Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com/media/feedlogo.gif Joystiq http://www.joystiq.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/ESA receives $282,794 reimbursement from Californiahttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/05/esa-receives-282-794-reimbursement-from-california-may-not-be/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/05/esa-receives-282-794-reimbursement-from-california-may-not-be/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/08/05/esa-receives-282-794-reimbursement-from-california-may-not-be/#commentsFiled under: ,


The ESA, after a series of recent blows, is certainly becoming a more transparent organization -- and adding just a hint of badass to its rep. As a warning to all the other states out there looking to take on the industry with unconstitutional legislation, the ESA has placed an image of California's $282,794 legal fee reimbursement check in its latest press release. That's like the business equivalent of putting your enemy's head on a stick on the front lawn.

The ESA states that "California deserves more" than politicians pursuing "flawed legislation" and lists several places that California would have been better served spending the cash on (listed after the break). Most depressingly for California taxpayers is that this check isn't even the end of the story. The state is currently appealing the judge's injunction on the game law. Meaning, if the courts maintain the same ruling, then the ESA is going to get even more cash from California's piggy bank.

ESA's ideas on where California should focus its efforts:
  • California is currently facing a $15-billion budget gap[1]
  • More than 10,000 California state employees were laid off last week in light of the budget crisis[1]
  • Governor Schwarzenegger is seeking to cut wages for nearly 200,000 state employees[2]
  • The state already cut 10 percent to its Medicaid reimbursement rate and deferred payments to vendors[3]

[1] "Schwarzenegger makes layoffs, orders pay cuts for California state workers" - Los Angeles Times, August 1, 2008
[2] "State agencies affected by Schwarzenegger's order" - Associated Press, August 1, 2008
[3] "California Is Among States Struggling With Budgets" - New York Times, August 3, 2008

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>breakingnewscaliforniacalifornia-game-lawesagame-lawlegislationAlexander Sliwinski2008-08-05T14:30:00+00:00New York governor signs 'unnecessary' game lawhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/22/new-york-governor-signs-unnecessary-game-law/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/22/new-york-governor-signs-unnecessary-game-law/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/07/22/new-york-governor-signs-unnecessary-game-law/#commentsFiled under: ,


New York Governor David Patterson has signed some of the most ... well, put it this way, if you like the government wasting time, then you're going to love the recently signed New York game bill. GamePolitics reports the legislation establishes an advisory council to conduct a study between games and real-world violence. It also requires -- here's the kicker -- new video game consoles to incorporate parental lockout features by 2010 and retail games to disclose ESRB ratings. News flash: All consoles already have parental lockout features built in and ESRB ratings are prominently displayed on each game's box and disc.

For its part, the Entertainment Software Association believes the law ignores "legal precedent, common sense and the wishes of many New Yorkers in enacting this unnecessary bill." It points out that the mandates required are already voluntarily in place and the bill unfairly singles out the video game industry. The ESA asks if New York would like to convene a government commission on books, theater and film as well. It's still up in the air if the ESA will sue New York, but the lobby group has gotten good at getting game laws overturned in several states and making its money back for doing so in the process.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>david-pattersonesagame-lawlawlegislationnew-yorknew-york-game-lawthe-esaAlexander Sliwinski2008-07-22T15:58:00+00:00Betrayal! Law of the Game columnist explains how to pass game legislationhttp://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/08/betrayal-law-of-the-game-columnist-explains-how-to-pass-game-le/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/08/betrayal-law-of-the-game-columnist-explains-how-to-pass-game-le/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/08/betrayal-law-of-the-game-columnist-explains-how-to-pass-game-le/#commentsFiled under:


Friends, we have a traitor in our midst. Our very own Law of the Game columnist, Mark Methenitis, has given the enemy a point-by-point plan on how to regulate games. He thought we wouldn't find it on his personal blog, and many Bothans died to bring us this information, but here is a small sample of his treachery.
  • "1. Forget the idea that you're only regulating games: If you want a regulation to stick, targeting one media without credible proof of the difference between that media and all of the other things kids are exposed to isn't going to fly. So, if you want to regulate games, the bill needs to also regulate movies, maybe music, and potentially even books. It needs to be a universal approach to put parents in control. ..."
  • "5. Forget the 'AO' rating for games: The argument is often made that some games should be rated 'AO.' Forget it. An 'AO' rating is basically banning the game from sale, or classifying it with the most hardcore pornography. Unless the game is some sort of sexual simulation, it shouldn't garner an 'AO' rating. In general, the sexual content in an 'M' game falls short of what is in many R rated movies or even what is on television. Arguing that a game like GTA IV should be AO is just an effort in futility."
  • "9. This should be a fine only offense, and only a fine against the store: It is the requirement of the store to perform their due diligence on each sale. Keeping that in mind, this isn't injecting heroin into the veins of children. The idea that it should be a criminal offense is just silly, and the idea that individual cashiers should be punished is equally inane. If a store has a problematic cashier, then the store should be held accountable and be allowed to deal with the cashier as they see fit."
There are six other points of treason! To reward Mr. Methenitis for his disloyalty we have dispatched our battle cats. May Cthulhu have mercy on his soul.

