Utah game bill one step closer, Thompson speaks to Joystiq
by Ben Gilbert 
{ Feb 24th 2009 at 5:20PM }
If the bill goes into law, however, retailers of all varieties in the state (from big-box outlets like Best Buy and Wal-Mart to independent theater owners) will be facing a $2000 fine for every documented sale of mature-rated content to a minor. We wanted some clarification on the law and it's possible ramifications, so we went straight to the source. After the jump you can see for yourself everything Mr. Thompson told us about his recently penned bill.
Could you explain the bill that you and Mike Morley drafted for the state of Utah please?
The concept is this: If you, the retailer, say that you don't sell mature rated games to someone under 17 then you're in effect engaging in communications with the public and assurances to the public which is definitely advertising, then you have to adhere to that policy.
The issue becomes the truthfulness of the corporate representations. We're addressing the fraud of deceptive trade practices issue rather than the nature of the product itself. It's an across the board attempt to hold to their word the retailers of music, movies and video games [in any format].
There's a recommendation on a T-rated game but no one says they're not gonna sell it to an underage youth. That's not a rating, that's an advising.
"Am I equating playing Grand Theft Auto 4 with drinking a six pack? Some would say it's worse. Some might say it's not." |
First of all, you can't regulate the Child Protection Act, so as far as non-tangible stuff you download there are problems with age restrictions.
Online tobacco and firearm sales, you're asked to input a government-verified ID and you're asked to verify. So, under this bill, we believe in Utah, applying the bill to both brick-and-mortar and online sales they're simply going to have to put in age verification software.
You can't use a credit card for age verification. You literally can't use it as an age verifier. You and I both know kids have credit cards. It's not a reliable age verifier because it's not. Asking someone how old they, assuming that the use of a credit card is age verification is simply a wash. So what they're going to have to do is use "real" age verification software.
The problem is that, after Columbine, they assured these sales would stop. After Columbine when we learned that Klebold and Harris were in part motivated by the violent entertainment they consumed, these guys [the National Association of Theater Owners) had a rose garden event with President Clinton and they guaranteed the American people that there would no longer be any underage sales of R-rated tickets to people under 17.
Are you equating the sale of alcohol with the sale of mature content to underage youths?
I didn't equate it but I said it was analogous. Am I equating playing Grand Theft Auto 4 with drinking a six pack? Some would say it's worse. Some might say it's not.
The point is they say they don't sell this stuff to kids and they do. All they have to do is opt out of the system and say, "We're going to sell whatever we want to anybody and no one's going to tell us we're not." But don't tell us you're going to do something and then do something else.
Is there anything else you'd like to tell us today?
I think it's great that we're living in a country where a lawyer who's been targeted by the [video game] industry can come back around and get these suckers. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
OMGOMG @ Feb 24th 2009 5:27PM
I agree with Jack on this. Granted, I think the fine is too steep, but I mean, what's the point of having a label branding it for ages 17 and up if kids younger than that age can buy it?
Edge @ Feb 24th 2009 5:50PM
I tend to agree. This actually makes some sense. Since you can't enforce laws ex post facto in the US, as long as they stop advertising they don't allow underaged sales, it's not a problem. But if they say they do, parents should be able to rely on that. It's not restricting games... it's bringing some much needed regulation to American advertising overrun with half-truths, broken promises, and impossible superlative.
Shagittarius @ Feb 24th 2009 6:07PM
The problem that the ESRB and everyone else doesn't want to admit:
We NEED to sell Mature titles to underaged kids to make it profitable enough to publish such types of titles. The truth is, and I don't like it anymore than anyone else here, is that in order for the minority of gamers who are legally (as in pass the ESRB standards of rating) to get mature content you have to expect kids are gonna buy it or the target demographic is reduced considerably.
Its really a double edged sword, in order for gaming to become a grown-up activity we need games that present mature themes and stories, yet the target audience for those games really isn't big enough to justify the budgets required to produce such titles, so hence the 'black market' to children who don't meet the rating criteria.
