Massachusetts tries Jack Thompson's failed Utah game bill
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Apr 11th 2007 at 11:05PM }
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.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
LaughingTarget @ Apr 11th 2007 11:23PM
Don't count on it, Massachusetts is probably the only place in the country crazy enough to let this thing pass (check their other laws for reference). It'll hold out the longest because it'll need to reach Circut Appeals Court to be shot down.
Anonymous @ Apr 11th 2007 11:29PM
The mooninites will not be happy about this!
DWells55 @ Apr 11th 2007 11:31PM
I hate this state. Thank God I can walk into Connecticut in literally one minute.
Rubang B @ Apr 12th 2007 12:04AM
Thank God I moved back to California 5 years ago.
hvnlysoldr @ Apr 12th 2007 12:34AM
"We won't report to the census! This is for your right-wing fascism!"
"Fine you're only getting federal tax money based on how many report in."
"What? You can't do that! We need our money!"
"That's how the constitution works. Your region gets as much money and representation as deemed by the population. If you don't report you aren't counting to the population and you don't get the money. As simple as that."
Dave @ Apr 12th 2007 1:01AM
"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."
I think it's hilarious that we Americans think that sex is worse than violence.
mccomber @ Apr 12th 2007 1:29AM
"I think it's hilarious that we Americans think that sex is worse than violence."
That's because violence solves problems, but sex only leads to new ones.
Rubang B @ Apr 12th 2007 1:51AM
Sex makes life. Violence ends life.
Would you rather walk in on your 12 year old son watching porn or watching snuff films?
steve17 @ Apr 12th 2007 2:18AM
"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."
i have always thought that things like this are about as stupid as it gets!! i seriously dont understand how sex is "harmful to minors"
what the hell kind of message is it sending to kids when we act like sex is the antichrist, while it is actually a completely natural, healthy part of our lives. not to mention the fact that it single handedly ensures the survival of our species.
as much as i love violent games, i can agree that "overly violent"(i cant really draw the line between okay violent and overly violent, so dont ask) games are infinitally more harmful than sex will ever be.
how the hell can someone possibly rationalize that? everyone acts like a kid is gonna see a boob on TV then go get a machine gun and start killing people at a mall. while in actuality it will probably make him put down his controller and take interest in a female for once. rather than spending his life in a basement playing GTA.
wtf is the world coming to?....
at least the japanese have the right idea
Microfoot @ Apr 12th 2007 4:06AM
"lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
I guess Pokemon games are out of the question, too?
Slaziman @ Apr 12th 2007 7:05AM
lol@Microfoot
I think this would ban 90% of the games in Massachusetts.
mc @ Apr 12th 2007 7:15AM
@Microfoot
No, because pokemon is a political piece on the opression of sentient animals. Duh.
PS. I live in MA, and I agree with everyone who says its a joke.
32_Footsteps @ Apr 12th 2007 8:19AM
Okay, LT - since you're the apparent expert on the Massachusetts General Laws, name the laws that Massachusetts would pass and other states wouldn't.
And before anyone says "gay marriage," that involved striking down a law, not making a new one.
As for my fellow Massholes reading Joystiq - if you just sit on video game blogs and whine about it, Thompson will get the law passed, and we'll end up losing tax money when the ESA fights this and gets it overturned. Go to http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php and look up who your state representative and state senator are. (For the record, mine are Pat Jehlen and Carl Sciortino, Jr.) Tell them why this is a terrible bill. Let this actually motivate you and fight this thing. The bad guys always win if the good guys do nothing.
Coyote @ Apr 12th 2007 9:48AM
Wow.. it would ban more than 90%. Looked at by the right judge and jury every video game created (with the exception of maybe Math Blaster and Mavis Beacon) would be illegal.
Ryan LN @ Apr 12th 2007 8:54AM
1) What *doesn't* appeal to the prurient interest of minors, hmm? Beside the fact that no court will ever be able to figure out what that means, it is unconstitutionally overbroad, and we won't have to rely on the Mass courts to strike it down because the Feds will.
2) If the portion where games are verboten for sale to minors if they "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"- well, I guess that means all kids under the age of 17 will be forced to purchase games like Carmen SanDiego Adventure! and Super Elmo Learns to Potty- 'cause let's face it, there's a reeeeaal short list of games that actually have *serious* literary, political, scientific or artistic value. Again, unconstitutionally overbroad. Why can't these people just get a life.