[Thanks, geonex88]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>lawlaw-of-the-gamelaw-of-the-game-on-j...legallegislationmark-methenitisAlexander Sliwinski2008-05-08T20:58:00+00:00Law of the Game on Joystiq: Video game laws (abort/retry/fail)http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/19/law-of-the-game-on-joystiq-video-game-laws-abort-retry-fail/#commentsFiled under:

Each week Mark Methenitis contributes Law of the Game on Joystiq, a column on legal issues as they relate to video games:


This week has seen a striking revival of 'video game legislation' stories, from Massachusetts to Minnesota to England. Given the sudden resurgence of the issue, it seemed like an appropriate time to dissect the legal issue of 'video game regulation' on the Law of the Game operating table. The concept of government regulation is as much a legal construct as it is a political one, and to date, it has been the legal system's role to strike down these regulations as a violation of free speech (although, it has recently been brought out that, at a minimum, Justice Scalia may not agree). The real issue at hand is where, if anywhere, a 'video game law' could fall in our legal system.

In broad terms, the US government gets to regulate many things, be that at the state or federal level. Just take a moment to think of all of the ways the government restricts your personal and professional life. If you want to drive a car without stealing it, you have to be at least 16 years old. If you want to buy certain 'products' from law-abiding establishments (the guy in the back alley doesn't count), the age restrictions are set at 18 or 21. If you want to sell a franchise concept, you have to make certain disclosures as required by the Federal Trade Commission and various state regulators. If you want to get philosophical, this is all part of the 'social contract,' and these restrictions are generally in place for the benefit of the public at large. But what about the games?

When it comes to games, it is more about content restriction than restriction on an actual, quantifiable 'evil.' Taking parts of the previous list, alcohol sales are restricted because of the actual dangers of drinking (expect on your birthday!), tobacco sales are restricted because of the actual risk of cancer, and franchise sales are restricted because of an actual risk of major fraud. Video games have been, at best, nebulously linked to behavioral issues in studies that have been disputed by similar studies with contrary findings. Until there is a conclusive medical publication that shows video games trigger, say, homicidal psychosis, the cry for regulation is really a call for a content restriction, just as practically every new media has faced (i.e., rock and roll, comic books, and even movies and television).

In the broadest sense, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, that is, it bars content restrictions on speech. To quote Justice Thurgood Marshall, "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." Drilling down into the specifics of the case law, however, the government does have some ability to limit the sale of 'obscene' material. However, the definition of 'obscene' is pretty limited in the US based on the 'Miller test.'

The Miller Test has 3 elements for obscenity: whether an average person, using the community standards, would find the work as a whole appeals to the prurient (generally, sexual) interest; whether the work depicts in a graphic way sexual activities; and whether the work lacks 'SLAPS' (serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific) value. Given that the obscenity test is almost purely based on sexual content, it would apply to few games. Moreover, as games have become a more accepted medium of expression, the artistic value of those expressions has increased. Finally, any game which is judged to be a political statement would have even greater protection under 'free speech' law, as political speech is generally only subject to time, place and manner restrictions. While certain people have argued that games are 'obscene,' evidence has yet to be presented to prove this point. The overwhelming majority of games does not have content that exceeds what is allowed on network television, much less R-rated movies.

Speaking of movies and television, they are an example of two different realms of content regulation. In case anyone is not familiar, the following links contain more information about the MPAA's movie rating system and the TV rating system. At a broad level, it is important to know that the movie system is not enforced by the government, while the TV system is. Why is there a difference? The TV rating system is imposed by the FCC, which is a government regulatory agency, based on the fact that any TV station has to be licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves. Because of the FCC's control of the broadcast spectrum, they have leverage with which to enforce content restrictions. The MPAA, on the other hand, is a private, industry organization and no such license is required for a movie theater to show any given movie. To put things into perspective, the ESRB is a private organization and games are shown in private residences. Games are, in that respect, no different than movies.

This, of course, begs the question: Why games? There are a lot of theories about this particular issue, but I see it as a combination of factors: fear of new things, an easy target, unscrupulous politicians, and a largely uneducated public. Legislators love to find something like video games; something they can use to exploit the public's misconceptions and fears in order to make it appear as if they've remedied a great evil without actually having to tackle a hard-hitting or divisive issue. Almost no one opposes legislation 'to protect the children,' even if no children are actually being protected.

If the idea of 'video game regulation' were left entirely in my hands (that's right, vote Methenitis!), I would simply leave the issue wholly untouched by the government. While I may not go as far as a complete anti-Jack and say that anyone should be able to play anything at any time, I do think that the government should be left out of a decision that has been effectively left to parents for years. Media consumption, be it books or movies or television or video games, can only be controlled to the degree espoused by some of the game industry's most vocal opponents in a 'nanny-state,' where personal responsibility has taken a back seat to 'big brother.'

Until a definitive ruling is handed down from the Supreme Court, the public becomes more educated on the facts at hand, or the gamer generation becomes the majority player in politics, we will continue to see opportunist legislators attempt to use video games as their grand platform to 'save the children.' The most unfortunate part is that taxpayer dollars -- your money -- and legislative efforts are being wasted on this trivial non-issue rather than on many of the more important issues that face both the US and the world at large.

Mark Methenitis is the Editor in Chief of the Law of the Game blog, which discusses legal issues in video games. Mr. Methenitis is also a licensed attorney in the state of Texas with The Vernon Law Group, PLLC and a member of the Texas Bar Assoc., American Bar Assoc., and the International Game Developers Assoc. Opinions expressed in this column are his own. Reach him at: lawofthegame [AAT] gmail [DAWT] com.