Unfortunately for us right now, Nintendo is proving that the size of the market for children many times greater than mature gamers (i'm talking hardcore in slang here).
So the problem is that Jack is correct, there are no laws that prevent anyone from selling a child a mature rated game, just a gentlemans agreement, but the industry requires children to buy mature titles in order to green light the budgets required to produce them.
I think the hope of the games industry was to avoid actual federal laws about selling to children and do it 'under the table' just long enough until truely mature gamers could support the industry. However with the new casual gamer demographic, and lack of interest by said public in games that are actually good, combines with these game laws, we may very well see the 'recession' of quality gaming experiences going forward.
excused my spelling I was rushed.
The Baron @ Feb 24th 2009 6:29PM
The problem is that while this bill itself is (arguably) a good thing, Jack's motivations are not. Why do you think he's doing this? You can tell in his responses (although masked given that he's giving an interview to gaming blog) that he genuinely believes games are a major cause of your country's ills. More so than alcohol? He says it himself.
To you and me this bill might seem like "hmm, fair enough", to him it's a stepping stone to his goal of banning all violent video games. And that's not an exaggeration.
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Feb 24th 2009 6:54PM
Actually, shags, the cornerstone of your entire arguement assumes majority of the game buyers are children. While that was a cute notion when Nintendo used it as their primary reason why Sega Genesis will fail, Sega was among the first on the home console front to say "hey, adults like video games too." Sony rose to power with the older gamer in mind. Or as Ken Kuturugi once said as PSX was making it's debut, "We target the 21 year old demographic because no one else does."
Long, long ago, the concept of needing the kids money was a very real possibility. Not so much anymore. In fact, based upon the references and sometimes downright heavy narratives found in a LOT of M rated games, your entire arguement falls to pieces. There IS an unspoken "black market" of selling m-rated games to kids but have you worked retail in a game department? Have you?
I ask this because even spending 2 months in a position like that tells you several things about these so called parents.
1. They don't care or pay attention to ratings. Games are for kids, right? How bad can it be?
2. Pointing out the rating on a game they want to buy for their kid = trying to raise their kids for them. Trust me, I got in plenty of arguements because I refused to sell a copy of San Andreas to Lil Billy Neglectison while the parents were waiting in the car.
3. How many children that WOULD be effected by this material on the material alone (as in ages where fantasy and reality do not have clear lines) actually walk into stores unattended with $60. One thing you discover rather quickly, if you work in a game department you are a babysitter while the parents do the grocery shopping. The other thing you discover is kids VERY RARELY buy games by themselves.
4. The most vocal about the betrayal of kids being sold M rated games are more often than not the people who ignored your warnings and bought it anyway. Then, having discovered their idiocy, tried to blame the store. This happened to me over 10 times. By the second time we installed video cameras to show the lying people where they bought the game and more importantly, to show the media that took up the "righteous" cause on this persons behalf.
So in essence what you have here is a law that has bite to an industry that is among the best and the content was drastically misrepresented to the politicians in a way only Jack & Clan can do.
I'm reminded of the councilwoman in New York who recently took up the cause of fighting the game Rapelay yesterday. Saying this game teaches horrible lessons to teenagers and was available for sale in the US. Of course the dumb bastard child trying to drum up the controversy never mentions that the game isn't even playable in english and is a product of a foreign countries industry so she's in fact calling on the wrong people to fix this but hey, since when did the facts EVER matter to these witchhunting douchebags?
Christopher Dolan @ Feb 24th 2009 7:37PM
The point is that is a RECOMENDED CRITERA!
It is recommeded that children start the piano at 4 or 5 but if a 2 or 3 year is a vituoso why not start younger.
It is recomended that you be atleast 17 when you graduate HS - genius asside but we do let children skip grades so they can get out of high school faster. Is it recommended we do so - NO - but for some they say yes.
NOw for games that are rated 17 - perhaps a 12 or 13 year old is mature enough to handle the content. Though a majority of children are not developed enough to handle such content, themes or suggestions - yes there are people that can handle it.