White Rose Duelist @ Apr 12th 2007 9:02AM
Brian Joyce and Joseph Driscoll, you'll be hearing from me soon!
And don't forget to include Deval Patrick, since he can veto the bill even if it passes. I'm still trying to figure out why I voted for him, other than "he's not Kerry Healey".
32 - It is illegal to take loins to the theatre, kiss in front of a church or eat peanuts in court in MA. Then again (for Rubang B's benefit), animals cannot mate within 1500 feet of a school, and women are not permitted to drive in a bathrobe. Every state has laws that would not be passed anywhere else.
http://members.tripod.com/~Kellovision/wacky.htm
32_Footsteps @ Apr 12th 2007 9:16AM
Wait, are we only talking raw loins, or do cooked ones count as well?
If the latter is the case, man, I'm in trouble.
I'll grant you the point about silly laws passed decades ago, but I'm talking about laws that are either recent or still commonly enforced.
minus_273 @ Apr 12th 2007 10:54AM
MA is the Gay state. It is also a 1 party democratic dictatorship this law will definitely pass and survive the courts.
schwal @ Apr 12th 2007 10:56AM
as a Massachusetts native, let me tell you that this sort of thing happens a lot.
1. legislature get bored of discussing finances, schools, gay marriages, and driving related bills.
2. some crackpot from another region segests a bill of "public interest" to an unsuspecting legislator.
3. someone from the Boston Globe notices bill, mocks in column on front of section B.
4. bill dies in comity.
White Rose Duelist @ Apr 12th 2007 10:58AM
minus_273, that was pretty dumb, but I think you could be a little more ignorant if you put some more effort into your posts.
Crono @ Apr 12th 2007 11:37AM
White Rose Duelist, that was pretty bastardly, but I think you could be a little more condecending if you put some more effort into your posts.
I"m not defending what he said, just his right to say it.
Seer @ Apr 12th 2007 6:25PM
I don't see what the fuss is about; this bill is harmless. Can you honestly find any game that meets ALL of the following:
"(1) describes or represents nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors;
(2) depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors;
(3) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors; and
(4) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
I challenge you to show me a game that is morbidly violent and pruriently sexual that you think a minor should be able to buy (not use, buy).
"unconstitutionally overbroad" You realize that the broadness is in FAVOR of the video games? Also, it is worded precisely like the Miller test, which is the Supreme Court's PREVAILING STANDARD on whether or not a work should be allowed on sale. In this case, however, they have added a FOURTH category that must be met in order for the sale to be stopped! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
Summary of ways that this bill is less restrictive than the Miller test:
-applies to minors only, who have less rights than legal adults
-applies only to the sale of items, not their use or dissemination
-applies only to games
-has added a fourth category, morbid violence
The idea that this bill is unconstitutional is laughable.
Caveat: This bill is unnecessary. I do not feel that there are any games out there being sold to minors that merit this attention. However, what I do not like is that, if say 50 years from now, our youth are REALLY revolting and DO watch ultra-ultra violent media, that a rather sensible bill like this will be shouted down.
Anubis @ Apr 12th 2007 8:51PM
Not to offend those from Massachusetts, but has anyone ever considered changing the state's motto to, "Protecting people from themselves and perpetuating stupidity since 20__." Perhaps the peons elected into power will change it to, "Jack Thompson's bitch since 2007." I dunno...both seem rather fitting.
Ryan LN @ Apr 13th 2007 4:22PM
Seer:
Miller was applied to obscenity, and while it has been about 14 years since I've taken con law I don't think that the supremes have applied the Miller test to anything other than obscenity since then. The scrutiny that the court would use to analyze this legislation would be a bit stricter, according to my cobwebbed memory, and no matter how hard they try, I would imagine that trying to shoehorn videogames under the same rubric as obscenity would not work. However, your point is well taken (I have to admit to not actually reading the statute before I posted): finding a video games that is obscene OR that meets the four point litmus test proffered by Massachusetts Bill 1423 would be ridiculously impossible. My analysis of the constitutionality of the bill was based upon the idea that prongs one through four were offered in the alternative. You make a valid, true point: this Bill appears to restrict the sale of games that don't exist. In fact, you could legally sell a game under this bill where the object would be to go to elementary schools and decapitate first graders and make keychains out of their fingers and baby rattles from their teeth, as long as there were no naughty bits or sexual content. Don't the legislators of Massachusetts have anything better to do?