The content of this blog article is not legal advice. It only constitutes commentary on legal issues, and is for educational and informational purposes only. Reading this blog, replying to its posts, or any other interaction on this site does not create an attorney-client privilege between you and the author. The opinions expressed on this site are not the opinions of AOL LLC., Weblogs, Inc., Joystiq.com, or The Vernon Law Group, PLLC. As with any legal issue that may confront you in a particular situation, you should always consult a qualified attorney familiar with the laws in your state.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>lawlaw-of-the-gamelegallegislationpoliticsregulationsMark Methenitis2008-03-19T18:00:00+00:00Presidential candidates talk video game violencehttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/13/presidential-candidates-talk-video-game-violence/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/13/presidential-candidates-talk-video-game-violence/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/13/presidential-candidates-talk-video-game-violence/#commentsFiled under: , ,

Health care? Taxes? Immigration? Why do presidential candidates insist on wasting our time talking about such trivial issues? When will they address the questions we really care about -- the ones about video games? Well, actually, right now.

Non-partisan, not-for-profit advocacy group Common Sense Media has quizzed some of the leading presidential candidates on a variety of media issues, video game violence legislation among them. Here's a quick summary of their views on proposed federal legislation limiting children's access to violent games:
  • Senator John Edwards (D - NC): The ESRB and retailers are doing a pretty good job, but the FTC found that 42 percent of children under 17 can still purchase M-rated games, and that's too high. Publishers need to tone down the marketing of violent games to kids. If the industry isn't careful, the government "will need to consider further steps" to keep these games away from children
  • Senator Barack Obama (D - IL): Video games should use technology to let parents restrict content [Note to Obama: they already do.] The rating system should be improved to make content information "easier to find and easier to understand. ... but if the industry fails to act, then my administration would." In any case, the government should spend money to study the problem.
  • Governor Bill Richardson (D - NM): "I would consider this legislation," but it's really up to the parents. I'll give federal employees paid time off to spend with their kids.
  • Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney (R - Mass.): I would enforce current obscenity laws to protect children from "a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion." I would "go after" retailers that sell violent games.
While the responses are interesting, the lack of participation from front-runners like Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guliani and Mike Huckabee makes the information a little less than complete just weeks away from the Iowa caucuses. Still, the full questionnaire has illuminated the candidates' thoughts on other game-related issues such as childhood obesity, screen time, media literacy and the media's impact on the candidates' own kids. Be an informed voter and give it a read.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>2008barack-obamabill-richardsoncampaignedwardsjohn-edwardslawlegislationmitt-romneyobamapresidentpresidentialrichadsonromneyviolenceKyle Orland2007-12-13T13:30:00+00:00ESA wants Schwarzenegger to pay for legal feeshttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/06/esa-wants-schwarzenegger-to-pay-for-legal-fees/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/06/esa-wants-schwarzenegger-to-pay-for-legal-fees/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/09/06/esa-wants-schwarzenegger-to-pay-for-legal-fees/#commentsFiled under: ,

California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger made good on his promise today to file an appeal over a judge's ruling that a recently-proposed violent video games law was unconstitutional. In apparent retaliation, the Entertainment Software Association has filed a motion for California to recoup $324,840 in legal fees for its previous, successful challenge against the law.

In a statement, the ESA said that if the motion is granted, the industry will have been awarded a total of $1.9 million in fee and expenses for "defending its First Amendment rights" in this case and eight others. The trade association has a pretty good batting average so far, but does it have the firepower to defeat a T-101 exo skeleton?

[Update: Although we like the thought of a robotic insectoid turtle monster, we have to provide canonical accuracy. The T-101 skeleton was on the inside of the body. Fixed.]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>arnoldschwarzeneggercaliforniaesalegislationschwarzeneggerRoss Miller2007-09-06T15:25:00+00:00Mitt Romney cleaning up dirty video game waterhttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/18/mitt-romney-cleaning-up-dirty-video-game-water/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/18/mitt-romney-cleaning-up-dirty-video-game-water/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/07/18/mitt-romney-cleaning-up-dirty-video-game-water/#commentsFiled under:


Former one-term governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney is starting his campaign off on the great motivator of fear. Using the ocean as a metaphor based off something Columbine related, he speaks of how "deeply troubled" he is by the culture our children grow up in today. Romney says, "I'd like to see us clean up the water in which our kids are swimming. I'd like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers. I'd like to keep drugs off the street. I'd like to see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies. If we get serious about this we can actually do a great deal to clean up the water in which our kids and grandkids are swimming." Senator Brownback of Kansas says Romney is just a little late to the culture wars.

Brownback, who's already busy with his own battle on video games, says that Romney is a hypocrite because while he was on the board of Marriott International (hotel chain) he was paid $100,000 a year by a company that makes millions of dollars a year from in-room pornography rental. Raise your hand if you like yummy gooey irony.

