Boston Herald editorial questions Mass. game bill
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Mar 18th 2008 at 2:30PM }
The newspaper lays out that the bill is another example of Boston Mayor Menino, who drafted the bill with Jack Thompson, trying to throw a "big idea against the wall in the hope that it might stick." The paper points out that just yesterday a similar, constitutionally murky bill failed, and asks if "lawmakers sponsoring the bill [are] willing to find money in their budgets to fight the inevitable court challenge?" The Boston Herald piece concludes that the mayor needs to make better use of his time than going after "such low-hanging fruit." We don't know about low-hanging, but it's definitely rotten and is going to cause taxpayers financial pain later between court costs and inevitably paying back the ESA for wasting its time.
[Via GamePolitics]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
FrankTheCrank @ Mar 18th 2008 2:38PM
This is so retahded. Seriously, why are our legislators getting involved in this sort of stuff?
Government needs an overhaul like now.
Kujel @ Mar 18th 2008 2:46PM
They are trying to convince someone to put them out of our misery.
Wonderflex - Brawl Digits 4811-6636-9333 @ Mar 18th 2008 2:51PM
Frank - That's where Obama comes in. Get out there and vote.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 18th 2008 3:01PM
Obama has said he would support government intervention if self regulation "fails".
If game censorship is a major issue for you, Obama is not your man.
Marty @ Mar 18th 2008 3:06PM
What a bunch of garbage. That would happen if self-regulation fails, regardless of who's president.
It used to happen with the movie industry before they became self regulated, and the same goes for games. Saying that it would happen if Obama were president and not if a more conservative person, like Clinton or McCain is idiotic, at best.
Take your rhetoric elsewhere, please.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 18th 2008 3:21PM
Um, rhetoric? What the hell are you talking about? Its a freaking fact. Its irrelevant that every other candidate would do the same (except maybe ron paul), but his answer of "Obama will fix it" is more rhetoric than my facts ever could be. I just said that if game censorship is a major issue for you, Obama is not your candidate, and thats the truth.
Please take your political fanboyism elsewhere.
Marty @ Mar 18th 2008 3:28PM
I LOL'd @ "Political fanboyism"
I didn't make a push for any candidate, nor did I push against any. You did. Thanks for playing.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 18th 2008 3:33PM
Yeah, neither did I, Marty. I just pointed out the fallacy of "Obama will fix it".
But I guess thats the price I pay for pointing out that this season's political Jesus Christ isn't the cure all for all our problems.
Please insert coin to play again.
And yes, your political fanboyism is definitely showing. I made no attacks, just a statement of fact. You're the one who chose to interpret it as an attack against your favored candidate (heaven forbid someone say something bad about Obama), and retaliated. I never said who would be a better choice (except for my again factually based "maybe ron paul"), no did I question Obama's ability to lead the nation.
I just pointed out that he's in favor of this kind of legislation. Which he is. Again, how is this rhetoric?
Shagittarius @ Mar 18th 2008 3:56PM
Tell your momma 'bout Obama!
Ryoga Vee @ Mar 18th 2008 4:59PM
Crono - you said "if self regulation fails"
Self regulation is working fine. so Obama has no need to get involved.
Well, truth be told "IF" self regulation fails, government should step in.
So Obama is still our man.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 18th 2008 5:23PM
The sticking point, however, is what constitutes "Failure". Hilary Clinton and many other politicians obviously think that self regulation has already failed (hence all the anti game laws).
I'm against any politician that believes its ok to legally bar or fine someone for consuming protected speech. Additionally, these laws are only targeting video games, while books and movies with similar or worse content are given a free pass. Thats showing a government favoritism to a form of speech over another. So Saw and Hostel will get free rides, but GTA and even Halo become restricted, and legal repercussions follow for those who violate the ban.
Marty @ Mar 18th 2008 5:49PM
So the truth comes out. If you don't like Obama, that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion. But acting like his election to the presidency would undermine the games industry and invoke some sort of government regulation purely by default is bogus, and I will continue to call you on it.
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 18th 2008 7:07PM
Except I never said that Marty.
Marty @ Mar 18th 2008 2:47PM
With a falling Dollar, pointless war, and ruined economy all happening at once, I think our representatives have a lot more important things to worry about right now.
Ignatius @ Mar 18th 2008 2:50PM
Obviously not though, gotta protect the children while the rest of the country caves in around them.
Geoffrey Sperl @ Mar 18th 2008 3:27PM
War? There's a war? The economy's in the toilet?
SON, THERE ARE BOOBIES DOING BOOBIE THINGS IN VIDEO GAMES! A few thousand dead servicemen is nothing compared to the searing image of a voluptuous and buxom maiden in the mind of a 13-year-old boy!
As long as one adolescent is exposed to boobies in video movies and games we have a more important war on our hands!
(That was all tongue-in-cheek, of course.)
tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 18th 2008 3:37PM
"I think our representatives have a lot more important things to worry about right now."
i know, steroids are just killing sports right now congress needs to spend more time and taxpayer money on pointless hearings that do nothing.
FrankTheCrank @ Mar 18th 2008 3:44PM
Here here....agree wholeheartedly with Marty.
The falling dollar, the subprime mortgage fiasco, a potential energy crysis and two wars.
