NY Governor Pursues Violent Game Legislation

26
Hot on the heels of Louisiana taxpayers shelling out $91K due to an unconstitutional limitation of video game sales, New York governor Eliot Spitzer (D) seeks to ban retailers from renting or selling violent video games to minors. Spitzer first mentioned the policy during his 2006 campaign for office and plans to elaborate upon it in a speech to be delivered today.

"It is now pretty well established that certain types of videos and images have an effect on behavior," said Spitzer, who noted his intention to target violent and degrading games. Under the plan, retailers would face fines if they sold or rented such games to minors.

The most important aspect of the proposal, the criteria for what constitutes a violent video game, remains unknown. Past efforts to ban the sales of violent video games to minors have been deemed unconstitutional due to their overly broad definitions of unsuitable material. For example, any game that "the average person...would find...appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence" or "lacks serious literacy, artistic, political or scientific value for minors" was considered inappropriate under a repealed Louisiana state law, with bills in Utah and Oklahoma sharing similar language. Should Spitzer's policy rely on a more empirical set of guidelines, such as the Entertainment Software Rating Board labels displayed on the front of every video game, it could fare better than previous legislation.

Chris Faylor was previously a games journalist creating content at Shacknews.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    April 20, 2007 12:24 PM

    *smacks forehead*

    • reply
      April 20, 2007 12:33 PM

      I'm not against this so long as it includes the same rules for movies "Parent/Guardian" permission/present. Bluntly, it puts games on the same table as movies. It also blatantly points the need for supervision to a parent. I'm all for that.

      • reply
        April 20, 2007 12:59 PM

        Actually, it doesn't put them on the same level as movies. Movie restrictions are only enforced by theaters and retailers.

        • reply
          April 20, 2007 1:10 PM

          How is his proposal different than that? I didn't see it up there. Maybe I glanced over it.

          • reply
            April 20, 2007 1:13 PM

            There's no penalty for a theater that allows an under-age person to attend an 'R' rated film- there's no actual 'law' regarding it at all...

            • reply
              April 20, 2007 1:17 PM

              I see. The cops/security that'd escort the kids out are doing so on behalf of management's wishes or something. It makes sense.

              If they do pass something like this, it should be unilateral for "media". That'd be a bigger issue. Is some dark Owellian future, parents have to use a swip-card noting they permitted their kid to view/watch whatever. ::shudder::

              • reply
                April 20, 2007 1:27 PM

                cops security, maybe. There's not one cop in my town who could be bothered to take time out to respond to a movie-theater calling in about ejecting underage kids from their venue- he'd just tell them to have their own (or the mall's) security guards handle it.

                • reply
                  April 20, 2007 3:41 PM

                  The cops were mall security for a while out here. No idea why at the time. It was 20 or so years ago though.

                  • reply
                    April 20, 2007 9:52 PM

                    Sometimes off-duty cops will work security jobs if the local laws/policy allows. Ditto for retired cops. Also, sometimes you'll have a Sheriff's office or the like in the mall to keep an eye on things.

                    Except in those cases, the police aren't going to care about teenagers trying to get into an R-rated movie unless they're being stupid enough that security can't handle that. And in that situation, I'd say someone is going to the lockup for a while.

          • reply
            April 20, 2007 1:13 PM

            [deleted]

        • reply
          April 20, 2007 1:11 PM

          That's my problem with all of these legal shenanigans- the politicians always try to elevate video games to some 'more dangerous than movies or TV, or music, or live theatre, or fricken cave paintings' level because they're supposedly more 'engaging' or some bullshit...

          -and the legal approach never works anyway, because it's fucking unconstitutional, ya dumbasses... but hey! we get to waste some more tax-payers' cash on another dog-and-pony show that goes nowhere.

          le sigh...

Hello, Meet Lola