As we move into high gear on what will be the longest US presidential election campaign cycle ever, it'll be interesting to watch how many times video games come up as talking points when, well, it's pretty clear there are bigger issues going on. But darn it, video games make for much easier talking points.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>billsbrownbackcampaignlawslegislationpoliticsromneyvideogamesAlexander Sliwinski2007-07-18T19:02:00+00:00NY game bill awaits passage in Julyhttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/22/ny-game-bill-awaits-passage-in-july/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/22/ny-game-bill-awaits-passage-in-july/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/22/ny-game-bill-awaits-passage-in-july/#commentsFiled under: ,

Though two pieces of video game legislation passed in New York -- one in the Senate and one in the Assembly -- a compromise was not reached in time for a vote before the current session ended yesterday, reports Game Politics. The compromise was reached, however, and a unified bill is expected to pass when the legislature reconvenes in July.

According to Lower Hudson Online, the agreement still makes it a felony to sell "violent and obscene video games to minors." The bill would also have manufacturers equip game consoles with parental control settings (already available in the newest consoles) and retailers would have to label violent and obscene games (already done with the ESRB, though this bill reportedly requires another sticker).

If the bill, which Vicarious Visions called troubling in an Albany Times-Union op-ed, passes in July, expect the Entertainment Software Association to go after the bill with the First Amendment. And so far they have a pretty good track record.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>game politicsGamePoliticslegislationnew yorkNewYorkRoss Miller2007-06-22T16:26:00+00:00NY Times: Game law probably won't 'pass muster' in courtshttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/13/ny-times-says-game-law-probably-wont-pass-muster-in-courts/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/13/ny-times-says-game-law-probably-wont-pass-muster-in-courts/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/13/ny-times-says-game-law-probably-wont-pass-muster-in-courts/#commentsFiled under:

We've been saying it all along, but maybe if the New York Times says it, the politicians will finally listen. In an editorial the NYT says violent and sexually explicit games can be bad, "but banning them as [Governor] Spitzer and legislators want to do probably will not pass muster in the courts." They point out that Illinois spent $1.5 million defending their law which was eventually deemed unconstitutional. Guess who's next New York? The ESA is watching.

Unlike the silliness going on in England over Resistance and the Church, these New York bills aren't the actions of the naive. Gov. Spitzer et al. aren't unaware how severe their actions are, they know full well what they're doing. Despite this, they continue charging like a bull headfirst into a courtroom which will just take the cash out of New York taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the ESA for their court bills (and don't forget having to pay the New York attorneys who'll have to defend the legislation). As one commenter on GamePolitics put it, "The reason they think the bills won't fail is because they have something that the other bills didn't have ... a REALLY good feeling about this."

[Via GamePolitics]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>esagame lawlegislationnew yorkspitzterAlexander Sliwinski2007-06-13T19:55:00+00:00Vicarious Visions pens op-ed on troubling NY game billhttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/05/vicarious-visions-pens-op-ed-on-troubling-ny-game-bill/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/05/vicarious-visions-pens-op-ed-on-troubling-ny-game-bill/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/06/05/vicarious-visions-pens-op-ed-on-troubling-ny-game-bill/#commentsFiled under: ,

The Albany Times-Union today ran an op-ed piece by the CEO and president of Vicarious Visions (Marvel Ultimate Alliance), a New York based development company, about the New York video game bill legislation going down. They discuss being "deeply troubled" by the legislation currently being fast-tracked making games different from other protected speech.

The disturbing nature of the bills apparently can't be stressed properly at this point. The key feature sending chills up many game advocates' spines is that selling a game considered "depraved" to a minor would be considered a felony, with a minimum sentence of one to four years according to the New York penal code.

Vicarious Visions' CEO, Kathik Bala, and president, Guha Bala, write, "Just like movies, books, photographs, music and other forms of art and entertainment, video games are fully protected speech under the U.S. Constitution. In fact, nine federal courts in the last six years have ruled that legislation in other states substantially similar to what is being proposed in New York violates free speech protections. States have wasted hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend these statutes. Several states and municipalities have been ordered to pay more than $1.7 million to the video game industry for legal fees. Given New York's pressing economic needs, it can ill afford to spend money enacting and then having to defend this proposal."

And therein lies the rub. In the end, these bills fail in court. The states involved are forced to pay the ESA for the cost of defending the industry from unconstitutional legislation. How many times do they need to play out the same plot line over and over again? The outcome remains the same. But it looks like state after state will pop in another quarter and try again.

[Via GamePolitics]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>balabillslanzalegislationnew yorkNewYorkvicarious visionsAlexander Sliwinski2007-06-05T14:53:00+00:00New York tests limits of game legislation with felony billhttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/30/new-york-tests-the-limits-of-game-legislation/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/30/new-york-tests-the-limits-of-game-legislation/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/30/new-york-tests-the-limits-of-game-legislation/#commentsFiled under:

The latest bill proposed in New York would actually make selling or renting a game to a minor which has "depraved violence and indecent images" a class E felony. What is that exactly in prison time? According to New York penal law, "For a class E felony, the term shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed four years." However, it must be over one year imprisonment to be considered class E. But wait, it gets better. "Depraved" is defined by the bill as anything showing "rape, dismemberment, physical torture, mutilation or evisceration of a human being." So, many M rated games would fall under this category. Boiled all the way down, this new law would have a kid working at Gamestop, Best Buy, or the local Blockbuster potentially get sent to OZ for 1 - 4 years because he sold or rented a minor an M rated video game. With politicians like these, who needs Jack Thompson?

