Michigan puts a fine on selling M games to minors (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

Admins, if you feel this is political, please delete

Well, the big problem that Lieberman has is that he's a Democrat, and since it's well documented that Hollywood-ites are some of the biggest contributors to the Democratic party, Lieberman tends to keep his anti-Hollywood to a minimum and focus on the destruction of the games industry which has much less of an established Washington Lobby

 

[JayV]

If you don't enforce the voluntary system, then there's no point in having it.

Eh? Surely, by definition, it is not possible to enforce a voluntary system.

It may not surprise you to learn that our legal system doesn't see a problem with enforcing "voluntary" systems. Specifically, a code of conduct (for example, the Hippocratic Oath) may be used to establish a standard of care in a negligence claim. Perhaps this provides a solution?

A scenario:

Some 15 year old buys Halo, an "M"-rated game, and is not checked for age. Then this Living Tribute to Darwin get his hands on a hand grenade.

He tries to use it to launch himself onto his home's roof like he saw in Halo; succeeding only in launching himself into the Emergency Room.

Parents sue retailer for negligence. They settle for hospital costs, a copy of Real Life for Dummies and $5 off a pre-order for Halo 2.

Future retailers get the message and start checking ID.

This scenario would simply use a code of conduct already in place and not use the coercive power of the state.

-j

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Eh? Surely, by definition, it is not possible to enforce a voluntary system

Some stores have the voluntary rating system used in their rules. You're not allowed to sell games with certain ratings to minors. The idea of a rule is, in itself, a voluntary following of an instruction.

The thing about your scenario is that the game companies are not to blame. They have the ratings on their games. The parents are really to blame, but since they didn't care enough to check the rating or anything about the game, they have somewhat of a basis for a legal suit.

 

[JayV]

The parents are really to blame, but since they didn't care enough to check the rating or anything about the game, they have somewhat of a basis for a legal suit.

Yes, but I have to say I have little sympathy for a retailer -- or anyone -- who purports to adhere to a code of conduct with no intention to follow it.

I would feel differently if we are talking about a 15 year old who is 6'3", shaves twice a day, has graying hair and walks in with a fake ID and smoking a cigarette. But, hey, it's my hypothetical.

It is ridiculous, though, that a 15 year old can probably download the Unabomber's manifesto or think that Oliver Stone is a historian, but a game like BMX XXX (boobies!) generates a shitstorm.

-j

Think this post has no point? It pushed me over the 100 mark. Who did it? Me, baby, me.

 

[JasonK]

Wal-Mart has a rule about this. It's THEIR rule that THEY made. If they're not going to enforce it, what's the point?

That's precisely what Jeff, Jay, and myself have been getting at.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

That's precisely what Jeff, Jay, and myself have been getting at

I agree with you guys when you put it the way I did. But what I've been seeing is "what's the point of the RATINGS if nobody is going to enforce the rules?"

 

[Michael St. Clair]

what's the point of the RATINGS if nobody is going to enforce the rules?

To help parents understand the subject matter and intensity of the material when making decisions about what games their children can play?
Maybe someday all children will taken from their parents to be raised in government orphanages with government allowances they can spend in government-regulated stores. They we'll be enforcin', yeah buddy!
Children can't buy alcohol or hardcore pornography. M-rated games are being moved into this category. And just like it is not legal for parents to give their children alcohol or hardcore pornography, a day is likely coming when a parent will go to jail for allowing their child to play an M-rated game.

 

[JasonK]

That's how I see it, so I could care less what happens with music (it's also so popular that the government would have a tougher time being able to actually make laws regulating it).

Once again, a statement from an admitted non-music fan. If you don't follow the industry, how is it you know that the government has a tougher time regulating it? And how can you compare something you know nothing about with videogames?

Bottom line, if you are unfamiliar with a topic, don't just blow smoke and make broad generalizations. Please.

 

[JasonK]

And just like it is not legal for parents to give their children alcohol or hardcore pornography, a day is likely coming when a parent will go to jail for allowing their child to play an M-rated game.

And that really frightens me.

 

[JayV]

So what you're suggesting is that the stores stop enforcing the "dont' sell...." rule. But the thing is, that rule is put in place by the stores, not by the ESRB or by game developers. The stores are making the rule and then not enforcing it.

Morgan, I'm not convinced that we disagree on this point, so I'll revise and rehash what I said and reissue it as a Special Edition:

1. I presented a scenario that would hold a retailer with an age check policy accountable for not enforcing it without directly using the coercive power of the state.

2. It's probably true that we are a litigious nation and it is also probably true that some people want to use ratings in an effort to abdicate parental and personal responsibility.

3. Nevertheless, I believe my scenario is less onerous then the state criminalizing the sale of a video game. Let's be clear, we aren't talking about government regulation here -- something promulgated by an agency -- this is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to ninety days in jail.

4. Again, it does not penalize developers or publishers. Yes, it may encourage retailers to not support an age check policy. Fine. Let those retailers be the focus of discussion and leave everyone else (developers, publishers, gamers and those retailers who age check) alone.

-j

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Morgan, I'm not convinced that we disagree on this point, so I'll revise and rehash what I said and reissue it as a Special Edition

Or Extended Edition with over 3 lines of added text!

The way I see it, these retailers already have these rules in place. They obviously don't care that much about enforcing their own rules. If they did follow these rules, then this law would not have been put into effect, nor would it affect them now or in the future. I'd prefer that the government not make this law, but I'd also prefer the stores actually follow their own rules.

