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

[Michael St. Clair]

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.

Stop it man, you are killing me!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

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.

Not to mention the fact that the videogame industry is being singled out.
A bookseller can sell a copy of "American Psycho" or "Catcher in the Rye" to a minor without fear of jail time.
A video store can rent/sell a copy of "Porky's" or "Dirty Harry" to a minor without fear of jail time.
A movie theater can sell a minor a ticket to "Van Wilder" or "Gangs of New York" without fear of jail time.
But sell a 17-year old a copy of "GTA" or "BMX XXX" (even unintentionally), and your ass can sit in the clink for 90 days.
As I've stated repeatedly, this is an attempt to move M-rated games into the category of liquor and hardcore pornography.
In modern civilization, freedom is usually taken away under the guise of trying to protect the populace.
Orwell (and Bradbury, and George Lucas, and others) tried to warn us.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

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

I'd be surprised if the UCLA didn't bring the new law down before it was able to have any real effect. Either that or they will make those other things (like movies, music, books, etc.) fit in with alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, and videogames so it's all fair.

 

[JayV]

What's wrong with me? Why must I respond? But I will.

1. Earlier you said "Actually, kids can consume alcohol in the presence of their parents." This did not ring true to me and I showed you a NJ statute demonstrating this.

2. You argued the construction. I showed you another statute (even more on point) that supported my interpretation.

3. Later you mention that in certain circumstances "you can get away with it legally." Unless there is case law to the contrary -- which you have not shown -- I don't see how this is possible. Yes, you can get away with it. But you cannot get away with it legally.

4. Then, you throw in this bit:

I'm in a Law and Justice class right now, and one of the things we learned is that doing something and doing something with the intent of doing it (like shooting someone by accident versus on purpose) can greatly affect their punishment.

And? You are already at the sentencing stage? Sounds like you were convicted of doing something illegal. Also, I believe you will find that "intent" often becomes an issue much earlier in the judicial process (the statute I cited uses a "purposefully or willingly" standard.

Finally, I'm encouraged to learn that you are learning about issues like intent -- I didn't get to learn about these things until later in my academic career.

-j

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Quote:

How the hell could the University of California at Los Angeles 'bring a law down'?

 

[Jeff Kohn]

Earlier you said "Actually, kids can consume alcohol in the presence of their parents." This did not ring true to me and I showed you a NJ statute demonstrating this.

This is getting off topic, but...
Alcohol is regulated by the states, so assuming that consumption of alcohol by a minor is illegal in all states is just as big of an assumption as that it's legal in most or all states. I find it interesting that your profile shows you as living in PA, but you had to dig up a NJ law to support your position. FYI, I looked up the Texas regulation, and although it does prohibit minors from drinking, it also makes a specific exception if the minor is in the presence of a parent, guardian, or spouse who is of legal drinking age. So :p)
And just in case somebody doesn't want to take my word for it, go here, open up TITLE4.DOC, and scroll down to Sec. 106.04

 

[Jeff Kohn]

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.

While on vacation last summer visiting relatives, we went to a Lutheran church with some relatives and they did indeed use real wine for communion, though they also had grape juice for anybody who was unable or unwilling to drink wine. I didn't notice whether the younger people were drinking wine or grape juice, it didn't occur to me at the time to watch. I thought Catholics used wine also, or at least they used to.

 

[JayV]

I find it interesting that your profile shows you as living in PA, but you had to dig up a NJ law to support your position.

I checked with New Jersey because it is my understanding that Morgan is from there.

As you point out, law can vary from state to state and I wanted to find what was relevant to Morgan and to what he had heard.

And I think I remember taking Episcopalian communion with real wine when I was in high school. But I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that that doesn't necessarily make that legal.

-j

 

[JasonK]

if I asked every single person I know if they knew about this, I can guarantee none of them would know about it (OK, maybe 2 would).

I'll paraphrase Ian MacKaye for a reply. He said that the people that will get something out of his music will find them. They don't have to advertise, their audience will seek them out, or hear about them through word of mouth. It's worked for over 10 years. (Longer if you include Minor Threat.) It's irrelevant that your friends and many of my friends haven't heard of these acts. I've only scratched the surface of music I want to hear, yet am amazed at how many people are into the same thing on various websites. There's a lot out there, just takes effort to find it.

/End off-topic discussion. Sorry to sidetrack everything. Morgan, if you wish to continue this discussion, we should do so in PM or email so the thread stays on-topic.

 

[JayV]

Morgan, if you wish to continue this discussion, we should do so in PM or email so the thread stays on-topic.