This bill, A08696 by Democrat Assemblyman Joseph Lentol will have to share the spotlight with a similar bill proposed by Sen. Andrew Lanza (R), which is backed by Senate Republicans. All of this is about Gov. Eliot Spitzer's promise to legislate video games. According to GamePolitics, the enforceable parts (the Class E felony) would go into effect 120 days after the bill passes. The State Assembly goes into recess on June 21, so this bill needs to be on the fast track to make it. New York is getting really creepy with this game legislation.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>legislationlimitsnew yorkNewYorkpoliticiansAlexander Sliwinski2007-05-30T10:15:00+00:00Judge: Louisiana must pay ESA's legal bill, Taxpayers: Crap.http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/16/judge-louisiana-must-pay-esas-legal-bill-taxpayers-crap/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/16/judge-louisiana-must-pay-esas-legal-bill-taxpayers-crap/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/16/judge-louisiana-must-pay-esas-legal-bill-taxpayers-crap/#commentsFiled under: ,


"The Court wonders why nobody objected to the enactment of this statute. In this court's view the taxpayers deserve more from their elected officials."

We've heard some harsh criticism of video game legislation before, but this holds just a bit more weight than the others. It's not just that it was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge James Brady (represented here by the lovable [yet honorable] Judge Harry Stone). No, this criticism is special thanks to the price tag of $92,000 attached to it that the state of Louisiana must pay to cover the Electronic Software Association's legal fees. It's the latest shockwave from House Bill 1381, which would've banned the sale of "violent" video games to minors. Surprising no one, the bill at the heart of the controversy was written by fear-mongering superstar, Jack Thompson, attorney-at-lawl. Also of no surprise: It was ruled unconstitutional.

But don't get excited just yet, as bill sponsor Rep. Roy Burrell (D) says he might try again with a similar bill. Well, why wouldn't he? When a bump in your approval rating among frightened parents (read: voters) is on the line, is $92,000 in taxpayer dollars really such a high price to pay?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>esajackthompsonlegislationlouisianaJustin McElroy2007-04-16T14:54:00+00:00Indiana game bill put on icehttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/02/23/indiana-game-bill-put-on-ice/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/02/23/indiana-game-bill-put-on-ice/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/02/23/indiana-game-bill-put-on-ice/#commentsFiled under:

bill on iceThe Indiana State Senate has elected to stall legislation that would have made the sale of M- and AO-rated games to minors unlawful and punishable by up a $1,000 fine. Despite being approved by a Senate committee earlier this week, the bill has been deemed unconstitutional in its current state and will be passed along to a study committee for further evaluation -- and, as co-sponsor Sen. David Ford (R) hopes, revised to pass under the First Amendment. "Eventually we're going to have to deal with it," warned Sen. Vi Simpson (D), the bill's other co-sponsor.

[Via GamePolitics]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>BillIndianaLegislationLegislaturePoliticsSB0238James Ransom-Wiley2007-02-23T16:57:00+00:00Correcting the record on New York's proposed game lawshttp://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/21/correcting-the-record-on-new-yorks-proposed-game-laws/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/21/correcting-the-record-on-new-yorks-proposed-game-laws/http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/21/correcting-the-record-on-new-yorks-proposed-game-laws/#commentsFiled under:

When the Inquirer erroneously claimed that New York was planning a "video game ban for under 30s," we just added another mark on our "wacky Inquirer story" tally sheet. When the error started spreading to sites like 1up, PlanetXbox360 and Yahoo! Tech, we figured some sort of clarification was in order.

So let's be perfectly clear. Neither of the two bills currently being proposed by the New York state legislature will stop adults 18 and over from buying any video games. The confusion seems to stem from a section appearing in both New York Bill A00547 and New York Bill A02024 which says that access to a mandated "adult" video game section of stores will require customers to show ID unless the customer "reasonably appears to be at least thirty years of age."

In other words, if you look like you're under 30, they'll ask to see some ID. If the ID says you're over 18, you'll still be allowed to enter the section and buy the games. As both bills say in their texts, stores that sell or rent games "shall store and display such [violent] video games ... in a location designated for persons over the age of eighteen, in a manner which restricts access to such games."

If this system sounds familiar, it's probably because it's similar to the ID check system set up in most states to regulate tobacco and alcohol sales. Whether or not video games should be similarly classified is definitely worthy of debate (personally, we think not), but let's make sure we're arguing about the right thing here.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>1830alcohollawlegislationregulationtobaccoviolenceKyle Orland2007-01-21T11:30:00+00:00German states mull violent game banhttp://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/07/german-states-mull-violent-game-ban/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/07/german-states-mull-violent-game-ban/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/12/07/german-states-mull-violent-game-ban/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,


The Financial Times reports that the German states of Bavaria and Lower Saxony have drafted legislation the would lead to fines and jail time for developers, distributors and even players of games that involve "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters." The proposed laws, which would affect nearly 19 million Germans, come in response to a recent school shooting by a masked, 18-year-old German Counter-Strike fan that has turned public sentiment in the country against violent games.

Bavarian Interior Minister Gunther Beckstein is leading the effort to pass the legislation, arguing "it is absolutely beyond any doubt that such killer games desensitise [sic] unstable characters and can have a stimulating effect." Despite complaints by German gamers, 59 percent of Germans at large support such a ban, according to a poll cited by the Financial Times.

