State of Florida Enacts Violent Videogames Bill

[fitbabits]

Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) has posted the following news (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1457&Itemid=2) on the State of Florida enacting a violent videogames bill. This one is different in that it also includes arcade games.

SENATE SUMMARY
Prohibits a person from selling or renting a video game to a minor, or allowing a minor to play a video game in a video arcade, if the video game has been labeled as a violent video game. Provides that having requested identification from a person purchasing or renting a video game is an affirmative defense to any action filed under the act. Requires that each violent video game imported into or distributed in this state for retail sale, rental, or playing in a video arcade be labeled in a specified manner. Authorizes an enforcing authority to commence a civil action to seek injunctive relief to restrain or enjoin a person from violating the act or to impose a civil penalty. Provides that a violation of the act is a misdemeanor.
Message to Republican Senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla - there are other, less contentious, ways of getting your face on the television and your name in the news.

[Atorak]

Another one bites the dust.

[Heretic Machine]

Ok, even though this will be struck down later on, I still want to point out an issue here. This law prevents a parent from allowing their child to play an arcade game that the parent sees as being fine for their kid. They can still buy console games for them, but arcade games seem to be right out.

The Constitution is teh suck o.0

[Ernst_Jager]

Goodbye Civil Rights....it was nice while it lasted.

[fitbabits]

My real concern is that it's only a matter of time before one of these Bills is backed by the Supreme Court. Then we can all go back to playing Pong. On the plus side, fanboys will be no more! :)

[CrashCart]

So how exactly do you prevent a child from playing an arcade game that's deemed inappropriate? Are we going to card kids as they come in? Maybe driver's license readers that you have to slot your license into on the machine? Though I don't think the law will hold, I can't wait to hear about the 18 year old arcade attendant getting fined/sued over a kid playing Mortal Kombat 7 (or whatever) in his arcade. Gross negligence, I say!

[BigJonno]

OHMIGODDZ0RZ they're making the PARENTS take responsiblity for what their kids do!!! It's the end of the world as we know it!!!

Seriously, I can't see how stopping kids from playing violent videogames is a bad thing. It's not censorship, it's not a violation of free speech, it's simply stopping some of society's most easily-influenced members getting hold of unsuitable material. It's not a perfect system, but it's not the first sign of the world being taken over by the book-burning, fascist, Nazi pigdogs. The way the situation in the US is going, it looks like it'll be either age ratings or censorship, which would rather have?

We've had legally-enforcable age ratings on movies and videogames for years and have never had any problems. And we don't even have a constitution.

[cppcrusader]

The entire basis that this bill defines a violent videogame is seriously flawed.


1.a. A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors;


Nowhere do they define reasonable, they define person by referencing to another bill, but they don't define reasonable. Hell, by society's standards I'd be considered reasonable, put me in charge of judging the games then.

[Taco]

Same problem as the CA law. It's like trying to define what exactly "obscene means" when defining pornography, 100% opinion. Totally stupid.

[Heretic Machine]

Seriously, I can't see how stopping kids from playing violent videogames is a bad thing. It's not censorship, it's not a violation of free speech, it's simply stopping some of society's most easily-influenced members getting hold of unsuitable material.

Unsuitable? What is unsuitable, and who gets to decide how we define it? America was based around the idea that we should be able to define what is and isn't unsuitable for ourselves, the government should have no role in this.

but it's not the first sign of the world being taken over by the book-burning, fascist, Nazi pigdogs.

Yes, yes it is. Stop selling our civil rights please.

We've had legally-enforcable age ratings on movies and videogames for years and have never had any problems.

No, we haven't, except for porn.

[BigJonno]

Sorry, by "we" I meant "the UK." I should have been clearer.

[Heretic Machine]

Sorry, by "we" I meant "the UK." I should have been clearer.

...Ya, you guys also have a royal family that lives on your tax money and yet serves no purpose. Not exactly the government to parade out for a cause.

[BigJonno]

A royal family that has no actual function in our government, makes us lots of money due to tourists and keeps loads of tabloid "journalists" and photographers in employment. :D

Seriously though, I have no love for the royal family, but they really don't have any say in the way the country is run. They're kinda like your best china, fantastic for big occasions but are best left alone most of the time.

[Heretic Machine]

but they really don't have any say in the way the country is run.

That was my point. They are leeches.