Too late! (cackles)

But back on topic, Morgan, I think you are right that the ACLU might have some luck. The Senate needs to approve the legislation, so the ACLU will get a bite at the apple before it becomes law.

-j

 

[Morgan Jolley]

Quote:

The stuff I see is the stuff that's thrown at me. I'm not going to try to sift through all the crap music out there to get to the good stuff. I could just as easily find a good videogame OST, anime OST, go with some old music I already like, or just not care. I don't think it's worth it since the only benefit is that I find a diamond in the rough when I could spend all that time enjoying something I already like (whether that's music, videogames, movies, TV show, whatever).
And I PROMISE that this is the last post related to this. I think it'd be better if we had an AIM discussion, since that goes by much faster and I rarely check my PMs.
Back to topic for good

 

[Jason Hughes]

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?

Who? Potentially all of us. First of all the minor hassle of being carded to buy a video game (I can live with this, but should not have to).

The bigger issue is than in an effor to appease Joey-Burn-the-Constitution-Liebermutt game makers will tone down some of the violence and what not to avoid the M rating (see Medal of Honor). The same thing has been going on with movies since Columbine. It seems like everything is PG-13 now when a lot of these movies were intended to be an R. It is nothing more than a little man trying to use his position of power to stamp things that offend him.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Jason, in actuallity it's because movies are so darn expensive these days, especially action movies that you can't get buy on the money an R rated film will make. For example, The Matrix was a HUGE hit at $171 million for an R movie, but non-R will do 2-300 million.

Otherwise you're pretty accurate

 

[Morgan Jolley]

The bigger issue is than in an effor to appease Joey-Burn-the-Constitution-Liebermutt game makers will tone down some of the violence and what not to avoid the M rating (see Medal of Honor)

I can only hope this doesn't happen.

Though the same thing that Jeff said applies to games. There are some games that have had content removed so that they wouldn't get M ratings because M rated games aren't sold in some stores. Also, some console manufacturers make developers remove things (like Sony did for BMX XXX).

 

[Damien]

for the two kids who read this board, something to think about...
http://www.msnbc.com/news/856649.asp?vts=011320031255

 

[Morgan Jolley]

If anybody checked out the link that went to the IDSA report earlier in this thread, then I think you'll come to the same conclusion I have:

This legislation is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Tony-B]

Ugh. I was scared when I heard Lieberman was going to run for president!!!
I posted that report. http://www.idsa.com/IDSAfinal.pdf

This legislation is a solution looking for a problem.

I'm gonna have to agree with Morgan Jolley on this one.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

One thing to remember is that the ISDA report is propoganda. It's propaganda we agree with, but is so nonetheless

Morgan, that's one of the smartest things I've sen you say on the HTF. Nicely done

This whole thing reminds me ofa book written in the 50s called "Seduction of the Innocent" by Dr. Fredrich Wertham. In his book he bought up many of the same schtick as Lieberman, except about comic books. Dr. Wertham had a psychiatric practice where he saw many disturbed children who, suprise suprise liked violent comics

The following witch trials required the industry to adopt such ludicrous statuetes as:

"Policemen, judges, government officials and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority."

"Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be permitted in the advertising of any product in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals."

"Respect for parents, the moral code, and for honourable behaviour shall be fostered. A sympathetic understanding of the problems of love is not a licence for morbid distortion."

"All characters shall be depicted in dress reasonably acceptable to society."

"Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly nor as to injure the sensibilities of the reader."

The treatment of love-romance stories shall emphasize the value of the home and the sanctity of marriage.

"The word "crime" "murder" or other like terms shall not be bigger than any other word on the cover"

and so on

The CCA destroyed EC comics, original publishers of MAD who were also publishing many fine adult level magazines. Lieberman already tried to have his witch trials, equivilant to Wertham's Senatorial juvenille delinquent hearings and he failed to do any real damage. I'm very afraid as President he will indeed make good on what he's wanted for a decade

 

[Morgan Jolley]

That IDSA report also mentions similar findings (that there is no correlation between videogames and violent behavior) from a few other reports, such as one by the US Govt. and one by the Australian Govt.

And I seriously doubt Lieberman will even get his party's official nomination. He's not liberal enough in some respects, but too liberal in others. Either way, it's politics, so let's leave it out.

Besides, he's not going to make videogames illegal; the president doesn't have that much power.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The point is that the man can cause a lot of grief as President. As a Senator, maybe 5% of America even know that he's a Senator, let alone that he ran for VP last election. But as President, most people will know who he is, and the title alone will make our lives that much harder

I agree though that the discussion of "why Joseph Lieberman is a bad man when it comes to our mutual hobbies" is not political, however once you step outside that to the nomination process et all, it really will become political