Posted Feb 03, 2009 at 10:16PM by Mabie A.
Listed in:
Mods
Tags:
Jack Thompson,
Mark Shurtleff
Ó
|
Can they just stop already? Le sigh. Another day, another video game bill proposed. Well, this bill is not exactly new already. This bill confirmed to be sponsored by a Republican state legislator is none other than the one originally crafted by the crafty Jack Thompson. You know, the "Games as Porn" bill.
According to Warchol of The Salt Lake Tribune, Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka is remote controlling Rep. Mike Morley to introduce yet another bill to regulate those cop-killing video games. Ruzicka, who has been pushing this issue for years, told me today that the bill has yet to get a number: We are working on a language right now. Apparently, Morley needs to build cred with the Eagles, because he is
carrying a bill that other right-wing lawmakers are staying as far away
from as possible. (I checked and Morley's pupils appear to be dilating
properly.) To refresh your memories (which am sure have conveniently tucked this little memory under the rusty, old bed in the cobwebbed attics of your mind, here's what Thompson had to say about the bill: [The ratings] doesn't define what content is "harmful to minors," so we avoid the phony First Amendment arguments Hollywood loves to make. The bill simply states: If you promise the public you don't sell adult-rated entertainment to kids, then you had better be telling the truth, because if a parent catches you selling this stuff to his or her kids, then you're guilty of fraud under the Truth in Advertising Law. We'll keep you posted. Related Articles:
|
|
|
[Via The Salt Lake Tribune]
Permalink |
Email this |
Linking Blogs
| Digg It!
Bookmark / Find this article on: |
|
2 Jumps
Borderlands DLC #1 dated
19 Comments
|
 |
by Advertising - |
|
 
|
|
by Brant - 2009-02-03 |
|
|
» hm
So he just wants employees who might make a mistake in their stores to get fired?
This hurts game devs in no way. Which I always thought was what he wanted for no reason.
So he just wants employees who might make a mistake in their stores to get fired?
This hurts game devs in no way. Which I always thought was what he wanted for no reason.
|
Re: rollypoly - 2009-02-03 |
|
|
» meh
i can't accept "might make a mistake"... it's their job if they can't do it diligently and correctly then they should be fired.
what the bill seems to focus on is the marketing of games to kids, similar to the way smoking adverts were almost eliminated entirely from anywhere a kid might see them.
i'm thinking this is one of thompson's more reasonable ideas... games not appropriate (by society's standards) should not be marketed to children.
think of it as enforcing the ESRB (an industry created rating system much like the MPAA) ratings... atleast in advertising. there should of been a law like this years ago when they started rating games.
i can't accept "might make a mistake"... it's their job if they can't do it diligently and correctly then they should be fired.
what the bill seems to focus on is the marketing of games to kids, similar to the way smoking adverts were almost eliminated entirely from anywhere a kid might see them.
i'm thinking this is one of thompson's more reasonable ideas... games not appropriate (by society's standards) should not be marketed to children.
think of it as enforcing the ESRB (an industry created rating system much like the MPAA) ratings... atleast in advertising. there should of been a law like this years ago when they started rating games.
|
Re: jacobian91 - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» @ rollypoly
If an employee sells a mature rated game to a kid under the age of 18, by all means, that employee should be fired.
However, in case you didn't read the original article about the bill when Thompson proposed it, this bill seems to have been proposed because of the Madden Porn incident. That one occurence doesn't give any reason for such a bill. It was a very family friendly football game. The problem was that some douche at the manufacturing factory swapped a couple labels.
And about your last bit there.
"think of it as enforcing the ESRB (an industry created rating system much like the MPAA) ratings... atleast in advertising."
They already do that. In every television add, it begins with the rating. This goes for every game with every rating, be it E, T, or M. This is the same with magazine ads. I've only seen it not placed on web banner ads when it's under M.
If an employee sells a mature rated game to a kid under the age of 18, by all means, that employee should be fired.
However, in case you didn't read the original article about the bill when Thompson proposed it, this bill seems to have been proposed because of the Madden Porn incident. That one occurence doesn't give any reason for such a bill. It was a very family friendly football game. The problem was that some douche at the manufacturing factory swapped a couple labels.
And about your last bit there.
"think of it as enforcing the ESRB (an industry created rating system much like the MPAA) ratings... atleast in advertising."
They already do that. In every television add, it begins with the rating. This goes for every game with every rating, be it E, T, or M. This is the same with magazine ads. I've only seen it not placed on web banner ads when it's under M.
|
Re: anhero - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» well...
