NY State Passes Video Game Labelling Law; About To Waste Taxpayer Money Defending It
from the definition-of-insanity dept
About a dozen states have passed laws either requiring video games be labeled for content or banning the sale of certain video games to children. Every single time this has happened, the law has been struck down as unconstitutional. And, every single time, the same arguments are shown to politicians, explaining how such a ban is a clear violation of the First Amendment. Politicians know this. But they can't resist passing such laws, because it gets them headlines about how they're "protecting the children," even if the only real result is having to waste taxpayer money defending the law in court, where they always lose.The latest to join the fray? New York State. NY has been working on such a bill for a while, and Gov. Patterson has signed it into law. Lawsuits are already being filed against it, and New York will almost certainly lose. Once again, we can't resist repeating the quote from Judge Richard Posner in striking down one of these laws:
"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low ... It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."Yeah, but it does get politicians in the headlines, and who cares about deforming children when the headlines will claim they're protecting them?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: new york, politicians, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As anyone familiar with the real works of Grimm knows, they are full of horrific violence. They didn't deform kids, but rather delivered moral messages in a way they could understand. It's the same for videogames, although the morality element isn't as clearly there.
One question I'd like to hear answered honestly is this: if violence is such an issue, why are we only hearing this kind of posturing about videogames? Why do we not have the same lawsuit attempts surrounding movies, TV, comic books, novels, paintballing, martial arts and other activities, all of which can have either harsher or more realistic levels of violence than an video game?
Oh, I know the real answer, but it would be interesting to hear these politicians attempt to answer the question without using arguments that can be applied to other activities that they're not trying to restrict...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Redirect my comments to the politicians passing the laws rather than the judge with his head screwed on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Movies, TV, books, and novels would be passive forms of violence. You observe the violence but do not control it.
As for sporting activities such as paintball, martial arts, although simulating violence you are never really breaking someones leg or blowing brains and body parts everywhere. You have to agree that paintball is hardly realistic with neon colored paints. No one should get hurt unless the fall on a broken tree stump or kick sensei in the nuts.
In some video games you are controlling the simulation of murder, killing, or injury to other persons in the game. And quite graphically at times. That might be their reasoning.
I play various video games. Some are rated M. I wouldn't let my kids play some of them until I felt they were capable of understanding them. That is my responsibility and my choice. The government doesn't need to tell me how to raise my kids. All these ratings do is prevent kids from buying games and making the parent chose to buy the game for their kid if they feel the kid should have it. Video game makers generally already rate their games. Will it take a law to actually enforce it, probably not. I believe retailers seem to abide by the ratings also if they want to keep from being liable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The interactivity of video games gets pointed out in nearly all the legal defenses for these laws. The problem, though, is that simply making something interactive does not merit the removal of first amendment protections.
As Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals pointed out in American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick:
Maybe video games are different. They are, after all, interactive. But this point is superficial, in fact erroneous. All literature (here broadly defined to include movies, television, and the other photographic media, and popular as well as highbrow literature) is interactive; the better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"In some video games you are controlling the simulation of murder, killing, or injury to other persons in the game."
In *some* games, yes. The vast majority of videogames do not feature any of this content, and the ones that do are already clearly labelled as either adults-only or the equivalent of an R-rated movie by a voluntary industry group.
Besides, look at the stupid controversies we've had to endure recently. There was the Hot Coffee "scandal" in GTA: San Andreas (a non-interactive sex scene between 2 consenting adults that could only be accessed by hacking the game and would have been considered very tame in an R-rated movie), Bully (a lot of media hype based around assumptions of the game's content that we not in the game itself) and Mass Effect (a short lesbian scene that, again, would have been tame and forgettable in a movie).
That's it. In 2 of the 3 games, the "objectionable" content wasn't even interactive. Yes, there are plenty of shooting games around, but many of these
"All these ratings do is prevent kids from buying games and making the parent chose to buy the game for their kid if they feel the kid should have it."
And therein lies the rub. Most chain stores already refuse to sell to children. While there are some that do, it's already more likely that a parent or other adult will buy the game anyway.