Germany has a long history of tough restrictions on violent games from Doom to Gears of War, and an outright ban would likely affect high-profile PS3 launch games like Resistance: Fall of Man and Call of Duty 3.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>bangermanylawlegislationpoliticsviolent gamesViolentGamesKyle Orland2006-12-07T14:25:00+00:00Bully gets a T rating. No, seriouslyhttp://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/bully-gets-a-t-rating-no-seriously/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/bully-gets-a-t-rating-no-seriously/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/15/bully-gets-a-t-rating-no-seriously/#commentsFiled under: , ,

In a move predicted by more than a few comments at Joystiq, Rockstar's controversial title Bully has received a T for Teen rating from the ESRB. Questionable content includes Crude Humor, Language, Sexual Themes, Use of Alcohol and Tobacco, Violence. Go ahead, let that one sink in, we'll wait.

What does the T rating mean, exactly? Most retail outlets follow one simple rule of thumb: don't sell Mature-rated games to minors. According to the ESRB's official ratings guide, "Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older." Come October, little Billy won't need to ask him mom or bribe a homeless man into buying the game, he can do it himself.

Wal-mart, after pulling Bully pre-orders a few weeks back (for various, disputed reasons), is now taking pre-orders on its web site.

With the political season in full swing, we imagine more than a few politicians will cite this case as an example of the ESRB's negligence, or how the ratings system is "out of touch with" or "destroying" American values. Keep in mind the game has no guns or knives, disproving the theory that this title is a "Columbine simulator" (as purported by anti-game activist Jack Thompson).

Bully will be released October 16 for the PlayStation 2.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>jack thompsonJackThompsonlawlegislationpoliticsratingrock starRockStartake twoTakeTwoRoss Miller2006-09-15T12:55:00+00:00Federal judge stops Louisiana game lawhttp://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/25/federal-judge-stops-louisiana-game-law/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/25/federal-judge-stops-louisiana-game-law/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/25/federal-judge-stops-louisiana-game-law/#commentsFiled under:

No sooner do we post an in-depth column on the road to video game legislation in Louisiana than the AP reports that a federal judge has ruled the law unconstitutional. I swear, these federal judges are just out to spite us.

Us and, er, Louisiana Rep. Roy Burrell, the bill's sponsor, who hoped Louisiana would have "the additional adrenaline and testosterone ... needed in the upcoming 'cockfight' over the constitutionally of this bill."

Oh, and Jack Thompson, who told GamePolitics, "This law is constitutional, as it addresses all of the complaints raised by federal courts which have struck down other state video game laws." Guess not.

For those keeping track, this is the seventh separate federal ruling defending video games as speech. You'd think that by this point state politicians would begin to consider this settled law. That is, unless these laws are more about scoring political points than actually meeting any sort of constitutional test. Hmm ...

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>lawlegislationlouisianaKyle Orland2006-08-25T16:05:00+00:00The Political Game: The circus comes to Louisianahttp://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/25/the-political-game-the-circus-comes-to-louisiana/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/25/the-political-game-the-circus-comes-to-louisiana/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/25/the-political-game-the-circus-comes-to-louisiana/#commentsFiled under: ,

Each week Dennis McCauley contributes The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:

If you think back to this time last year, you'll surely recall the State of Louisiana being ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Traumatized residents there are still trying to rebuild their lives. These poor souls need all kinds of help - loans and subsidies, jobs and infrastructure repairs.

So the Louisiana legislature gave them a video game law.

Just why a state that is best known for its annual, drunken, boob-flashing street party felt squeamish about, of all things, video games has never been clear. But Rep. Roy Burrell, a Louisiana Democrat, harbored strong feelings about the issue. Apparently frustrated by the failure to get his first effort passed in 2005, Burrell called in a legal gunslinger from out of town:

Jack Thompson.

Unfazed by his very public dismissal from a video game lawsuit in Alabama, the game-bashing Florida attorney set himself to studying federal court decisions in past video game cases. At some point Thompson managed to convince himself and Rep. Burrell that he had discovered the Holy Grail of video game laws - one that would survive all constitutional challenges.

So Thompson drafted a bill and Burrell sponsored it in the legislature. In May, while the attention of the video game world was focused on what would turn out to be the last E3, the pair presented their brainchild, House Bill 1381, to the Criminal Justice Committee of the Louisiana House.

Video footage available on the legislature's website reveals a vintage Thompson performance. During the hearing the anti-game crusader held up a copy of Vice City and told the assembled legislators, "It's not even speech of any kind. It is a device." That's a highly debatable assertion, since a half-dozen federal courts had already ruled that video games are speech. But no Louisiana legislator raised a voice in question.

Thompson's testimony took an especially dramatic turn when he explained to the committee how the PS2's vibrating controllers program gamers to kill.

"(the controller) literally gives you a pleasurable jolt and vibration back into your hands every time you kill someone," said Thompson, his voice dripping with disgust. "When you take a car and you run over innocent virtual pedestrians in the game you get a pleasurable vibration as your wheels go over their skulls..."

With the nonsense meter now dialed all the way up, Burrell waded in, criticizing a racist Flash game that was then circulating the Web. Just one problem: the game, Border Patrol, was a non-retail product over which his legislation would have absolutely no control.