If a Teen rated game like guitar hero or a e10 game like Madden is played by a 6yr old - should that not be allowed? NO it is recommended.
A 6yr old playing guitar hero might like the rythem or the sounds of the music or might even like " A SONG" but chances are he like the game cause he is really good at pushing buttoned sequences really fast. Reason it is rated Teen is cause the music has themes that usualy only a 13yr old or older would comprehend - but for the 6 yr old - it's all about the button pushing.
As for Madden - Every kid that into sports want to play a sports game - then why is Madden or sports games rated E10 or Teen? Cuase the Button schemes, the player configuation or even the concept of grasping the game might be RECOMMENDED for someone over 10 - but if a 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 or even 4 year old gets's it and you approve of the content (AS A PARENT) of what they are playing then why not - why should my child have to wait to be 10 to play a E10 games.
And that brings me to one last revelation - HOW COME best buy, wal-mart, game stop proof to buy a M rated game - yet have no problem with the cute 7 yr old buying guitar hero or rock band which is clearly ratyed TEEN - talk about double standard!!!!!
HitNRun @ Feb 24th 2009 8:33PM
Both sides are right in this discussion. The kids w/ shitty parents are more economically important to games than anyone wants to admit. Just play any FPS on PSN or XBL if you don't believe that. If kids are locked out of the market, these games will be made less frequently.
But at the same time, that's a pitiful argument against a law designed to help parents do their job. As gamers we might care, but protecting the economic incentive to make totally awesome games should not be a primary consideration for a state legislature.
But there are two things to consider: one is the inevitable dumbing down of M games to meet ESRB standards. Most of this will not by substantial, but rather hygienic; the removal of blood splotches that move a game from Teen to Mature. Second is the ambiguity of the M-rating system and of who is "mature." Manhunt 2 and Halo are both "M" games. The ESRB is a bit too stringent and uncritical with its rules to be an effective and fair body overseeing a real, actual law, IMO.
Brodo @ Feb 24th 2009 10:58PM
Jack Thompson is proabably secretely obsessed with violence, drugs and alcohol. He has a top secret spot in his house where he plays GTA4 while smoking weed and drinking vodka
Cookie Monster @ Feb 24th 2009 11:11PM
This bill only bothers me a bit. In my personal opinion, this should help keep the punk kids that think swearing makes them grown-up off of xbox live.
The last thing i want when i go to play for recreation is a small child throwing insults at me in a high pitched frequency.
BxGT @ Feb 24th 2009 5:29PM
The comment will basically be anyone under 17 hates it and anyone over 17 is ok with it.
OMGOMG @ Feb 24th 2009 5:31PM
Just give the homeless guy some money and he'll buy it for you. Works all the time! Just don't give him a real name.
Gnoll @ Feb 24th 2009 6:12PM
If you're under 17, either get someone older to buy it for you or order it online. I'm sorry that you can't just walk into a store and buy whatever games you want, but it's these laws that lets us HAVE these games. Some other countries will ban M+ rated games outright, or censor them heavily. By putting in laws that keep youngsters from buying these games, the games are available to us, and the underage gamers can still get them. If we DON'T have the laws, nobody wins. Say it's unfair or unamerican or what have you, but that's how it is. We came to this compromise in 1993, and it's worked out well for us so far, so stop fussing.
Jack Thompson may be awful, and these fines are way higher than they should be, but it's better than when the older trials were going on and Nintendo was saying that all video games were targeted towards children and adult video games shouldn't be made. Let's be happy we only have one crazy that no one takes seriously anymore with an almost-valid point for once instead of a whole company in the industry swaying the vote, okay?
Gnoll @ Feb 24th 2009 6:14PM
Now, with all that said, it's time to sit back and enjoy a game of Harvester. Darn that Wasp Woman!
Sheppy (of the Fidlious Clan of Wong) @ Feb 24th 2009 7:01PM
Actually, I'm nearly 30 and I hate this law. Why? Well, why is a game that shows some blood specifically targetted by these idiots but in any book store a child can buy a copy of American Psycho in paperback where a man has oral sex with a severed head? Of course this gets the pass because kids reading books is a good thing, right, right?
