New Jersey Lawmaker Proposes Legislation To Ban Games With Mature Content From Public Places
from the waaaay-past-regular-stupid-and-into-scary-stupid dept
Following on the heels of Connecticut state senator Toni Harp's bill to ban arcade games utilizing fake guns, comes this bit of amazingly bad (and of course, broadly written) proposed legislation seeking to "ban Mature-rated games in public places."
Ostensibly, the proposed bill is aimed at arcades, whether standalone operations or as part of the entertainment at restaurants, retail stores, etc. But the wording goes much deeper (and further astray) than simply banning M-rated arcade games. Before we get to the problems inherent in the proposed bill itself, let's take a quick look at one fatal flaw, as pointed out by GamePolitics.
Unfortunately for the Assemblywoman, her bill won't have any affect on games that might be found in public places because what she is referring to are arcade machines, which aren't rated by the ESRB. So banning a game with such a rating is much like banning blue unicorns - neither exists in reality.There's that issue. Arcade games don't carry ratings. That's one strike against the legislation. But there's a lot more that's troublesome or stupid, and plenty of it is a good mix of both. NJ Assemblywoman Linda Stender has hit the jackpot, bad bill-wise, with this one. Her press release opens with a horrendously flawed assumption stated as fact and gets worse from there.
Noting the correlation between violent video games and violent behavior, Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D- Middlesex/Somerset/Union) today announced plans to introduce a bill that would prohibit video games containing mature and adult content in public places.If Stender's going to state this as a fact, the least she could do is offer the name of a study or two backing up this claim. But she doesn't. She simply fires off the statement that she has "noted" a "correlation." Maybe she has, but she's not saying where she made this observation.
The next sentence tops this bit of conjecture-as-fact by throwing the First Amendment down like a doormat and announcing Stender's intention to walk all over it (with the "blessing" of other NJ officials).
The bill comes as a report from the New Jersey SAFE Task Force on Gun Protection, Addiction, released by the state Attorney General this week, listed the regulation of violent video games among its recommendations to mend the root causes of mass violence.Regulation of violent video games isn't an option, according to the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. But whatever, it's not as though most state legislators aren't itching for some federalist action, especially when it's their homegrown legislation on the line. Someone will find an angle and pursue it until shut down by higher courts. It's a shame this so-called "task force" didn't do its homework on video games and government regulation. I would imagine this isn't its only bad suggestion.
"Games that are meant for older, more mature audiences have no place in places where children can easily access them. Video games alone do not influence violent behavior, but they can play a role. Some of the most prolific mass shootings not just in this country, but in the world had links to violent video games," said Stender. "The longer a child is exposed to video games where killing is the sole objective, the greater the chance that he or she will become numb to this type of behavior and even consider it acceptable. This bill would ensure that video games with graphic adult content would not be available to children who are not old enough to make a distinction between fantasy and reality."If by "links," she means "owned/played video games," then she's somewhat correct. If she actually means "links," then she's right back where she started the press release -- in serious need of actual evidence. As for what exactly the bill will "ensure," that's up for debate.
One thing is sure: the bill will rake in some cash for the state. Stender's bill would "prohibit operators of a place of public accommodation from making video games with an ESRB rating of Mature or Adults Only available for use by the public." Any violations would be punishable with a $10,000 fine (for the first offense -- up to $20,000 for any subsequent offenses) under the Consumer Fraud Act. That's a pretty steep fine for something as vague as making certain games "available." (The vagueness increases exponentially with the long list of "places of public accommodation." More on that in a moment.)
That's not the only monetary punishment, though. At the Attorney General's discretion, punitive damages can also be assessed and "treble damages and costs" awarded to the "injured" party. Nice little twist, that last part. This makes playing certain video games while underage potentially profitable.
Now, the part that's most disturbing about this proposal is the "place of public accommodation" list, which is far too long and far too inclusive.