[BigJonno]

Agreed, but what has that got to do with the government? And when did any country start spending money on actual important stuff?

[fitbabits]

That was my point. They are leeches.
Not just any old leeches, though - these are ROYAL leeches.

[Heretic Machine]

Agreed, but what has that got to do with the government? And when did any country start spending money on actual important stuff?

I'm just saying, that simply pointing out a UK law isn't really a convincing argument, since your government obviously has a lot of weird problems. Plus from what I understand it has lead to odd censorship in some games.

[fitbabits]

I'm just saying, that simply pointing out a UK law isn't really a convincing argument, since your government obviously has a lot of weird problems. Plus from what I understand it has lead to odd censorship in some games.
Don't forget that Indigo Prophecy was released uncut in the UK, unlike the neutered North American version.

[netcraazzy]

Back on topic, I live in Florida and am considering writing a letter to my local senator about this. I don't outright hate the law but they did a terrible job of implementing it. What they should have done is say no sale/rental of M rated games to minors. Calling an act "violent" is a matter of opinion and is far too vague to have any business in in this law. Oh noes, did you just see Mario stomp on that koopa, how violent! I'm waiting for somebody to try it.

[BigJonno]

I'm just saying, that simply pointing out a UK law isn't really a convincing argument, since your government obviously has a lot of weird problems. Plus from what I understand it has lead to odd censorship in some games.

As far as I know, the ratings system hasn't led to any censorship in games, that's the point I was making in the first place. We get the same games and, as fitbabits pointed out, we get some games whole when they've been cut in the US. One of the key differences is that the major retail chains in the UK won't refuse to stock an 18 rated game, so publishers are less worried about games with higher age ratings selling poorly.

As for the government, from what I've seen they're not too dissimilar. We both have governments with two parties full of out of touch old white guys having niggly arguements and pissing off a lot of people.

[Taco]

Well technically you could argue the threat of an R rated move has led to "censorship" whenever a movie studio cuts content to get to PG-13.

[Heretic Machine]

Yes Taco, which is a bad thing, but isn't forced on the film by the government. It's internal regulation by the industry itself.

[Klade]

So as near as I can understand if a game is considered violent then it can't be sold to anyone under the age of 18. I wonder what it takes to make a game violent. PG-13 movies are often violent and they don't require that kind of age limit. Hell, R rated movies are violent often times and the suggested age limit is 17 there. This seems to put an even higher standard on video games then the suggested limits to movies.

As for someone elses comment. 'Reasonable' does not need to be defined. It is used so often in legal terminology that its definition exists as part of common usage.

[fitbabits]

Klade - To reinforce your point, SAW II is out today, rater R, and I'll bet it's more graphically violent than 80% of the games released this week. Even the television previews have some poor soul getting shot in the head while looking through a peep hole in a door.

[EternalGamer]

Comparing the violence in different media is not really applicable, in my opinion. Reading about a violent scenario in a book, seeing it in a film, and actually playing it in a game are all very different experiences. Some have argued that the interactivity in games makes the the most in need of scrutiny in terms of the level of content that is acceptable for viewing by minors unauthorized by their parents.

What I don't understand is why all the so called "freedom of speech" advocates are so short sighted to not understand that limiting the sales of these types of games to minors will take the pressure off of developers to allow them to do whatever they damn well please with games that cannot legally be sold to them. There are tons of products we do not allow minors to purchase from guns to tobacoo and alchohol, to pornography. None of these have lead to any type of censorship on the adult consumption of these products, in fact, they have allowed the adult consumption of them to flourish.

In fact, these laws are not even forbidding minors from legally accessing this material, they are just making it so they cannot PURCHASE them, meaning they have to depend upon the consent of their parents or legal guardians (you know, those people that pay for their food and shelter and are legally responsible for everything they do). How is it a bad thing that the person who is legally responsible for you has to authorize whether or not you can saw people in half in a videogame?

Dan

[Heretic Machine]

What I don't understand is why all the so called "freedom of speech" advocates are so short sighted to not understand that limiting the sales of these types of games to minors will take the pressure off of developers to allow them to do whatever they damn well please with games that cannot legally be sold to them.

No it won't. Nothing will do that except the elimination of the retail world, which isn't going to happen.

None of these have lead to any type of censorship on the adult consumption of these products, in fact, they have allowed the adult consumption of them to flourish.


