PDA

View Full Version : The ESA Strikes Back


Dillgaar
06-07-2006, 01:39 PM
1820After the passage of a bill in Minnesota (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9390), imposing a fine against underage video game purchasers if they are caught purchasing a Mature or Adults Only video game, The Entertainment Software Association felt compelled to push back.

Citing the law as unconstitutional, the ESA has filed a lawsuit with the Minnesota Federal District Court to have the law overturned.

If you ask me, retailers are the ones who need to be scrutinized for selling these types of games to minors. If it says M or AO then CHECK THEIR ID!

While I go off and have an aneurism, why don't you read more about the lawsuit (http://www.theesa.com/archives/2006/06/video_industry_1.php).

Razorwire
06-07-2006, 02:02 PM
That is horrid. Fining kids like that.

armsakimbo
06-07-2006, 02:22 PM
That is horrid. Fining kids like that.
Horrid? LOL. You're kidding, right?

What it really is, is pure political posturing. That law is unenforceable in practice, are you gonna post a cop outside every retailer who sells video games? The hypocritical jerks who pushed that crap through the state legislature are just trying to capitalize on the disgust a lot of voters feel towards the video game industry. It's a crying shame those voters aren't bright enough to be even more disgusted by their elected representatives.

If they were serious about this they would fine retailers, as they do for cigarette and alcohol sales to minors, and law enforcement could run sting operations to encourage compliance. This whole thing smells of the rankest political opportunism. The law was carefully crafted to have no effect whatsoever on video game sales even if it isn't erased by a lawsuit. (After all, retailers have money and political action committees, gotta be careful not to anger somebody who might be able to get your self-serving hypocritical ass thrown out of office.)

This thing is almost as embarassing as the time we elected a pro wrestler governor.

Vengeful
06-07-2006, 02:47 PM
Booooo Jack Thompson.

Dillgaar
06-07-2006, 02:50 PM
I think they need to do what they do in the case of buying cigarettes and alcohol.

Companies that want to sell M and AO rated video games need to get a license... the Distributors will not sell these games to anyone without a license.

Once you have a license you will have to make sure you don't mess up or get the license revoked.

Have the cops do what they do with cigarette and alcohol busts where they send a kid in who is obviously too young for a game to try to buy it. If they sell it to the kid then write the store a ticket, suspend their license, fine them, etc etc etc whatever just make sure they know better not to do that kind of stuff.

Is it a perfect soluction? Not really... there may possibly be some issues with some of the retailers not wanting the hassle of a license or somethign to that effect to be able to carry product they currently carry but if the games get popular and they want the sales they will do what they have to to maintain their customer base. I doubt if retailers would drop the games alltogether because of this. Then all of those people who are so worried about video games corrupting the youth of america can relax knowing that their children are safe thanks to the measures put in place to prevent them from acquiring these types of games.

Just like cigarettes and Alcohol, people will find a way if they HAVE to hav the game so one way or another they will get it no matter what stupid laws are in place. It is just up to the parents and the retailers to make sure they follow the rules and let the kids be responsibile for their own problems.

Vengeful
06-07-2006, 03:18 PM
I think they need to do what they do in the case of buying cigarettes and alcohol.

Companies that want to sell M and AO rated video games need to get a license... the Distributors will not sell these games to anyone without a license.

Once you have a license you will have to make sure you don't mess up or get the license revoked.

Have the cops do what they do with cigarette and alcohol busts where they send a kid in who is obviously too young for a game to try to buy it. If they sell it to the kid then write the store a ticket, suspend their license, fine them, etc etc etc whatever just make sure they know better not to do that kind of stuff.

Is it a perfect soluction? Not really... there may possibly be some issues with some of the retailers not wanting the hassle of a license or somethign to that effect to be able to carry product they currently carry but if the games get popular and they want the sales they will do what they have to to maintain their customer base. I doubt if retailers would drop the games alltogether because of this. Then all of those people who are so worried about video games corrupting the youth of america can relax knowing that their children are safe thanks to the measures put in place to prevent them from acquiring these types of games.

Just like cigarettes and Alcohol, people will find a way if they HAVE to hav the game so one way or another they will get it no matter what stupid laws are in place. It is just up to the parents and the retailers to make sure they follow the rules and let the kids be responsibile for their own problems.


My problems with this:

Video Games aren't hazardous to your health, which is why it's illegal for ciggaretts to be sold to minors.

Are there laws like this about R Rated Films? o.O Does Wal-mart need a license to sell Bad Santa?

Dillgaar
06-07-2006, 03:27 PM
It's about age restriction and responsibility. It's the reason why people under the age of 21 aren't able to buy alcohol and I'm sure the same thinking is why you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes. It is imposed responsibility. It isn't a health issue. Renting or buying an R movie isn't a health issue and yet if you are under 18 you can be barred from seeing an R rated movie.