For the purposes of this bill, "place of public accommodation" means any inn, tavern, roadhouse, hotel, motel, trailer camp, summer camp, day camp, or resort camp, whether for entertainment of transient guests or accommodation of those seeking health, recreation or rest; any producer, manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retail shop, store, establishment, or concession dealing with goods or services of any kind; any restaurant, eating house, or place where food is sold for consumption on the premises; any place maintained for the sale of ice cream, ice and fruit preparations or their derivatives, soda water or confections, or where any beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises; any garage, any public conveyance operated on land or water, or in the air, any stations and terminals thereof; any bathhouse, boardwalk, or seashore accommodation; any auditorium, meeting place, or hall; any theatre, motion-picture house, music hall, roof garden, skating rink, swimming pool, amusement and recreation park, fair, bowling alley, gymnasium, shooting gallery, billiard and pool parlor, or other place of amusement; any comfort station; any dispensary, clinic or hospital; any public library; any kindergarten, primary and secondary school, trade or business school, high school, academy, college and university, or any educational institution under the supervision of the State Board of Education, or the Commissioner of Education of New Jersey.Stender is overstepping her bounds and seeking to regulate the actions of private entities by casting an impossibly wide net. "Taverns" and "roadhouses" aren't normally associated with drawing crowds of children, but now they'll have to worry about what sorts of games they have available in their establishments, just in case. Normally, they cater to adults but now they have to treat their entertainment as "appropriate for all ages." Again, the games on hand at these locations (including tabletop touchscreen game systems featuring a wide selection of titles) would not be rated by the ESRB, but would still likely be subject to Stender's law. (And don't forget that bars/taverns/roadhouses would fall under "where any beverages of any kind are retailed for consumption on the premises" wording as well.)
"Any retail establishment" dealing with "goods or services of any kind?" That covers a whole lot of ground. This could conceivably cover adult-oriented businesses like smoke shops, liquor stores and adult bookstores. Should they be required to clean up their selection of "available" games just in case?
What about your normal retailers, like Wal-Mart or Gamestop? If they aren't keeping mature titles under lock and key, are they making these games "available?" (Never mind the fact that 87% of the time, minors are unable to purchase M-rated games from retailers.) Or does this refer to what's loaded in demo stations? Or are we still pretending this targets in-store arcades only?
"Summer camps, day camps, resort camps" -- are these entities responsible for any games their guests bring in and "make available" for anyone to play? The camps may provide nothing but E-rated games but anything involving the public makes this a risky situation. Is there some form of IRL Section 230 that can protect businesses from the actions of their guests, like a camper setting up a console and a selection of M-rated games for other campers to enjoy? Or does this responsibility fall on the operators, forcing them to police the "content" of their campsites in order to avoid paying hefty fines?
"Any public library?" Really? If a minor uses a publicly accessible computer to access M-rated games, the library is at fault?
"[A]ny kindergarten, primary and secondary school, trade or business school, high school, academy, college and university?" This list starts where children are reasonably expected to be the majority and not exposed to "adult-oriented" entertainment, but it quickly goes off the rails and includes establishments where adults are the majority, if not 100% of the attendees.
GamePolitics suggests Stender's proposed law is aimed at arcade games, but nothing in this press release indicates it's limited to only those. The "places of public accommodation" language suggests arcade games, but there's nothing in here strictly defining the platform. The word "arcade" is never used.
It doesn't even seem to be limited to preventing children from "accessing" prohibited games. Her exact wording is: "prohibit video games containing mature and adult content in public places." She also throws in "access" and "available," but the broad wording and long list of "public places" suggests her ideal ban would prevent offending games from ever leaving people's homes -- about the only location the list doesn't name.
This is a bill Stender plans to introduce, so it's likely to be more narrowly defined before it's opened up for debate. The large chunk of "public place" language feels borrowed from somewhere else, but if that's what she's actually intending to target, this proposal is very worrying. She's clearly made her mind up about the negative effects of video games and it looks as if the Attorney General's task force is willing to ride shotgun (so to speak...).
There will be some people who will wonder why anyone would care what a plans a NJ assemblywoman may have for video game regulation. The problem is this: politicians have to start somewhere. Some fall off the lower rungs while others keep climbing. Either way, they tend to keep their head full of bad ideas with them. At some point, they're in the big leagues, able to do real damage.
Stender's proposal is a wreck -- an all-encompassing dragnet built out of baseless suppositions. It creates perverse incentives for the enforcers and ignores the Supreme Court's decision on the regulation of video games. This should never have made it as far as an internal dialog, much less a press release. If someone's aiming to top the list of Bad Video Game Legislation, they've got their work cut out for 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: first amendment, free speech, legislation, linda stender, new jersey, video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cloud is unimpressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
By the way, my clone army is building again: look for "out_of_tha_blue", created just yesterday afternoon. I'm not only the most commented-at, but the most copied.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
A "safe haven" for pirates. Weenies welcome. Vulgarity cheered.
02:23:02[c-530-2]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
And you call those of us at Techdirt loopy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
That's all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
Two things.
1. Those of us responding to you are generally A) Tired of you; B) Trying desperately to help you; C) (only if you have actually said something relavent outside of "Mike's a pirate," or "Techdirt is loopy") we will be happy to debate with you as long as you don't act childish as you are now; or D) All of the above.
2. Those copying you are only mocking you as you mock Mike Nansick's articles and generally making a total ass of yourself....either that or they are trying to help you by making you look intelligent (which is extremely unlikely it will ever look that way).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
Just think about how much this plays into the hands of Big Search. With retailers too afraid to even show demos, let alone sell their games, everyone will go online to play School Shooting Trainer 2014.