I dont think employees should be fired for that reason. Here in Puerto Rico it's very rare that they ask you for age before buying an 'M' rated game (I've seen kids that look 10 buy them frequently). The truth is, what does it matter? If they prohibit the sale of that game the kid ill just ask their parents to buy it for them. If the parents don't buy it its because they're overprotective parents, and we all know overprotective parents lead to dissfunctional kids in society (you can't have your kids living on a plastic bubble away from the common man). That's probably why the US is so screwed up (I mean so strict and overprotected and once they get just a little freedom they cant handle it and do something crazy like kill someone or die of overdrinking and stuff).
I dont think employees should be fired for that reason. Here in Puerto Rico it's very rare that they ask you for age before buying an 'M' rated game (I've seen kids that look 10 buy them frequently). The truth is, what does it matter? If they prohibit the sale of that game the kid ill just ask their parents to buy it for them. If the parents don't buy it its because they're overprotective parents, and we all know overprotective parents lead to dissfunctional kids in society (you can't have your kids living on a plastic bubble away from the common man). That's probably why the US is so screwed up (I mean so strict and overprotected and once they get just a little freedom they cant handle it and do something crazy like kill someone or die of overdrinking and stuff).
|
by Dolesky - 2009-02-03 |
|
|
» Ahem...
It's the parent or guardian's job to audit what their child buys or plays. A cashier who makes minimum wage probably doesn't care if a 15 year old sees the 3D model of a gun, or a woman in seemingly "promiscuous" clothing. To reiterate, it isn't their job to get involved with any children but their own.
It's the parent or guardian's job to audit what their child buys or plays. A cashier who makes minimum wage probably doesn't care if a 15 year old sees the 3D model of a gun, or a woman in seemingly "promiscuous" clothing. To reiterate, it isn't their job to get involved with any children but their own.
|
Re: Serosis - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» hmmm
So you're saying that a liquor store clerk can sell cigarettes to a kid and it's the parents problem for letting the kid smoke in the first place?...
awesome logic
The point being is that it is the clerk's job to make sure a certain product gets into the right hands, if he/she doesn't do the job they are liable.
Now of course if the parent goes in and buys the kid the product (be it cigarettes or an "adult oriented game") then that is the parent's own stupidity and they are liable.
if this is tl;dr then just to wrap it up:
the cashier needs to do his/her job or gtfo
So you're saying that a liquor store clerk can sell cigarettes to a kid and it's the parents problem for letting the kid smoke in the first place?...
awesome logic
The point being is that it is the clerk's job to make sure a certain product gets into the right hands, if he/she doesn't do the job they are liable.
Now of course if the parent goes in and buys the kid the product (be it cigarettes or an "adult oriented game") then that is the parent's own stupidity and they are liable.
if this is tl;dr then just to wrap it up:
the cashier needs to do his/her job or gtfo
|
Re: rollypoly - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» the idea...
seems to me that the idea behind this is not allowing companies to market to kids... please correct me if i am mistaken.
this way kids aren't running to mommy and daddy asking for the Mature rated game they just saw advertised on cartoon network... or on some website aimed at kids.
while it is the parent's job to inform and raise their child responsibly, we all did something we weren't supposed to as kids... and some of the stuff i did my parents didn't have a clue about.
it's when kids start killing people that the parents have the most responsibility, they were obviously never taught to value human life...
a kid can't want what they never know about, and yes they have friends that are allowed adult content, but that is outside what the law does and should have any power to stop...
seems to me that the idea behind this is not allowing companies to market to kids... please correct me if i am mistaken.
this way kids aren't running to mommy and daddy asking for the Mature rated game they just saw advertised on cartoon network... or on some website aimed at kids.
while it is the parent's job to inform and raise their child responsibly, we all did something we weren't supposed to as kids... and some of the stuff i did my parents didn't have a clue about.
it's when kids start killing people that the parents have the most responsibility, they were obviously never taught to value human life...
a kid can't want what they never know about, and yes they have friends that are allowed adult content, but that is outside what the law does and should have any power to stop...
|
by Dolesky - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» No.
Video game retail is quite a bit different than alcohol retail. I'm just saying that some 60 year old cashier at Costco should be fired because he or she doesn't know what Grand Theft Auto is.
Try not to be so aggressive, these are fictional jobs were talking about so far.
Video game retail is quite a bit different than alcohol retail. I'm just saying that some 60 year old cashier at Costco should be fired because he or she doesn't know what Grand Theft Auto is.
