger Force bomb incident. Hopefully this bill will die somewhere along the path, because we're sure the citizens of Massachusetts aren't looking to pay back the ESA when this bill is deemed unconstitutional in the courts ... again.
Oregon attempts game bill because Timmy broke Mary's arm
GamePolitics reports the Oregon House of Reps. is trying to blaze new trails by introducing a law making it unlawful to sell "ultra-violent" video games to people of the great state under 18 years of age. The bill was introduced by Rep. Arnie Roblan (D) and has no provision on what punishment would be given for those breaking the law, it also grants exception for parents who choose to purchase the game for their child. So, what's the point of this thing again?Anyway, best part of the bill is the definition of "ultra-violent." The bill states, "'Ultra-violent video game' means a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." So, killing an alien, smearing its blood all over your avatar and then eating its entrails would be fine -- it's not a "human." That's quite speciesist, I hope the great state of Oregon has an excuse set up when the aliens arrive.
Senator Brownback brings back game bill
Presidential hopeful, Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback, has re-introduced a bill that would require the ESRB play every game, all the way through, before assigning a rating. Every nook and cranny of that Thomas' English gaming muffin would have to be explored before slapping a rating on the title.Feel that generation gap widening? This all goes back to our own issues of not being able to finish games. Forget good games, what about having to finish the bad ones? The very idea of playing a game all the way through before assigning a rating shows how completely out-of-touch the Truth in Video Game Rating Act is. Will Brownback explain on the campaign trail the tax hike required to fund the army necessary to ferret out all the info from these games? The bill would also require the Government Accountability Office to the study the effectiveness of the ESRB and evaluate the potential for an independent system not involved with the video game industry. Imagine if the ESRB said they just couldn't afford the manpower required. The U.S. government would have to make the Department of Video Game Rating Security.
Utah game bill halted for now
The Public Utilities and Technology Committee of Utah's House of Representatives placed Rep. Scott Wyatt's video game bill on hold. Wyatt's bill is another in a long list of "games-as-porn" bills, "protecting children from video game violence." The bill has been on shaky ground since Utah's Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he had serious concerns about the constitutionality of the bill, which is similar to others that have been dismissed.Attorney Jack Thompson, who helped write the bill, is sure to send a press release out soon. Thompson and Attorney General Shurtleff have been butting heads for the last couple of weeks over the constitutionality of the proposed legislation. For those interested in listening to the committee hearing, there is an audio recording available at GamePolitics. Just to give a basic idea of what's in this bill, it's worth listening to the audio recording. For example, if a child is in the room when an M rated game is being shown it is a "third-degree felony," subject to a fine "of not less than $300" and "not less than 14 days" of incarceration. Yeah, that sounds like a constitutional law.