Basically what this law does is tell retailers that any accidents when trying to enforce a voluntary ratings system is punishable. So at this point, why attempt to enforce this rule? In their attempts to "sneak one past the system" they've in turn ruined any progress they were making with the industry in the state of Utah.
Nick8708 @ Feb 25th 2009 12:44AM
@Gnoll
It's the constitution that allows us to have these games, not laws like these. The sooner we all start taking the argument that games should be protected by the first amendment, the sooner we'll be taken seriously. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be protected. In this country, there is no longer any reason to ban anything that is not immediately harmful. If you want to draw parallels between games and alcohol, alcohol kills far more people every year than people supposedly influenced by violent video games; hell more CHILDREN die every year because of alcohol related accidents than school shootings. Why isn't alcohol banned? Well one reason is that it's too profitable. The other, more important reason is that banning products is unconstitutional. In the land of the free, it is absolutely not free to deny somebody the right to purchase and consume any product they desire unless it does immediate harm to others (no drugs should not be banned either, but regulated like alcohol and tobacco).
Laws like these don't help anybody. All they do is take away the power of private enterprise to self regulate. Self regulation is far more effective than government regulation because it will always adhere to or exceed the standards of the consumer. Why? Because consumers are where the money is, and selling a product below their standards will lose money. If you're just barely meeting the standards of the consumer, you better believe someone will exceed them and take away your business.
@Sheppy
You're absolutely right. Knowing how insiduous Thompson is, the first fine imposed on any retailer will be used to show that stricter regulation is needed in the gaming industry and lead to an even more aggressive law.
Seriously, what the fuck is it with lawyers having to control private citizens?
L. @ Feb 25th 2009 12:07PM
I'm over 17 by a good bit and I'm not a fan of the bill. I don't think toddlers should be playing GTA, but at the same time it should be the job of the parent to make decisions as to what their kids can play, not the government. It's unfair to expect the cashiers in retail stores to do your parenting for you. If a child is too young to play a 'Mature' rated game, they probably shouldn't be left unattended with enough cash to buy one.
WiredKnight @ Feb 24th 2009 5:29PM
You heard it here first: Jack Thompson syas Utah's State Government is full of suckers!
Professor Lario @ Feb 24th 2009 8:04PM
Guess he got one thing right....
Magetto @ Feb 24th 2009 5:30PM
The point is for guideline use. You don't see the government enforcing the MPAA age restrictions, do you?
scott.superlative @ Feb 24th 2009 5:37PM
That's because the MPAA isn't a government organization.
There's absolutely zero enforcement for the MPAA other than backlash from the community and thus the motion picture industry.
Xoonaka @ Feb 24th 2009 5:53PM
The ESRB isn't a government organization either, though...
Erwos @ Feb 24th 2009 6:00PM
It's actually pretty impressive how the industry has completely standardized on the ESRB, and how quickly they did so.
I don't think fines are in order, either, but this is not the most offensive video game bill I've ever seen, either. I mean, honestly, do you want 10 year-old kids getting hold of M-rated games because some small mom-and-pop has no concept of social responsibility? It's hard (not impossible, mind!) to argue against.
Magetto @ Feb 24th 2009 6:04PM
@scott
Yeah, I know. This meant to be a reply to OMGOMG, but I sort-of fudged it and forgot to click the reply button.
Bluebrake @ Feb 24th 2009 5:31PM
I thought we agreed we were going to stop paying attention to this guy.
Levi (God Hand Defense Force) @ Feb 24th 2009 6:49PM
Funny note: I made a comment in another thread earlier today relating to game legislation, and I thought about mentioning Jack Thompson, but I seriously could not remember his name! I was actually able to erase this pillowbiter's name from my memory banks for a short while! That is, until Joystiq decided to report on this douche's activities.
Really, I won't be surprised,if this bill actually passes. Utah does everything in it's power to make the state even suckier.