Look at the Hot Coffee lawsuit, where a grandmother claimed "she bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas for her 14-year-old grandson without knowing it contained hidden sexually explicit scenes" and so decided to sue Rockstar. Oh, she bought a game titled *Grand Theft F***ing Auto* that allows murder, theft and other mayhem for that grandson, but OMG there was some sex she didn't know about! *That* is where the problem is, and no law is going to change that kind of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so whats the difference
I'm probably missing something obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so whats the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so whats the difference
Then again, I suppose my boss may have been pulling chain to cover her own ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so whats the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: so whats the difference
I used to be a manager at a movie theater and you can't get fined for not carding people. In fact, it's completely up to the theater if it wants to even follow the ratings rules. And movies don't have to be submitted for ratings but the MPAA has many rules and restrictions if you don't rate your movie. Plus most theaters won't play your movie if it isn't rated.
I do know that a few years ago, Congress threatened the movie industry with making the ratings system a law (led by John McCain no less) but they never went through with it. They had hearings with theater owners and required the National Association of Theater Owners to submit a report after a couple years to show how they have worked to combat the problem of kids watching R-rated movies. It's all very ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so whats the difference
Movie labels are not mandated by law. They're voluntary by the industry.
If they were put into law, they'd get struck down just like these video game laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so whats the difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New York
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The list goes on & ON...
Christ just watch the news coverage of Iraq/Afganistan and that is something that YOU the politicians created! Time to bring a law suit against you lot!
I say this to the politicians, GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YA ASS.
I have had this same argument with quite a few people.
Next up: Security through obscurity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not really sure what problem they think they are chasing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As games get more violent....
There are a litany of studies, among them recent the Seattle Children's Hospital Study titled "Violent Television Viewing During Preschool is Associated with Anti-social Behavior During School Age." showing a direct relationship between insreased violence in children and time spent playing "ultra-violent" video games.
"Parents have been socialized to think that cartoon violence is harmless, but it's not," says report co-author Dr. Dimitri Christakis. "Speaking broadly, the link between on-screen violence and subsequent violent behavior is as strong as evidence that smoking causes lung cancer.">
This Google Search reveals hundreds upon hundreds of studies proving that children "learn" that violence is acceptable behavior from their exposure to it in the media.
What more be said?
BIll Burke, for
http://wsrmacros.spaces.live.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As games get more violent....
LoL, if that's not a loaded search.
The problem is, not all children who play violent video games or watch violent movies have the same reaction. So LOGICALLY, the movies and games are not the sole cause.
Though they may have an effect,there is nothing to say that the violent children, that played violent games, weren't playing those games because they were ALREADY violent.
simply put, the studies in no way measure the persons susceptibility to violence and aggression before they ever played video games, and with everyone being different-chemically, physically, emotionally, it makes no sense at all to place the blame on the video game's doorstep.
Games, movies, music = art
art is our way of externalizing the human condition, the things that we feel in the core of our being.
You have it backwards, violent games DO NOT cause violence. violence causes violent games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As games get more violent....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As games get more violent....
Actually, you should be a bit more honest here: three are a litany of studies that show a correlation between the two, but none that have shown a causal impact. In fact, there are a litany of studies that also show NO actual increase in violent behavior from playing video games.
What more be said?
Well, I'll take what the folks who looked at all those studies found, when they summed up all the results and then added their own:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20080418/005355882.shtml
They found no evidence of increased violent behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can understand
One of my bosses at Lockheed Martin referred to the need to perform a "sanity check" - in the context of making sure that whatever course of action made sense. Let's take a "sanity check" with respect to the first amendment.
First, my sanity check tells me that no matter how the case law justifies itself, there is nothing unconstitional about requiring video game labeling.
My sanity check also tells me, when relying on the same history that you rely on for the ridiculously broad interpretation of the first amendment, the prohibiting any video game sales to children is not unconstitutional. You may not like it, but historically, any un-emancipated person under 18 is legally referred to as an "infant." Yes, an infant. And that is just about as good a description of the amount of rights you have at that age.
Any sanity check of the first amendment is bound to reveal that the interpretation is broken beyond repair. The first amendment was adopted to ensure that political speech was permitted. Yet, it is consistent under the first amendment to limit political speech (McCain-Feingold), but not to limit offensive video games, dvds, cds, and music. We are, collectively, too stupid to realize our own situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can understand
Strike One. Any law that places an undue burden on freedom of speech is unconstitutional. The current system is voluntary, and should remain so.
My sanity check also tells me, when relying on the same history that you rely on for the ridiculously broad interpretation of the first amendment, the prohibiting any video game sales to children is not unconstitutional.
Strike Two. By enforcing such a ban, you remove the ability of parents to determine what is and what is not appropriate for their children.
The first amendment was adopted to ensure that political speech was permitted.