Next, Burrell related the story of an Oklahoma man accused of the horrendous murder of a child. Why he chose this example also remains unclear, since the 26-year-old suspect was no kid, and the "violent" game he played, Kingdom of Loathing, is a non-retail, non-industry, online product in which stick figures - stick figures! - battle one another. Once again, his bill would have no impact on the very example he raised to support it. Burrell wrapped up his presentation with the words, "Mr. Chairman, we got a problem..."

We sure do, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that the witnesses are completely blowing smoke up your ass.

Despite the Bizarro testimony, Rep. Burrell's bill would go on to pass Louisiana's House and Senate unanimously. The governor signed the bill into law and, as expected, the video game industry immediately sued on constitutional grounds.

Surely, this was Jack Thompson's high-water mark in his longstanding crusade against video game violence. The bill he personally authored and championed had passed without a single "nay" vote. At long last he had plunged his sword of righteousness into the cold heart of the evil, child corrupting video game industry. The sound of Doug Lowenstein grinding his teeth could be heard all the way from Washington, D.C. to Baton Rouge to Miami.

And then, just when he should have been savoring his moment in the sun, Jack Thompson instead switched into political self-destruct mode. Things started unraveling in mid-July with his ill-fated attempt to file an amicus curiae or "friend of the court" brief with Federal Judge James Brady, who is presiding over the industry lawsuit. It seems that a couple of those oh-so-annoying legal requirements were forgotten, including the one that says Thompson isn't licensed to practice before Judge Brady's court and thus can't file anything there.

Oops.

Before you could say, "Law 101," Judge Brady denied Thompson's amicus brief. On the heels of this embarrassing episode, Thompson inexplicably decided to burn his bridges with the Louisiana Attorney General's Office. Since Louisiana A.G. Charles Foti and his deputy, Burton Guidry, were the guys defending Thompson's own video game law against the industry's legal challenge, this was a rather puzzling strategy, sort of like tackling your own quarterback.

While it's hard to know what went on behind the scenes, public statements from the A.G's Office were solidly behind Thompson's law. Guidry, especially, sounded like a Jack Thompson clone, telling a local newspaper that violent games "teach a kid how to kill, how to rape, how to defile a person, how to kill an officer. Video (game industry) people hide behind the fact that it's a cartoon," and pledging, "The office of the attorney general is going to defend this all the way to the (U.S) Supreme Court."

Despite Guidry's public exhortations, things took an ugly turn when Thompson accused Guidry and his boss of mishandling the case and demanded that Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco assign the defense of the state's video game law to someone else.

"I regret to inform you," Thompson wrote to the Guv, "that... your Attorney General's office has utterly dropped the ball... tell your Attorney General, Mr. Foti, either to do his job or get out of the way so that others can do it for him."

In the midst of Thompson's sudden attack on the A.G.'s Office, Rep. Burrell put on a brave face, backed his man Jack, and tried to play the role of peacemaker.

"Historically," Burrell said, "we Louisianans are known ourselves to be a little testy at times, just enough to get the old blood boiling. Hopefully, the additional adrenaline and testosterone being displayed here may be just the extra 'uh' needed in the upcoming 'cockfight' over the constitutionally of this bill."

Adrenaline and testosterone and cockfights? Oh, my!

While the Louisiana situation is fascinating in much the same way that train wrecks are, it also raises many questions. For now, the A.G.'s office must soldier on, defending Thompson's law through gritted teeth. I can't imagine they're too thrilled about it, but they are professionals and will do what needs to be done. The governor's office certainly is not going to pull Foti and Guidry off the case.

Despite his conciliatory statements, Rep. Burrell has to be wondering what he's gotten himself into. While Jack Thompson is just passing through Louisiana, Burrell, Foti, Guidry and Gov. Blanco all have to work together long after this particular storm subsides.

As for the Louisiana video game law itself, the case remains under review by Judge Brady. A temporary restraining order blocks it from being enforced. Expect a ruling soon on the industry's request for a temporary injunction.

And don't think for a minute that the political fireworks are over in Louisiana.

Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at dennis@GamePolitics.com.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ColumnsDennis McCauleyDennisMccauleyGamePoliticsLegislationPoliticsThe Political GameThePoliticalGameDennis McCauley2006-08-25T13:00:00+00:00The Political Game: A brief history of video game legislationhttp://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/18/the-political-game-a-brief-history-of-video-game-legislation/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/18/the-political-game-a-brief-history-of-video-game-legislation/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/18/the-political-game-a-brief-history-of-video-game-legislation/#commentsFiled under: ,

Each week Dennis McCauley will contribute The Political Game, a column on the collision of politics and video games:

A well-known philosopher - I think maybe it was Doug Lowenstein - once said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

How true.

Since this a brand-new column about the politics of video games, it seems like a good idea to kick things off with a short history lesson on video game legislation in the USA. That way, if I get canned, some geek can collect these columns for the Wikipedia and they'll have a logical starting point (today's column) and a logical ending (a future Joystiq e-mail with the subject line, "You're fired").

So, pay attention. This means you, Jack Thompson.

Although the specter of legislation was initially raised in the mid-90's by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the video game industry was able to hold the Connecticut Democrat at bay by creating the Entertainment Software Rating Board as the keystone of its new voluntary compliance system. The theory was that the ESRB would rate the games. Parents would pay attention to the ratings and not buy their ten-year-old an M-rated game full of carjacking, bloody murder and hooker sex. Stores wouldn't sell the naughty games to kids. Didn't always work out that way, through no fault of the ESRB.