James @ Feb 24th 2009 5:32PM
....Wow. Jack Thompson managed to be somewhat polite and make intelligent points. I'm impressed. Who says you can't teach a disbarred dog new etiquette?
James @ Feb 24th 2009 5:35PM
Not to say I /agree/ with the man, it has easy work-arounds that would arguably be more harmful (ie. pushes from game companies to rate more violent games as T rather than M, which would be a greater form of false advertising deemed legitimate under Thompson's guidelines), but I'm just sayin'!
Erwos @ Feb 24th 2009 5:54PM
Game companies don't rate the games, the ESRB does. I think your scenario is unlikely at best.
whookid @ Feb 24th 2009 5:32PM
Quite interesting, i never realised all the retailers have none to answer too when they sell games to underage kids, except a few angry parents, and the ...Jackinator?
Duke @ Feb 24th 2009 5:32PM
"I think it's great that we're living in a country where a lawyer who's been targeted by the [video game] industry can come back around and get these suckers. As Mark Twain said, "Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."
Well, you still are disbarred and that's not changing because of this. Remember that anyone can aid in drafting a bill - not just lawyers. If I was disbarred I sure as hell wouldn't be getting back in people's faces because I helped write something that I could have done without the trouble of becoming a lawyer in the first place.
Bright Motive @ Feb 24th 2009 5:33PM
"...can come back around and get these suckers."
"Am I equating playing Grand Theft Auto 4 with drinking a six pack? Some would say it's worse. Some might say it's not." 'But yes, I am,' is what he wanted to say.
Sounds like vendetta to me. Lick you're wounds and go ambulance chase or something.
Sir Buzz Killington( The Artist formerly known as Jakka) @ Feb 24th 2009 5:33PM
I think 50 Cent is a pretty cool guy, eh reads Joystiq and doesn't afraid of Jack Thompson.
That guy has your crystal skull! Do it, Fiddy.
Moptimus Slime (Leader of the Taylor Swift Defense Force, Gobot in disguise) @ Feb 24th 2009 5:46PM
I think Jack Thompson is a pretty cool guy. Eh makes shit up, fear mongers, uses multiple fallacies and doesn't afraid of being wrong about the same issue over and over and over again.
Seriously, time this man became an hero
Hyams @ Feb 24th 2009 6:09PM
OMG, you made that meme funny.
I bow to you.
Sir Buzz Killington( The Artist formerly known as Jakka) @ Feb 24th 2009 6:18PM
This is blasphemy!
This is madness!
THIS MEME WAS ALWAYS FUNNY!
...sorry, I'll stop now.
Josh @ Feb 24th 2009 5:33PM
"Am I equating playing Grand Theft Auto 4 with drinking a six pack? Some would say it's worse. Some might say it's not."
Uh, it's not.
Michael Gustie @ Feb 24th 2009 5:35PM
That's just... wow. Hooray for using untruths and alarmist rhetoric to promote the state as the adjuticator of personal morality.
Why is the post-hoc fallacy so difficult for people to identify? Simply because someone played DOOM before they kill people does not mean that DOOM was the cause of their murderous intent! It's much more likely that if DOOM were not available, these people would be scribbling sketches of their dead classmates in the margins of their Spanish class notes instead.
Duke @ Feb 24th 2009 5:42PM
Wait...what are you saying about Spanish classes?
Moptimus Slime (Leader of the Taylor Swift Defense Force, Gobot in disguise) @ Feb 24th 2009 5:41PM
"I think it's great that we're living in a country where a lawyer who's been targeted by the [video game] industry can come back around and get these suckers."
OBJECTION!
you sir, are no longer a lawyer. In fact, after the hissy fit you threw during your disbarment trial, I'd say you are about as qualified to be a lawyer as I am to performing open-heart surgery drunk (which is apparently the same as playing Grand Theft Auto IV).
Also, if kids are already buying tickets to R-rated films online, whats to say they wont do the same with games? Once Jacky here gets done outlawing guns, Im sure he'll be shocked and appalled to find that only the outlaws have guns.