Can you go to Wal-mart and get porn? Because I can't.

In fact, these laws are not even forbidding minors from legally accessing this material,

Read it again, this screws over arcades. Which are dieing, by the way, and this will onyl hurt their business even more.

How is it a bad thing that the person who is legally responsible for you has to authorize whether or not you can saw people in half in a videogame?


They can already do that. It's called parenting, and it doesn't need laws to support it.

[EternalGamer]

Perigon, your tactic is to just argue that the laws aren't really about what they say they are about, but that they are really just some kind of McCarthyist conspiracy to stop everyone from having fun and playing videogames. I don't know how to argue with those claims since you offer no proof that they are true. You just automatically assume that the laws are not really about what they are about.

And for the record, parenting most certainly DOES need laws to support it, and it already has ALOT of them. From laws that prevent the purchase of certain materials by minors, to laws that prevent child operation of certain vechiles or machinery, to laws that forbid child labor, to laws that make child abuse and molestation a crime. There are alot of laws that govern what children are allowed and not allowed to do. Maybe you think that all these laws are unnecessary and are only a result of "parents not doing their job," but the rest of society, it seems, has recognized that there are larger social forces in the world than parents, and that these need regulation so that parents CAN be empowered to do their jobs.

I may not be able to go to Walmart to buy porn, but anybody who wants it can find it very easily and it is a thriving marketplace. The elimination of the ability to sell it to children did nothing to hurt it. According to the results I just googled, the porn industry makes 57 BILLION dollars a year. Just incase you are not up on your math, that's over 5 x's the videogame industry's 10 BILLION dollar figure. So remind me again how legislating the sale of products to minors kills an industry? You have yet to give me a single example.

Dan

[Heretic Machine]

Perigon, your tactic is to just argue that the laws aren't really about what they say they are about, but that they are really just some kind of McCarthyist conspiracy to stop everyone from having fun and playing videogames. I don't know how to argue with those claims since you offer no proof that they are true. You just automatically assume that the laws are not really about what they are about.


Your "tactic" is to put words into people's mouths. I can't argue against this because you offer no proof that what you say is true.

And for the record, parenting most certainly DOES need laws to support it

Why?

but the rest of society, it seems, has recognized that there are larger social forces in the world than parents

No, the great American Soccer Mom decided that, not the rest of society.

Just incase you are not up on your math, that's over 5 x's the videogame industry's 10 BILLION dollar figure.

Are you saying that the industry will benefit financially from anti-gamer legislation?

So remind me again how legislating the sale of products to minors kills an industry? You have yet to give me a single example.

So remind me again when I said anything like that would happen?

[Taco]

You must of been a boring mama's boy if you think laws can't help even the best parents parent.

[EternalGamer]

Your "tactic" is to put words into people's mouths. I can't argue against this because you offer no proof that what you say is true.

I am not the one saying these laws have greater implications that what are stated in them. Therefore, I do not have to be the one to offer proof that this is the case. You are the one that claimed that "Yes it is" the first step towards "fascism" and "nazisim," you are the one that has to back that up with evidence. I suppose maybe I put words in your mouth by claiming you were calling the laws "McCarythist" when what you really did was call them "facists." Excuse me if I substuited one ridiculious hyperbole for another just for variety's sake, but to me that does not consituit "putting words in your mouth."

Why? I just gave you the reasons why parenting needs laws to support it and plenty of examples where that is the case that our society has deemed it necessary and has passed laws to that end and yet you did not respond to any of them.


No, the great American Soccer Mom decided that, not the rest of society.

The last time I checked, "Soccer Moms" were not a relevant advocacy group for things like child labor and machinery operation laws in the early 20th century. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the number of children who played soccer in 1938 as a recreational pasttime was pretty small.


Are you saying that the industry will benefit financially from anti-gamer legislation?

No what I was doing was responding to your inference that mandatory age limits on an industry would cripple it. When you said that you can't buy porn at Walmart, you were inferring that very thing.

Dan

[Heretic Machine]

EternalGamer, you're now on my ignore list. You have fabricated so much shit in your posts that they cannot be seen as anything but lies. I never said that the laws would hurt the industry, I never called them facists, and I certainly said nothing about this:

The last time I checked, "Soccer Moms" were not a relevant advocacy group for things like child labor and machinery operation laws in the early 20th century. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure the number of children who played soccer in 1938 as a recreational pasttime was pretty small.