Big Search will then use this massive boom in ad revenue to fund an army or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
That's all I can see. *Rolls up a newspaper, smacks his nose*
Bad, blue! Bad! Now lie down! If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. You're not to open your trap when in the presence of your betters!
You want to be treated like a yappy bitch dog, then continue acting like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
This comment is so divorced from reality that is has become impossible to verify the writer of these comments exist in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
What "pornz", boy?
Looks like you have some DEEP fixations.
What's it like to keyboard with one hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
How proud you must be as the king of the tard army, in a few years the short bus might be full.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong you delusional moron.
You are the most corrected commenter because of all bullshit you attempt to pass off as facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Another Techdirt pro-immorality panic.
I just don't think "comment at" is really correct. He isn't being "commented at", he is being refuted, disputed and admonished for the most part.
The principles of Free Speech means Blue is allowed to spout his bullshit to his little heart's content. But it also means that any ignorant and incorrect speech can be countered with more speech.
Anyone reading this blog can determine for themselves that Blue is full of shit simply by reading his comments filled with supposed "facts" that he doesn't defend when anyone calls him on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And what next?
In fact, just to be on the safe side, let's ban TVs, movie theaters, video rental stores (if they still exist), electronics stores, shopping malls, and of course... walls.
According to this assemblywoman's logic, this makes PERFECT sense! I say we push for this at a federal, nay, global level, just to be safe.
Think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And what next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And what next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if the ESRB were to stop using the M and AO labels and replace it with PEGI's equivalent labeling system, the entire law would be moot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This makes me wonder if Linda Stender ever had spent any time playing a lightgun arcade game....you know the type where you're the good guy stopping a terrorist using a sniper rifle while riding a helicopter...any of the Crisis arcade games...or anything where you actually get penalized for killing innocent civilians....Then again it's an aging stateswoman from Jersy who has been known to try to ban books that don't agree with her views.
For those who don't know, Stender is the type extremely liberal left Democrat that all the other left wing parties loathe. Her proposals are only meant to fit her own agenda and to get votes by keeping her voters happy within their beliefs, but totally trouncing on those beliefs through her actions. Some would say that this is every politician, but not every one calls for a ban on a book that criticizes the political views of said politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, and don't inject political partisan bullshit into this. She's proposing a stupid bill for self-promotional reasons that will have no effect on the real causes of the issues she's supposedly fighting. No part of the political spectrum is free from this crap, sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Note I said extreme liberal left Democrat politicians....of whom I only implied that the politicians of that section of the DNC are extremely hypocritical. I know a few people who actually believe in the ideas of liberalism personally and none of them try to trounce on others beliefs...nor did they call for a ban on all semiautomatic guns and quite enjoyed playing M-rated games in their youth.
Stender will only do these things for self promotion. You may cite this shit for the extreme right and their politicians...but at least you know exactly that most of the extreme right are saying what they are meaning and truly believing in stead of trying to change the nation's views on a subject they hardly know about. Was (presented by Rep. Lamar Smith) SOPA an attempt to call for change to change the view of the nation about how "evil" the use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Stupidity crosses party boundaries.
Maybe she's trying to grab Republican votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now that's funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except for all the social conservatives who get caught cheating on their wives and being gay and driving drunk, yeah, most of them stick to their beliefs. Oh also for the ones who don't get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my view it is the ones that speak the loudest and for the rights of single groups rather than all that are the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Oh, and don't inject political partisan bullshit into this. She's proposing a stupid bill for self-promotional reasons that will have no effect on the real causes of the issues she's supposedly fighting. No part of the political spectrum is free from this crap, sadly."
Note I said extreme liberal left Democrat politicians....of whom I only implied that the politicians of that section of the DNC are extremely hypocritical. I know a few people who actually believe in the ideas of liberalism personally and none of them try to trounce on others beliefs...nor did they call for a ban on all semiautomatic guns and quite enjoyed playing M-rated games in their youth.
Stender will only do these things for self promotion. You may cite this shit for the extreme right and their politicians...but at least you know exactly that most of the extreme right are saying what they are meaning and truly believing in stead of trying to change the nation's views on a subject they hardly know about. Was (presented by Rep. Lamar Smith) SOPA an attempt to call for change to change the view of the
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Oh, and don't inject political partisan bullshit into this. She's proposing a stupid bill for self-promotional reasons that will have no effect on the real causes of the issues she's supposedly fighting. No part of the political spectrum is free from this crap, sadly."