Strike Three. Let's take a look at the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
It says 'freedom of speech', not 'freedom of political speech'. As for your McCain-Feingold example, you failed to mention that significant portions of it have already been found unconstitutional on first amendment grounds.
Any sanity check of the first amendment is bound to reveal that the interpretation is broken beyond repair.
We are, collectively, too stupid to realize our own situation.
Your narrow interpretation of the first amendment would support the suppression of ideas based on government standards. That fails my sanity check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can understand
As to point two, you are wrong again. The parent can purchase for the child. It is giving total control to the parent, who historically is empowered to make those decisions for the infant. Only the historically rightless would continue to have no rights.
As to point three, let's look at the history. It supports policital speech, and has nothing to do with perverted music or arts.
You were wrong on all three counts. Nothing was prohibited to anyone who had a right to it, and there was no undue burden. Next please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can understand
Your "sanity check" is what is being questioned. Using it to defend your opinions is no different than saying "I'm right because I'm right".
The label is filled with text. 1% would be directed to disclosure of contect. No undue burden.
In that case, let's put a label on absolutely anything that could possibly be determined to be offensive to anyone. You fail to address why the government should have the responsibility or the right to require labeling on media.
The parent can purchase for the child. It is giving total control to the parent, who historically is empowered to make those decisions for the infant. Only the historically rightless would continue to have no rights.
This statement seems to support legislating the removal of all purchasing capabilities from children.
Assuming you're just referring to media, limiting the sales of offensive media would require evidence that violent content leads to real-life violence. To date, there are several studies supporting either side of the argument.
This lack of census is one of the reasons why the state supreme courts continually strike down these laws.
As to point three, let's look at the history. It supports policital speech, and has nothing to do with perverted music or arts.
Are you joking? Let's look at the history, and ignore what the first amendment actually says? Not that history supports your narrow interpretation anyway. Note: when you say "let's look at history", you should probably provide some historical examples. Reiterating your previous (incorrect) statement proves nothing.
You are also using purposely vague definitions. What constitutes "perverted" music or arts, and why should your definition be applicable to anyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can understand
If this gets threw, history tells us it won't, than the next logical step is to have the government tell the game companies how the games should be rated. If the game companies can't be trusted to label their games than why should they be trusted to label them properly? This then brings up the huge issue over what is offencive/decent and what isn't. Something the government should never be involved in.
Point 3: The first amendment was written to protect freedom of religion. It was written brodley enough to protect all forms of expression, whether it be speech or art. Do you find Michelangelo's David offencive? I know people who do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can understand
I think you and others like you need to stop and think very carefully about that statement.
There should *never* be unconstitutional laws passed, regardless of any reason for doing so. Not only do you risk undermining the constitution itself, but you waste huge amounts of time and resources by first passing these into law, then the process of having them appealed and overturned.
Think about this: the NY taxpayers money that's been spent already on this law and will be spent in the future. How much of that money would otherwise have gone to education, facilities, policing and social projects? The money could have helped to tackle the real problems facing young people today - crime, poverty, unemployment and other domestic issues, abuse. Instead, it's been funnelled into somebody's ego project so they can *appear* to be doing something rather than *actually* doing something.
If a law is likely to be scrapped, it's the duty of the state to scrap it and rethink a way of passing a law that's constitutional, or even rethink whether a new law is necessary (in this case, it's not). There's no valid justification for passing an unconstitutional law, especially if its unconstitutional status is obvious from the start. As a parent, you may wish to protect your children from harm. But you'll only do that if you attack the things that actually pose a threat, rather than a convenient scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I can understand
Perhaps you cannot see the problem as the NY legislature sees it. Did you ever make any idle threat in your lifetime? Why? Because it was important that you dissuade someone from doing something? Perhaps it is important to the NY legislature that stores be dissaded from selling violent games to children, or that stores adopt policies prohibitinh such sales. If that is what is important to NY, and NY determines that this course of action is likely to achieve that result, then what is improper?
What if I, or NY, or someone else, don't agree with your expansive reading of the first amendment? We are bound to support it because that is the state of law? What if we believe that the law should be interpreted differently, and the current thinking is incorrect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can understand
Join the club. I think many of the laws are wrong or misinterpreted-but I still have to follow them.
You are saying that it is ok to undermine and redefine the constitution how YOU see fit, regardless of how it compares to the original intentions of our founding fathers.
Granted, I even WISH that to happen in my own way, but that does not make it ok. It is not ok, it is wrong. You and the NYS legislature are WRONG. I would be just as wrong to try and redefine it for myself.