Sion @ Feb 24th 2009 5:51PM
I was Jack Thompson for Halloween.
I got alot of candy and I scared the local Gamestop and Best Buy Employees.
James @ Feb 24th 2009 7:18PM
That's my point. Developers and publishers might push the ESRB for a different rating than what the game might normally warrant. Because game ratings are not given by some arm of the government there's a lot of room for them to shift and twist very quickly to bypass Thompson's proposed legislation.
Ed @ Feb 24th 2009 6:00PM
What would be awesome (not that this would ever happen) is if the ESRB just rerates every M game to a T, so no one could ever get fined.
Syn @ Feb 24th 2009 6:00PM
Ask for ID.
Discotheque @ Feb 24th 2009 6:07PM
Utah, the place where polygamy is not uncommon but oh no it's the videogames we should be worrying about.
DrOswald @ Feb 24th 2009 6:40PM
I live in Utah. Last time I checked, polygamy is quite uncommon here.
Anyway, the problem with this bill is the ridiculously steep fine and the difficulty of enforcement, not the ideal behind it. "retailers of all varieties in the state will be facing a $2000 fine for every documented sale of mature-rated content to a minor." what constitutes a properly documented sale to a minor? Most stores don't keep track of what they sold to who, especially if they pay in cash. How are they going to keep track of it? Is best buy going to report how many M rated games were sold to minors? It is possible to regulate the sale of M rated games but that would cost a lot of money to do, and there just wont be that kind of support for this bill. Thompson talks about using "real age verification software" like they use for online sale of tobacco and fire arms. This is not a viable option in normal stores, and is not currently supported by online video game retailers. Enforcing his bill would cost large amounts of money and time for everyone involved with gaming in Utah. It is not a realistic idea.
Like Mr. Thompson, I believe that M rated games are not for young children, but his methodology is poor. if he really wants to prevent children obtaining these games, he is concentrating his efforts at the wrong area.
Discotheque @ Feb 24th 2009 6:27PM
Actually I just jumped to conclusions. This isn't a bad law at all to be honest. It should be enforced in other places aswell.
Levi @ Feb 24th 2009 6:33PM
I don't know exactly what he's talking about, unless this is strictly a Utah thing. Gamestop/EB have ID'd me for mature games before, and I'm 23. I don't blame them when I shave I suppose. Wal-Mart has refused to sell me an R-rated movie before because one of the three people I was with didn't have an ID on them. I've been ID'd by the theater as well.
So unless Utah has some sort of isolated issues, he's still nuts.
Plus, it's not false advertisement to sell, say, a mature rated game to a minor. It's a guideline, not a law, and it's not like anyone ever said "we don't sell games to kids that don't meet the ESRB age suggestions." It sounds like he's saying simply selling a game with a mature rating to a minor is false advertising, and if that's the case, he's sorely wrong.
Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of that.
Conversely, if some retailer has come out and publicly said that they DON'T sell mature games to minors and regularly DO on a large scale (meaning it's not just a couple employees that fail to follow company policy), I can understand his frustrations, and he is right.
But I have the sneaking suspicion that he is not right. It's hard to believe a man that has called Wal-Mart a murderer just for selling Grand Theft Auto.
The Baron @ Feb 24th 2009 6:59PM
They ID you yes, as it's company policy (to avoid bad press from nutjobs like Thompson). But it's not law. I could set up a shop in the US and sell as many violent games to ten-year olds as I wanted, as the ESRB ratings are just a guideline and not enforced by law.
Here in Britain however, games which are judged to have certain content have to be rated by the BBFC, whose ratings are legally binding - which has effectively the same result as this bill would do.
t00l @ Feb 24th 2009 8:01PM
Thats the point, theres company policy and then theres Law.....
All this bill does is make sure that all companies must share the same policy.
Its not going to stop young stars playing mature games but at least the law is clear.
I agree with young Jack on this one, sorry. :)
Christopher Dolan @ Feb 24th 2009 6:35PM
Dear Mr. Thompson,
You need metal help in my opinion. You seem to carry a grudge against the video game industry the same way a bullied student reacts to his bully at a 20 year High School reunion.