All of these restrictions are nothing more than trying to keep more mature content/vices away from minors. Why do you think you have to be 16 to get a drivers license? Or 18 to get a Checking Account or Credit Card?

Again, none of this is for health purposes, it is just American society enforcing imposed responsibility on itself to help the betterment of the next generation.

Vengeful
06-07-2006, 05:03 PM
It's about age restriction and responsibility. It's the reason why people under the age of 21 aren't able to buy alcohol and I'm sure the same thinking is why you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes. It is imposed responsibility. It isn't a health issue. Renting or buying an R movie isn't a health issue and yet if you are under 18 you can be barred from seeing an R rated movie.

All of these restrictions are nothing more than trying to keep more mature content/vices away from minors. Why do you think you have to be 16 to get a drivers license? Or 18 to get a Checking Account or Credit Card?

Again, none of this is for health purposes, it is just American society enforcing imposed responsibility on itself to help the betterment of the next generation.

No doubt. Responsibility is the issue, I suppose I just have trouble assigning "Film watching" and "Gaming" some sort of "Responsibility" attatchment. These things, to me, are discussions and decisions that need to be made in the living room and not in the courts.

Ciggarettes, Driving, Alchohol, and Credit Cards all carry responsibility, risk, and whatnot. We can see this... but it's still up for debate whether gaming or other entertainment has a direct -=NEGATIVE=- effect in the hands of a minor. It's just too close to censorship for my liking, and the law appears to be more of 'Voiced Disapproval'/'Boo!, Video Games!' than anything meant to help our society.

Razorwire
06-07-2006, 06:06 PM
You know I have to agree with the arguement that a video game is not a cigarette, it's not a car, it's not a credit card, it's not porn, it's not alcohol, and it definately isn't a gun.

Don't get me wrong I don't think kids should be playing GTA but seriously.

Vengeful
06-07-2006, 06:34 PM
You know I have to agree with the arguement that a video game is not a cigarette, it's not a car, it's not a credit card, it's not porn, it's not alcohol, and it definately isn't a gun.

Don't get me wrong I don't think kids should be playing GTA but seriously.

Yeah... but then, I've always sorta had a problem with assigning an age to maturity anways. In my experience (and I know damn well in everyone elses too) maturity is often a case by case issue.

khatib
06-07-2006, 08:19 PM
This thing is almost as embarassing as the time we elected a pro wrestler governor.

Hey, I loved Ventura as our governer. He was non-partisan and only out for the good of the state. As a non career politician, he didn't maybe always now how to CYA himself with his comments and sometimes his actions weren't the best, but at least he was open and honest and did what he could to help out the people of the state instead of looking out for the politicians before the people.

khatib
06-07-2006, 08:22 PM
As to the rest of it all, they need to make a law that says shitty parents need to pull their heads out of their asses and pay attention to their kids and what games they're playing, movies they're watching, the friends they hang out with, and which drugs and what type of sex they're trying to do and have.

Then we wouldn't have to blame someone who's making an adult product for having children get ahold of it. Quit blaming the companies and the product and blame the people who are supposed to be responsible, the parents.

Kids don't play games they aren't supposed to, parents let them.

Malbolgia
06-07-2006, 10:08 PM
Video games are art. Art is protected by the first amendment. This is a violation of the first amendment. What else needs to be said?

This kind of law has already been over turned by the supreme court more than once. It will not stand.

:brownie:

Malbolgia
06-07-2006, 10:09 PM
Kids don't play games they aren't supposed to, parents let them.

/cheer

Nargroth
06-08-2006, 02:42 AM
If a kid buys a pack of cigarettes from a store, then comes home and smokes them, should parents react? Yes of course, they should take action against their kid, and against the person who sold them the pack.

If a kid buys an Adult rated video game, then comes home and plays it, should parents react? Yes, in same way as above. If they just let the kid play the game, then they have nothing to say to the retailer that sold them the game either. It's as much a responsibility for parents to watch their kids, as it is for a retailer to demand ID on adult/age limited merchandise. Wether it is a pack of cigs, a six pack of beer or a computer game.

You say the game isn't as dangerous as cigs, beer or porn, shouldn't you then actively work on getting age restrictions or adult ratings removed from games? Let anyone, any age, play them then. If you want the rating on the games, and at the same time say that hey, they aren't all that bad, so lets just ignore the rating on games, then you are just two-faced, and nothing else.

Razorwire
06-08-2006, 04:35 AM
You say the game isn't as dangerous as cigs, beer or porn, shouldn't you then actively work on getting age restrictions or adult ratings removed from games? Let anyone, any age, play them then. If you want the rating on the games, and at the same time say that hey, they aren't all that bad, so lets just ignore the rating on games, then you are just two-faced, and nothing else.
No, we shouldn't be getting the age rating removed from the games. the ESRB ratings are a valuable set of standards that parents like myself can use to judge a game's content vs what I think my kids are able to handle/what I think they should be allowed to play.

