Another game bill bites the dust in Mississippi

by Alexander Sliwinski { Feb 14th 2007 at 8:00AM }

And another one's gone, and another one's gone, and another one bites the dust. Mississippi's video game bill, introduced by Senator Gray Tollison, fining retailers $100 for selling M-rated titles to minors has "died in Committee." This would be the second time Tollison failed to gain traction on this issue. There is no word yet if Tollison will attempt another version of the bill for 2008. Let's give it another go for good measure. All good things come in threes.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Willy @ Feb 14th 2007 8:19AM

This is actually one of the few things I agree with. It sucks to do this, but in the bigger picture it might take some heat off of the videogame industry for violent games.

Obviously parents aren't doing their job, so, in a way it's up to the retailers.

Besides, it feels so good telling a little kid he can't have a game and see him whine about it.

is @ Feb 14th 2007 8:20AM

Yeah, its pretty immature to think that retailers should be able to get away with selling M rated games to minors. Surely thats not what the blogger is suggesting?

Patrick @ Feb 14th 2007 8:27AM

...and another one gone and another one gone, another one bites the dust. Hey!...

Jay @ Feb 14th 2007 8:50AM

It probably died in committee because he tried to sneak in a footer item that would have endorsed marijuana when taken prior to having your official Senatorial photograph taken.

Glad to hear this went nowhere. Maybe instead of trying to levy fines against game retailers, the government can tell parents to start doing their job.

shanoboy @ Feb 14th 2007 8:39AM

If all the new consoles have built in parental controls (like the v-chip in TVs) then what is the problem here. Turn the parental controls on and be done with it. Even if a kid buys M rated games then, it won't matter.

shanoboy @ Feb 14th 2007 8:38AM

Its not the job of the state to raise our children, its the job of the parents. Laws such as these are a violation of first amendment right plain and simple. If they weren't they wouldn't be knocked every time they come up for review, time and time again.

JQuilty @ Feb 14th 2007 9:58AM

@ Willy, is:

The industry fights these worthless bills because they don't just prohibit sale, they force retailers to treat them as porn and put them off in a separate room. Not fun, considering the physical size of some stores. One bill also made playing the games illegal for you period if under 18.

Plus, the movie industry doesn't get hit like this, so there's another arguement.

alienclay @ Feb 14th 2007 9:17AM

*a moment of silence for resourses wasted on an obviously unconstitutional bill.

glad to see this "die in committee" than be fought to the ground with wasted tax dollars. at least somebody around this senator has a little common sense. maybe *gasp* people are learning from the mistakes of others?!?! and maybe,...just maybe we can focus on somthing a little more important like climate change, health care, skittles, the dangers of dyhydrogen monooxide, etc..

FrankTheCrank @ Feb 14th 2007 9:27AM

I have a three year old, when I play shooters on my gaming rig or on my console, he starts to emulate the shooting. He goes around the house building guns out of Lego's and going, "bam, bam, I just shot you daddy".

Guess what, I don't play shooters infront of my son any longer. Point is, as a parent, you should make the decision as how you want to raise your kid, not the government.

Sarge @ Feb 14th 2007 12:06PM

True, the state shouldn't be involved, but that being said, when you've got rat bastards that INTENTIONALLY sell kids this stuff to "make a point", then you've got problems. I say spank 'em for it.

Parents can't do it alone. Not with the sea of filth out there now.

Sarge out.

Farseer @ Feb 14th 2007 9:34AM

Fine the retailers all you want. Parents will still buy "forbidden" titles for their kids.

As far as I'm concerned, the retailers are doing a fine job already. When I worked at GameStop (a dark period in my life), I carded everyone who didn't look at least 20 for M rated titles. GameStop had secret shoppers in place to make sure I did so. Of course, the secret shoppers were more interested in: 1.)Greeting 2.)Offer to reserve a game, 3.) Offer a subscription to Game Informer, and 4.)Offer to buy used stuff, but I think they were watching for underage sales too.

ben @ Feb 14th 2007 11:48AM

i live in the uk and we have a rating system ie: 18 rating (no one under the age of 18 may play this) if a shop were to sell a game rated 18 to someone under 18 then it would be against the law it has not stoped the problem but has reduced it.

games are not treated as porn not even playboy games!

i think it is a good system that stops censorship and is helping the industry to grow up surly the states does this with films?

ackmondual @ Feb 14th 2007 12:28PM

@ #1
""Besides, it feels so good telling a little kid he can't have a game and see him whine about it.""