GET OVER IT. Explicit Lyrics labels, MPAA ratings AND ESRB ratings are ADVISEMENTS!!!! They are NOT LAW. They are they (on packages) for the same reason there are directions on how to plug something into the wall. For the most oblivious and blind people who just don’t get something basic as PARENTING. I am a parent - I am a good parent. I play video games and have been since I was 6 years old. My child will probably play video games and I am a good enough parent to restrict what he plays and does not play. Even when he is in his early adolescence or teens - if he goes behind my back and buys a game, music or sees a movie that I might no, as a parent, want him to see yet - I will not hold the retailer responsible. There are no laws prohibiting sale of GAMES, MUSIC, MOVIES - regardless of what RECOMENDATIONS are on the box. Everything we place on the box is to appease the hard core, fascist grudge, holding, think they should dictate their opinion on the country, minority. Tipper Wore led her crusade against the musicians of the 80's and got what a silly label on the box (WARNING EXPLICIT LYRICS) just to appease her and her which hunting committee. Only reason she got the stupid label is because she was the bored wife of a husband in power. If my wife tried that with 10 of her friends they would get nowhere. MPAA ratings - again NOT LEGALLY ENFORCABLE. While theaters do a good job of tiring to catch the underage kids for getting into Friday the 13th. WTF is the difference of a 16 year old who will be 17 in 4 months and his friend who is already 17 in the same grade in high school getting into the movie? Now before you go off and give me the AGE of a license for a car analogy - it is not the same thing as driving is a privilege reserved by each state for their residents and carries TRUE LEAGL IMPLICATIONS. There are no legal implication for Music, moves or Games and NOR SHOULD THERE EVER BE. Have you herd of Freedom of Expression? Well guess what - Every piece of music is ART, Every Clip of video is ART and Every Frame of a Video Game is ART! You shall not make any Law that will interfere with the expression of that given right by the Constitution of the USA.
Now I read your proposal - You are such a Rat and Weasel - Tiring to use language to trick people based on Moral Judgment. If a business as a corporate entity has a pubic statement of WE FOLLOW THE RATING ON THE BOX AND TRY (KEY WORD IS TRY) NOT TO SELL THOSE LABELED ITEMS TO A PERSON UNDER THE RECOMENEDED AGE and someone who works for them dies it anyways - there still is no law broken. It should be between employer (entity) and employee to see if there was a breach of that company’s policy and either reprehend or dismiss the employee - To try to attach a FINE or SOME SORT OF criminal charge to that employee or company is not constitutional. It is 100% wrong. While it might be morally wrong to go against your own word - it is how half the politicians’ and people like your self got into power to begin with. Tell me you are the mythical superman who NEVER TOLD A LIE, never did something legally correct but morally wrong, or decided to go against what is morally right for a finical or political gain because you had no legal repercussions from what you did? I DOUBT IT. Even the most honest people in the world need to learn when to throw their morals out the window in certain situations. Unless you’re a moron - most people don't like to be walked on over and over again - so people learned in the world we live there are times you have to be STREET SMART. Anyways I don't want to get off topic, but the nature of business it to follow the laws set and make a profit. If that includes Best Buy, Toys R us, Wal-Mart GameStop or any other retailer - selling ESRB rated titles to someone not in the classification - then shame on their morals - but guess what IM STILL SHOPPING THERE.
Jack do me a favor - take your disbarred - annoying, money costing (to us tax paying citizens) sorry ass excuse for a cause and put all that negative energy into something positive - If you tried to promote the war on Drugs, corruption, terrorism or any other cause that would make America a better place and put all the energy into that cause that you put into tiring to get laws passed for video games - perhaps you can make a difference and not have half the internet hating your ass.
People like you cost people like me and citizens of these states allot of money - I rather burn the money in my fireplace to stay warm then to pay for the repercussions and cost's associated with your misguided law proposals.
GO RETIRE or GO FIND ANOTHER CAUSE - Just stay away from the game industry.
Christopher!