Go back to Gamefaqs.

[Taco]

The Perigon way.
Ignorance ----> Let's have some nice discourse!!
Rational and well written thought --------> Ignore list

You don't need to agree with anything EternalGamer says to appreciate the delivery and the bit of sanity it brings to hot topics.

[Heretic Machine]

You don't need to agree with anything EternalGamer says to appreciate the delivery and the bit of sanity it brings to hot topics.

If he just disagreed with me, that'd be fine. But he is blatantly putting words in my mouth. He isn't even twisting what I say, he's literally just making shit up out of no where to try and discredit my argument, and frankly people like that need to be ignored. He's been Jack Thompson'd.

[EternalGamer]

EternalGamer, you're now on my ignore list. You have fabricated so much shit in your posts that they cannot be seen as anything but lies.

EXAMPLE THE FIRST: Wherein Perigon demonstrates he doesn't understand his own arguments.
__________________________________________
I never said that the laws would hurt the industry,

Today, at 8:49 AM, I wrote:


None of these have lead to any type of censorship on the adult consumption of these products, in fact, they have allowed the adult consumption of them to flourish.



To which Perigon, at 9:30 AM responded:

Can you go to Wal-mart and get porn? Because I can't.




I was inferring that, since these other industries have not been harmed by this type of legislation, neither would the game industry. The implication of Perigon's statement being that restrictions of the porn industry HAVE had a negative impact. One would assume that Perigon was making this statement to infer that, since it has hurt the porn industry, legislation would also hurt the game industry, otherwise there is no reason for him to bring up the lack of sales of porn at Walmart as a defense. If it was not meant to infer that the legislation might hurt the game industry, there was no reason to bring it up.



EXAMPLE THE SECOND: Wherein Perigon demonstrates he doesn't know what pronouns do.
________________________________________________


I never called them facists,



On the first page of this discussion, today, at 7:02 AM BigJonno wrote:




but it's not the first sign of the world being taken over by the book-burning, fascist, Nazi pigdogs.




To which Perigon, at 7:13 AM responded:



Yes, yes it is. Stop selling our civil rights please.




Apparently, the use of the word "it" in Perigon's response was not referring to BigJonno's statement that "it's not the first sign of the world being taken over by the book-burning, fascist, Nazi pigdogs." Logic would dictate that Perigon's "it" was in fact referrring to the same "it" as BigJonno. Apparently, however, Perigon's it was some sort of mystical utterance in no way meant as a referrent.



EXAMPLE THE THIRD: Wherein Perigon demonstrates he doesn't understand other people's arguments either, or make an attempt to do so before he responds to them.
______________________________________________


and I certainly said nothing about [Soccer Mom's fighting for child labor].



At 9:23 AM I wrote:



From laws that prevent the purchase of certain materials by minors, to laws that prevent child operation of certain vechiles or machinery, to laws that forbid child labor, to laws that make child abuse and molestation a crime. There are alot of laws that govern what children are allowed and not allowed to do. Maybe you think that all these laws are unnecessary and are only a result of "parents not doing their job," but the rest of society, it seems, has recognized that there are larger social forces in the world than parents



To which Perigon, at 9:49 AM responded:



No, the great American Soccer Mom decided that, not the rest of society.



Again logic would dictate that Perigon's "that" was a short hand referrence to my argument, which would mean it was referring to to all the diferrent manifestations of limitations on minority activity in our culture (what my entire paragraph was about). But apparently Perigon was not actually responding to my argument. Instead he was apparently just quoting my statement back because he thought it looked nice hanging there above his own.



Perigon, maybe you should actually start reading what you write, before you accuse someone else of "misrepresenting" what you said. You are right about one thing, I have most certainly been "Jack Thompson'd," a phrase which would mean that the person indicated was the victim of someone else using a Jack Thompson like tactic on them...

Dan

[Busted_Astromech]

Yeah, Perigon, I don't think you can always use parenting to explain why game regulation laws are pointless.

I'm 100% against them, and I have a very simple reason:
Video games are a form of speech. As such they are constitutionally protected from government regulation.

The end. That's the reason all the laws have been struck down before, that's why all these new laws will be too. Video games are a form of media, and as such cannot be treated differently from print, film, radio, or interpretive dance.