Your argument seems to be:
"You are backed by the constitution, so I want to redefine the constitution so that I can be right."
that doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I can understand
"Perhaps you cannot see the problem as the NY legislature sees it. Did you ever make any idle threat in your lifetime? Why? Because it was important that you dissuade someone from doing something?"
This isn't about "idle threats". It's about something that's being made law. very much an actual threat, and one that is not only unconstitutional and very expensive, but also worthless. Whatever "threat" is being made here, it's one that will not go heeded and one which will have zero effect on the real problems facing society. Are you really so dense that you believe that the difference between damaging and saving a child's life is whether or not GameStop will sell them a copy of GTA4?
"If that is what is important to NY, and NY determines that this course of action is likely to achieve that result, then what is improper?"
What if people outside of the NY legislature can see that the law is not going to achieve that result, and risks causing more problems than it fixes (e.g. the employee fired or prosecuted stands to lose a lot more than the kids who buys the game from him)? Isn't it then improper to allow NY to continue on that path?
"What if I, or NY, or someone else, don't agree with your expansive reading of the first amendment?"
It's my opinion that "freedom of speech" should not be interpreted, ever. It applies to everyone equally. The entire point of granting such freedoms is that unpopular speech is allowed, even if some think it's damaging.
"What if we believe that the law should be interpreted differently, and the current thinking is incorrect?"
That was my argument above. Stop wasting time, money and headlines on a law that's not going to work. Rethink the proposals and come up with something that will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I can understand
Well, thank goodness that the judges base their decisions on the actual constitution, and not your uninformed gut check.
My sanity check also tells me, when relying on the same history that you rely on for the ridiculously broad interpretation of the first amendment, the prohibiting any video game sales to children is not unconstitutional.
Me and nearly a dozen courts. But, what do they know?
You may not like it, but historically, any un-emancipated person under 18 is legally referred to as an "infant." Yes, an infant. And that is just about as good a description of the amount of rights you have at that age.
And you may not like it, but courts have time and time again said the First Amendment means what it says: that there shall be no law that restricts freedom of speech.
I can't believe you think that history is on your side here, when clearly it is not. Or does your history not include what those judges said? My sanity check says that you don't get to ignore the history that disagrees with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got that?
Stores already refuse to sell games labeled M to minors. The labeling also breaks down the type of content. Yes, this isn't a LAW but it is an industry standard practice, and most major retailers refuse to carry games that are not labeled.
Perhaps what we need is a law that will take children away from parents who don't READ the existing labels when they purchase games for their kids. THAT problem happens all the time, and those are the exact same morons who then want to sue and blame a video game for some problem caused by their poorly raised offspring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone advocating Ultra Violent videogames for preschoolers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, the sanity check of the first amendment says that the infant has no right to purchase the game himself.
This law would actually help parents be parents, as it would force the parents to pay attention to the games they must purchase for their children. Based on your comments, it appears, Nosuch, that you would approve of this law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This law would actually help parents be parents, as it would force the parents to pay attention to the games they must purchase for their children."
No, the law doesn't do that, because GAMES ARE ALREADY LABELED. My wife was carded buying a video game, for pete's sake, and she's over 30. There is no actual problem here, just stupid "protect the children" political grandstanding.
Parents don't need any extra help. Stores already don't sell games to minors (some don't even carry M rated games), and the games are clearly labeled. All a parent needs to do is READ and PARENT. No law needed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, this law wouldn't help parents be parents any more so than they already are because it doesn't punish the parents. It punishes the store for selling the game to underage kids. The kids don't get in trouble. The parents don't get in trouble. Only the employee or company itself get in trouble. I'm not sure how that would help parents pay attention to what their kids are doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Parents do not need more help BY LAW to be parents, they need to simply "Be Parents"
A game system would be REQUIRED by law to have parental lockout installed by 2010. Are you kidding? now that is ok as a voluntary thing, but to FORCE it on manufacturers is simply unconstitutional.
My sanity check tells me you are an individual that seems limiting freedom and ensuring security as the same thing, and ok all around.
It is up to the parents to be responsible parents, it's as simple as that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please, explain to those of us who aren't as mad as you, exactly how does this law force the parents to do anything? If you think a law will force parent to do something differently, then you've been in the sun too long. Putting labels on video games won't force anyone to do anything.
And please, explain to us, how exactly is it the business of government to "help parents be parents?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hold the gov accountable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEND THEM TO SHANGHAI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Wallstreet needs to stop inviting NY Legislature to the parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]