Fast forward to 2000. Just-elected Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson decided that regulating kids' access to the coin-op arcade gore fest House of the Dead would make Indy a safer place. The resulting law restricted those under 18 from playing or even viewing violent games and required the violent game machines to be at least 10 feet from the non-violent ones. Did Peterson think the blood and guts from House of the Dead was going to somehow infect the Sonic machine next to it? Ultimately, Federal Judge Richard Posner saved the day for the coin-ops, ruling that the Indy law "curtails freedom of expression... People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble."

In 2002 the city of St. Louis took the Indianapolis law one step further, prohibiting not only coin-op play, but retail sale or rental of violent games to minors. Different approach, similar fate. The 8th Circuit Court tossed the law for much the same reasons that doomed Indy's. A city attorney expressed bitter disappointment, called the Federal Court ruling "a blow to the parents of St. Louis County and the kids." That was three years ago, and, last time we checked, St. Louis hadn't been overwhelmed by a GTA-like wave of youth violence. As a matter of fact, youth crime levels have been trending downward for years.

The first of many state-level bills surfaced in Washington State in 2003. A Democrat, Mary Lou Dickerson, introduced a bill that made it illegal to sell a game that allowed the player to kill or injure police and firefighters.

Nice sentiment, flawed execution. I distinctly recall Doug Lowenstein speaking about the problems with Dickerson's bill at E3 that year. What if the cop was corrupt and coming to kill your character, Lowenstein asked. Or if he was some of kind of murderous space policeman guarding an evil empire in a sci-fi shoot 'em up? The bill was signed into law by Washington's governor, and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a Federal court.

Anyone seeing a pattern here?

Zip ahead to 2005. Fueled by the Hot Coffee scandal, three states pass video game legislation in a single year, including the chewy center of the U.S. video game industry, California. All three laws were directed primarily at retailers, prohibiting them from selling M-rated games to minors. Federal Judge Matthew Kennelly almost immediately ruled Illinois' law unconstitutional. Just last week, Kennelly added insult to injury by ordering the state to pay the video game industry's legal fees, to the tune of a half-million dollars. A Michigan law was similarly disposed of. California's video game statute was blocked from going into effect by a Federal District Court judge in San Jose last December. It's still in limbo as we wait for the Court's final ruling.

If legislators have learned anything from these courtroom losses, they're not showing it. Three more states - Oklahoma, Minnesota and Louisiana - passed video game laws this year. The sponsor of Oklahoma's bill, Republican Fred Morgan, told a local newspaper in 2005 that he wanted to pattern his bill on the Illinois law - three days after the Illinois law was ruled unconstitutional. Minnesota passed the most bizarre law so far, a measure that would have fined underage buyers $25 for trying to purchase M-rated games. The bill's author, Democrat Sandra Pappas, rather famously told GameSpot, "Legislators don't worry too much about what's constitutional."

But judges do, and the Minnesota bill went down in constitutional flames mere weeks after passage.

And then there's Louisiana, where none other than Jack Thompson crafted the state's video game legislation. That bill, still under consideration by a federal judge, rates an entire column by itself, so watch this space. By the way, I've only written about state and local bills that have made it to final passage today. There are dozens of others that died in committee or failed in their respective legislatures for one reason or another. Nor have I touched on congressional legislation. We'll save that for another time as well.

Finally, before you dash off an angry e-mail to tell me that the "doomed to repeat history" quote is actually from George Santayana, don't bother. I've got all of his albums. "Smooth" is like my favorite song.

Dennis McCauley is Editor of GamePolitics.com and writes about games for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Opinions expressed in The Political Game are his own. Reach him at dennis@GamePolitics.com.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ColumnsDennis McCauleyDennisMccauleyGamePoliticsLegislationPoliticsThe Political GameThePoliticalGameDennis McCauley2006-08-18T14:25:00+00:00Did video games lose it for Lieberman?http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/10/did-video-games-lose-it-for-lieberman/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/10/did-video-games-lose-it-for-lieberman/http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/10/did-video-games-lose-it-for-lieberman/#commentsFiled under:

Was support for video game regulation a significant factor in Joe Lieberman's primary loss to Ned Lamont in yesterday's Democratic Connecticut Senate primary? That's the theory put forth by one blogger, who says that the young children who remember Lieberman from the 1994 video game hearings are now of voting age and out for revenge!

We're not buying it, though. For one thing, 18- to 24-year-olds are a historically unimportant voting bloc -- only 36 percent of them voted in the 2000 presidential election (though this group is growing: 47 percent voted in 2004). For another, exit polls (.pdf) show that issues like the war in Iraq and Lieberman's close relationship with Bush were foremost on voters' minds -- video game issues don't even make a blip.

Despite the loss, Lieberman has announced he will still be running as an Independent, which means his vociferous calls for game regulation might yet continue to ring through the Senate. Even if he does lose in November, other Senators like Hillary Clinton have shown they are more than willing to take up the cause.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ConnecticutJoe LiebermanJoeLiebermanlegislationLiebermanpoliticsregulationsenateKyle Orland2006-08-10T09:35:00+00:00