But, like a movie (for the most part) a game isn't harmful to the audience. Unlike a gun you can't kill someone with it. Unlike a cigarette you can't get cancer from it. Unlike a beer it will not cause liver failure.

I think Adult Only video games may need the controls on them, not up to the levels of porn (depending on the title) but the mature games should be treated the same as an R rated movie.

Dillgaar
06-08-2006, 11:32 AM
But, like a movie (for the most part) a game isn't harmful to the audience. Unlike a gun you can't kill someone with it. Unlike a cigarette you can't get cancer from it. Unlike a beer it will not cause liver failure.


DING DING DING we have a winner!!!

We all know this to be fact but what about the folks out there right now trying to sue or claim that video games cause violence? The same happened with TV shows and movies and led to the tv rating system (You know the TV 17, TV G, TV MA, etc etc etc ratings you see on shows) but the quality of television never changed theres still as much violence and sex as ever. Even though the Parents Television Council claimed victory.

The same thing will happen to video games... they will push and push and push until something completely irrelevant kicks in at which point they will stand up and cheer that they have one a victory for the moral consciousness of america when in fact they have done absolutely nothing but waste the courts time and americas money.

I threw the suggestion of licensing and such out there due to the pure absurdity of what is going on right now in terms of game law suits. Why not create a licensing program? It will do as much (or little) as their current efforts and maybe even expediate the process of them claiming their little victory so they will move on to the next immoral issue in america.

Snake
06-09-2006, 03:41 AM
However, Johnson, who's running for attorney general, indicated that as he is not trying to criminalize video games, such offenses would not go on the child's record.

Aww...and i could see it now in the kids future.

Interviewer: So i see you have a criminal record, care to explain what happened?

Future Kid: Umm..i bought a videogame..

darkarius
06-14-2006, 05:31 AM
That is horrid. Fining kids like that.

I don't think so, If a kid decides to run out into the street without looking or paying attention the fault is not on the driver and depending on the distance the outcome isn't either.

The parents are first in line, then the kids ( depending apon the age ) and third is the outside party. In this case I do believe the retailer should carry some responsibility since they in effect can help to prevent this situation but kids being held resposible for their actions teaches them Responsibility so I see no problem with this.

darkarius
06-14-2006, 05:42 AM
DING DING DING we have a winner!!!

We all know this to be fact but what about the folks out there right now trying to sue or claim that video games cause violence? The same happened with TV shows and movies and led to the tv rating system (You know the TV 17, TV G, TV MA, etc etc etc ratings you see on shows) but the quality of television never changed theres still as much violence and sex as ever. Even though the Parents Television Council claimed victory.

The same thing will happen to video games... they will push and push and push until something completely irrelevant kicks in at which point they will stand up and cheer that they have one a victory for the moral consciousness of america when in fact they have done absolutely nothing but waste the courts time and americas money.

I threw the suggestion of licensing and such out there due to the pure absurdity of what is going on right now in terms of game law suits. Why not create a licensing program? It will do as much (or little) as their current efforts and maybe even expediate the process of them claiming their little victory so they will move on to the next immoral issue in america.

Bottom line is the parents have to be more active in censoring their childrens content. This is different then what you are arguing though the rating system never fined anyone for buying a ticket.

A good analogy would be you have a speed limit sign but no cop to enforce it. Having a rating system with no punishment is just as ineffective. The move we are reading about now no matter how cotroversial is a move to have a literal impact and to detour this action.

And sense this is not supposed to happen anyways WHY is there a problem with penalizing someone for something they should not do?

I know, I know someone is gonna give me this is a free country speech, well my belief is there is no freedom without responsibility. Thats how it goes in my house, when you can feed, clothe and supply your own room and board, then the choice is yours to make but as long as I am resposible for your welfare your choices are mine to make.

Razorwire
06-15-2006, 03:12 AM
I don't think so, If a kid decides to run out into the street without looking or paying attention the fault is not on the driver and depending on the distance the outcome isn't either.

The parents are first in line, then the kids ( depending apon the age ) and third is the outside party. In this case I do believe the retailer should carry some responsibility since they in effect can help to prevent this situation but kids being held resposible for their actions teaches them Responsibility so I see no problem with this.
You don't fine kids for trying to buy cigarettes, alcohol or porn. You just tell them no and get out of the store.

Lord_Vyper
06-15-2006, 03:33 AM
You don't fine kids for trying to buy cigarettes, alcohol or porn. You just tell them no and get out of the store.
And laugh at them for trying.

reefus88
06-15-2006, 11:01 AM
You don't fine kids for trying to buy cigarettes, alcohol or porn. You just tell them no and get out of the store.

actually, you can be fined or even arrested for trying to buy alcohol illegally, it's just not enforced.