Note I said extreme liberal left Democrat politicians....of whom I only implied that the politicians of that section of the DNC are extremely hypocritical. I know a few people who actually believe in the ideas of liberalism personally and none of them try to trounce on others beliefs...nor did they call for a ban on all semiautomatic guns and quite enjoyed playing M-rated games in their youth.
Stender will only do these things for self promotion. You may cite this shit for the extreme right and their politicians...but at least you know exactly that most of the extreme right are saying what they are meaning and truly believing in stead of trying to change the nation's views on a subject they hardly know about. Was (presented by Rep. Lamar Smith) SOPA an attempt to call for change to change the view of the nation about how "evil" the use of BitTorrent is??? Nope.
On the other hand, we have people actually calling for outright bans on things they don't understand at all with no interest groups but their own selves and their emotions. As a psychologist I can tell you that the mistrust that Stender's group represent is far greater than those of her politically opposite constituents. This is because they try to focus on one group's beliefs (namely their own....note this is about beliefs, not about lobbying handouts and kickbacks) while they are willing to trample on everyone else's rights in the process. This makes certain groups on both sides less trustworthy, but I've seen it more in the DNC in the past 5 or so years than any other time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, does this mean legislation is going to punish me for linking violent video games to eating fast food?
Best be careful what I say. Mayor Bloomberg may read this site and get another wonderful "idea" for New Yorkers, and I'd hate to feel their wrath for making the suggestion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you misspelled "Nanny".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Write what you mean
Instructor: "See, right there in that line you assigned this value to all the variables. Is that what you meant to do? Maybe you should think about how to complete this function without breaking 3 other ones."
I'd be really interested to see some runtime debugging on proposed legislation, maybe understand the ramifications before rolling it into production. Something tells me that most bills wouldn't pass a preliminary syntax and type-check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Write what you mean
Unfortunately in Stender's case...she understands technology....she's letting her political beliefs and bias get in the way because it makes her voters/sheep happy. I love Democrats...but I don't like the type willing to be stupid just to fill out their own political agenda by violating our constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Write what you mean
'I love Democrats/Republicans...but I don't like the type willing to be stupid just to fill out their own political agenda by violating our constitutional rights.'
Acting like this is a problem with the democrats, or republicans, is ignoring that it's a problem both parties share quite equally, and just continues the foolish 'us vs. them' crap that allows the parties to shift the blame around without it landing on either(or both as it usually should).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Write what you mean
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything that has been proposed has been an attack on our Constitution but would not EVER prevent the same thing from happening again, no matter how much they shout it out.
As we saw yesterday, all the laws in the world do not stop bad things from happening, and they never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Video Games happens to be the newest form of media, and has been for a while now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Makes me wonder if the parents of our prehistoric ancestors were worried about all ill effects from the graffiti their teenagers drew all over the cave walls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BREAKING NEWS
yes it's sad but undisputed fact that all those responsible for committing mass killings have been born and sometimes even raised by "Mothers"..... (with the exception of that one guy who was conceived in a test tube and raised by malevolent robots, but what did we expect to happen in this situation?)
Due to these undisputed facts, that only reasonable solution is to ban "Mothering", I propose a $100,000 fine for the first offense of becoming a mother, and quadruple damages for repeat offenders (even those who dare to have twins...)
It's the only sane and rational solution to entirely eliminate these mass killing sprees... No Mothers = No Mass Killers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BREAKING NEWS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Business Model
If Prenda Law is available, I think they may be on-board with this plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real violence is real violence. It's horrific, it's awful, and it makes the world a worse place. Virtual violence is nowhere near the same level, and it is insulting and disrespectful to claim that it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anybody got a copy they could forward to the NJ legislature?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hearby ban the horse and buggy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hearby ban the horse and buggy!
Pinball, now THERE's a dying breed - that fancy new Metallica table notwithstanding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hearby ban the horse and buggy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, come up with headline-grabbing half-baked idea that makes it look like you're doing something radical - preferably couching in "for the children" language that is difficult to fight without looking like you're somehow "against the children"? Even if it not only does nothing but also perhaps counter-productive (easily overturned on constitutional grounds, or otherwise wastes much needed resources on pointless garbage)? Who cares as long as you make a name for yourself and win re-election/promotion?
That's why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sceince
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sceince
This Assemblywoman, Linda Stender, is surely one of the Lord's warrior fighting the good fight. I am very sure that before long, the Lord's allies inside Satan's own institution, the so called "scientific establishment", will back her up, supplying "empirical data" the heathens demanded cos that's the only way they see the errors of their sinful lives. For the rest of us stout believer of the Lord, no "data" is necessary, cos our faith is unwavering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't feed the trolls
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ratings
Since most of these idiotic laws relay on those ratings-- which aren't required by law and *can't* be, per the Supreme Court-- I'd just opt out of the rating system altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another stupid cunt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]