I've seen that excuse used many times. Usually, it's not that the parent feels the game is inappropriate for their kid, but moreso the fact they don't want to spend $50 on the spot just b/c a toddler points to a game box and wants it b/c it looks cool

.

@ #4
""Its not the job of the state to raise our children, its the job of the parents. Laws such as these are a violation of first amendment right plain and simple. If they weren't they wouldn't be knocked every time they come up for review, time and time again.""

Well, they're not outright forbidding M-rated games to kids under 18, at least not with this bill. Just making retailers enforce that parents or someone older is buying the games, and ideally being aware that there may be unsuitable content for their younsters, like with movies and TV.

Limiting appropriate TV and movies to the right age kids isn't really illegal AFAIK. Eg. if a kid manages to sneak into an R rated movie while managing to have paid for his ticket, the most is he'll get kicked out. The adult who bought it for him would at most get a slap on the wrist. If it were something "heavy" like tobacco or alcohol, then we get the police involved

.

@ #5
""If all the new consoles have built in parental controls (like the v-chip in TVs) then what is the problem here. Turn the parental controls on and be done with it. Even if a kid buys M rated games then, it won't matter.""

I hear that doesn't really matter. Kids nowadays are able to circumvent NetNanny and "child-proof" pharmacy drug bottles, I hear v-chip isn't that much more difficult.

Punchkick @ Feb 14th 2007 4:34PM

Would you also suggest that a bookstore be fined $100 anytime it sold "The Odyssey" to minors, since it has a huge amount of violence in it? What about other literary (but violent) greats?

Wonder Cheese @ Feb 14th 2007 2:17PM

Interesting how, in the earlier post about Brownback, the word Republican is in the first sentence. Strangely, the word Democrat doesn't appear in this entire summary. And yes, he's a D. Strange omission, or maybe not so strange.

Jay @ Feb 14th 2007 3:04PM

lol at dyhydrogen monoxide. That was good.

Tim @ Feb 14th 2007 7:34PM

Anyone who is of voting age and wants to stand up for your hobby should check out http://www.videogamevoters.org. Recently they sent me an email warning me about a local senator proposing the same such legislation in North Carolina. There was a link in the email to send a letter directly to the editor of my local paper. If we don't stand together we'll be legislated individually.

AssemblyLineHuman @ Feb 14th 2007 6:57PM

ben, #11: No, we don't do this with anything other than porn. Any government involvement in this sort of censorship is a blatant infringement of the First Amendment. What most people (gamers and non-gamers alike) don't seem to understand is that children have First Amendment rights, too, and that a government decision to ban children from purchasing an M-rated game or an R-rated movie is just as bad, from a legal standpoint, as one to ban adults from doing the same. That's why these laws won't, and shouldn't, pass.

ackmondual, #13: "Limiting appropriate TV and movies to the right age kids isn't really illegal AFAIK. Eg. if a kid manages to sneak into an R rated movie while managing to have paid for his ticket, the most is he'll get kicked out. The adult who bought it for him would at most get a slap on the wrist. If it were something 'heavy' like tobacco or alcohol, then we get the police involved."

It's not the same thing. First, for alcohol or tobacco, there is no right being violated. Alcohol and tobacco are not forms of expression any more than vacuum cleaners, and banning minors from purchasing them does not infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights.

The first analogy is more accurate, but it still misses the mark. In the case of the movie theater, the theater itself is banning minors from watching R-rated movies. Since the theater is a private business, they can choose to impose age limits if they would like. But this isn't a matter of a private business making the decision to check the customer's I.D.; it's a matter of the government enforcing that decision. For that reason and that reason alone, the prospect of any of these laws passing and staying in place is frightening.