 

[JayV]

Actually, kids can consume alcohol in the presence of their parents

As for this, New Jersey's statutes seem to say the opposite, as the law "extend to persons 21 years of age and older the right to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages." Emphasis mine. No exception made for sharing a Knob Creek with dad. See New Jersey's Permanant Statutes 9:17B-1. Now, there are no comments available online, so I have no idea if any exception has been made judicially.
And the Special Edition was made so by the inclusion of an alternate audio track. If you put your ear to the screen, you can all the arguments against the proposition that Michael Jackson is whacky.
-j

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Actually, kids can consume alcohol in the presence of their parents and they only can't buy pornography. If a kid sees a porno through some means (like the parents have porn and they see it), that doesn't mean the parents broke the law. Kids can't buy alcohol, cigarettes, or pornography. That's all.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer.

Laws vary from state-to-state, but typically if a parent allows a child to see explicit pornography (either on purpose or through neglect), the parent can be charged with criminal child abuse.

Likewise, in many (maybe most) states, a parent cannot give their own minor children alcohol. In some states (like Arizona), they can be charged with criminal child abuse. The laws vary a lot; some states allow consumption for cerimonial purposes (typically religious, which has raised some constitutional hackles) and/or if the child does not become intoxicated. Some states do not make such exceptions (California, for one).

And it is always illegal for a third party to provide/sell the material in question to a minor. But no criminal law is broken when selling/renting an R-rated movie to a minor.

By pushing for criminal prosecution of clerks who sell M--rated games to minors, Lieberman and his gang are pushing to move M-rated videogames away from the domain of R-rated films and into the domain of alcohol and pornography.

 

[JayV]

By pushing for criminal prosecution of clerks who sell M--rated games to minors, Lieberman and his gang are pushing to move M-rated videogames away from the domain of R-rated films and into the domain of alcohol and pornography.

Well said; this is what I've (inartfully) been trying to say. I believe it's the crux of the matter.

-j

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Parents need to be more involved with what their kids are involved with

This is a total cop-out. I would buy that argument if the govt were trying to prevent these games from being sold at all. But the fact is, making it easy for kids to buy these games without a parent directly undermines the ability of parents who do care and are trying too raise their kids as they see fit. Even the best, most involved parent can't watch their kid every second of every day, so you can't blame the parent if a kid buys a game without permission that the parent doesn't want them playing. And what about the kid who doesn't have good parents? You can argue that raising a kid with the proper values is the parents' responsibility, just like it's the parents' responsiblity to make sure their kid goes to school and does their homework. But no matter what, there are always going to be some lousy, inattentive parents in the world. Should we just write those kids off and not worry about them?

Let me ask you this. Who is really negatively affected by this, besides kids who no longer will be able to buy games that their parents don't want them playing? If a parent doesn't mind, they can always buy it for their kids, so it's not like anybody is being deprived of some inalienable right to play a particular game. The only other negative impact of this ruling you could argue is to the bottom line of retailers who sells lots of these games to kids, and I'm sorry but you're not going to get any sympathy from me there.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Any parent who lets their kids run around with 50 bucks to buy a game, and who doesn't know what games the kids are playing, is not fit to be a parent.

Marijuana and Ecstacy are illegal, and kids say they are quite easy to buy. But any good parent doesn't count on the law to raise their kids; they do it themselves.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

is not fit to buy a parent

Hehe.

 

[BrianB]

Which means that at 21, you can buy and consume alcohol. It does not mean you can't consume alcohol under the age of 21. In church, do they not give children under the age of 21 wine?

It is illegal to buy alcohol to give to a minor. And I don't know of any church in the US that actually uses "real" alcoholic wine for communion - there may be, but I don't know of them. There's a whole bunch of people who couldn't partake of communion if it was alcoholic.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

It is illegal to buy alcohol to give to a minor

If my dad gets a bottle of wine for New Year's Eve, I am allowed to have a glass of it. It is illegal to buy alcohol with the sole purpose of giving it to a minor, but if you do not buy it with the intent of doing so, then you haven't broken any laws.

 

[JayV]

We were taught in school that consuming alcohol with your parents supervising is OK.

You were taught this in school by an adult? Really?

I believe the construction of that statute does not mean you can consume alcohol under the age of 21. For that matter, look at N.J.S.A. 2C:33-17:

"Anyone who purposefully or knowingly offers or serves or makes available an alcoholic beverages to a person under the legal age for consuming alcoholic beverages or entices that person to drink alcohol or makes real property owned, leased or managed by him available for the consumption of alcohol by underaged persons is committing a disorderly person offense and is subject to a fine of up to $1000 if convicted."

Pretty clear, no?

Because someone chooses not to pursue and prosecute a sip of wine at communion or half a glass of wine with the folks at Christmas dinner does not mean it is legal to drink when underage. Again, I don't know NJ law, but ...

But to get back on-topic, Jeff asks a good question, who is negatively affected here? Like Jeff, I don't have a lot of sympathy for a retailer who ignores a policy it claims to follow.

Nevertheless, I am more concerned when the state has criminalized the sale of a game -- particularly when 1) We aren't sure what, if any, effect, videogames have, 2) Alternatives may exist to this new law and 3) It isn't clear to me that this legislation will have its intended effect.

-j