And don't forget...all that DEBT. Made in China, baby!
Wonderflex - Brawl Digits 4811-6636-9333 @ Mar 18th 2008 2:49PM
I guess I'm seriously confused as to what is wrong with prohibiting minors for playing games that aren't rated for them. It would seem to only make sense if you are going to rate a game with an "M for Mature" and your target market is the "Mature" crowd that you would make it a choice of a parent, and only a parent, if somebody under the approved rating is actually mature enough to handle it. Then when some sort of violence issue comes up if they want to blame the game, then they will also have to blame the parent.
vidGuy @ Mar 18th 2008 2:56PM
Morally, ethically, and legally, prohibiting minors from playing Mature games can be defended. There's not necessarily anything "wrong" with doing so. However, not a single one of these bills has been written in a legal, constitutional way. Each violates a necessary rule of the law, whether by being arbitrary, overly vague, or my limiting the First Amendment rights of legal adults.
The current bills are written so poorly that they are like creating a law that says that African Americans cannot wear red on Thursdays. They are stupid, pointless, and arbitrary bills encouraging arbitrary enforcement.
When a bill gets drafted properly, it will probably be passed and enforced. Until then, judges are going to continue to laugh at how stupid these bills sound in their formation of the law.
vidGuy @ Mar 18th 2008 3:04PM
In simpler terms, nothing is wrong with the goal but everything is wrong with the way the bills are written.
ChooChooCharlie (Brawl: 1504-5357-9285) @ Mar 18th 2008 6:37PM
@vidGuy
So in other words, we should leave Jack Thompson to his work.
Rob @ Mar 19th 2008 9:03AM
There isn't anything wrong with prohibiting a minor from playing these games. A parent is more than free to do so.
Legally doing it is extremely problematic, and given the lack of demonstrated immediate effect, will never pass constitutional muster.
vidGuy @ Mar 18th 2008 2:50PM
It'd be nice to think that our politicians understood the United States Constitutional and how to draft a bill that didn't violate it, but I've lost hope on that front.
tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 18th 2008 3:38PM
if the leader of our country doesn't know it (or doesn't care for it) then why should his cronies and the people under him?
Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Mar 18th 2008 5:44PM
Mass. is a blue state, btw.
Batzarro @ Mar 18th 2008 2:52PM
I'm gonna imagine Grim and Billy's voice in that picture-caption.
Batzarro @ Mar 18th 2008 2:55PM
It's wrong when you only do it to games, and with scant evidence that it's really THAT important. You don't see them pursuing such legislation for other media, such as movies and music and papers and theater.
Steve @ Mar 18th 2008 3:25PM
They SHOULD restrict access to M rated games to minors. Then I wouldn't have to listen to the mouthy little shits on Live.
Geoffrey Sperl @ Mar 18th 2008 3:29PM
Ahhh... I see what you did there.
CB @ Mar 18th 2008 3:32PM
Like I said in the last post: "It's sad tax-payers' money is going into this when people pushing this know it will fail, only to say in the future "We did something!" come election day."
Kassu @ Mar 18th 2008 3:53PM
CRUISE CONTROL:
BORING POLITICAL DEBATE IS BORING.
Marty @ Mar 18th 2008 5:51PM
...and people wonder why our country is so screwed when it comes to politics.
albinogoldfish @ Mar 18th 2008 6:31PM
This could be a good thing...stay with me on this...in our court system, precedent can sway lot of things, the more laws like this that get shot down, the harder it is for new law of the sort to be put into effect, so in essence, knowing that this won't be passed is strengthening the very thing these politician are trying to squash, so I say, go for it.
se37 @ Mar 18th 2008 8:01PM
You know, I don't understand why these Mass. or any state draft a bill like they did in Maryland a few years ago. It added M rated games to a list already in effect for Movies and books... since then they have not done one of these laws (though, I won't be surpised if Maryland does being almost as blue as Mass. is)
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/710/710155p1.html
Rob @ Mar 19th 2008 9:05AM
That law does a grand total of... absolutely nothing.
Obscene is obscene, regardless of media, and that law just reinforces that. It makes no distinctions, and does not attempt to add violence to the mix.
Sam Coulson @ Mar 18th 2008 9:33PM
This kind of thing still scares me, just cause it didn't make it in one state doesn't mean those in another state would be smart enough to shoot it down. It'll just take one of these bills to make it as a law for the idea to become popular across the country.
I foresee California being a place where this could be possible, seeing as they just made homeschooling illegal, it seems constitutional freedom has been forsaken for statewide control.
Rob @ Mar 19th 2008 9:06AM
It's already been shot down in California.
deadrody @ Mar 19th 2008 10:28PM
Obtuse ? The Boston Herald ? I'm not even sure what "obtuse" is supposed to mean in the context of a newspaper, but i'm pretty sure it's meant to be derogatory. All I can say is, you obviously have it confused with the ridiculous Boston Globe (NY Times lite). At least the Boston Herald doesn't take itself seriously like the reliably far left Globe.
deadrody @ Mar 19th 2008 10:38PM
It will just take time to get it right ? It's been found unconstitutional NINE times. NINE. Wake up and smell the coffee Mrs. Bueller. If there were a way to get this to pass constitutional muster, there's a pretty good chance they would have found it.