Try not to be so aggressive, these are fictional jobs were talking about so far.
|
Re: rollypoly - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» i disagree
it is their job to do their job, and if that happens to include not selling adult content to children... then the store probably gave out a memo or held a meeting. if they can't be bothered to learn a list of ratings or check the package, they shouldn't bother coming to work...
gamestop takes this very seriously, one of the area managers told me any clerk who sells a game rated mature to a minor *and* the person directly above them (mgmt wise) will be fired, no exceptions.
it is their job to do their job, and if that happens to include not selling adult content to children... then the store probably gave out a memo or held a meeting. if they can't be bothered to learn a list of ratings or check the package, they shouldn't bother coming to work...
gamestop takes this very seriously, one of the area managers told me any clerk who sells a game rated mature to a minor *and* the person directly above them (mgmt wise) will be fired, no exceptions.
|
by Dolesky - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» Yep!
For game stores that should definitely be the case. However so many retail outlets sell games without knowing anything about them, which is the problem. People at Gamestop should surely know better than to sell particular games to minors, but at Wal-Mart, 7-11, etc, they have no idea of the content of many games. In which case, a child who wants a game with said content would simply go to a store where they are more likely to acquire the game without question. Retailers (or parents) can't punish employees for subjects out of their job description.
For game stores that should definitely be the case. However so many retail outlets sell games without knowing anything about them, which is the problem. People at Gamestop should surely know better than to sell particular games to minors, but at Wal-Mart, 7-11, etc, they have no idea of the content of many games. In which case, a child who wants a game with said content would simply go to a store where they are more likely to acquire the game without question. Retailers (or parents) can't punish employees for subjects out of their job description.
|
by GUNBEHINDTHESUN - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» So Mattel needs the same thing?
Barbie dolls are just as bad, if not worse. You can undress them and play, ahem.... house with them.
Another thing is the Bible. There is a lot of perverted and warped stuff in there to get your mind wondering. ( I wonder if Eve preferred doggy style )
Barbie dolls are just as bad, if not worse. You can undress them and play, ahem.... house with them.
Another thing is the Bible. There is a lot of perverted and warped stuff in there to get your mind wondering. ( I wonder if Eve preferred doggy style )
|
Re: Justingraziano - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» ...
The world is just looking for something else to discriminate against, and they found it, children. Not one bit of any rating system has one tiny ounce of proven fact in it, but that doesnt stop them from controlling the entire world.
The world is just looking for something else to discriminate against, and they found it, children. Not one bit of any rating system has one tiny ounce of proven fact in it, but that doesnt stop them from controlling the entire world.
|
by Twenty-Se7en - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» oh yes
Definitely take on the heels of a man not deemed fit to practice law to propose another bill. That makes total sense. Right?
Definitely take on the heels of a man not deemed fit to practice law to propose another bill. That makes total sense. Right?
|
by Relys - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» Didn't they just..
Didn't they just get ride of the age confirm thing law on pr0n sites?
Didn't they just get ride of the age confirm thing law on pr0n sites?
|
by Justingraziano - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» ...
Of course it's a republican legislator, democrats dont try to destroy anything, only republicans do. You didnt even need to include that bit, we could have already figured it out.
Of course it's a republican legislator, democrats dont try to destroy anything, only republicans do. You didnt even need to include that bit, we could have already figured it out.
|
by StingBlah - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» I sell pr0n and violent games to lil kids.
And I tell them that violence is the best answer to anything.
I sleep well at night.
And I tell them that violence is the best answer to anything.
I sleep well at night.
|
by Navani - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» Jack Thompson
is so stupid. And if I were to categorize it with something, it definitely wouldn't be porn, because porn is good and fun and now with the internet easier than ever to get for free.
is so stupid. And if I were to categorize it with something, it definitely wouldn't be porn, because porn is good and fun and now with the internet easier than ever to get for free.
|
by irwintorres727 - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» movie anyone?
this has been going on for so long, they should have made a movie about it already, im serious.
this has been going on for so long, they should have made a movie about it already, im serious.
|
by NakedFaerie - 2009-02-04 |
|
|
» porn?
Games as porn? Since when has mario been in the same class as porn?
damn, I think I better not play pacman, is that classed as gay porn as ms pacman is normal porn?
Jack, how about F' off already!
Games as porn? Since when has mario been in the same class as porn?
damn, I think I better not play pacman, is that classed as gay porn as ms pacman is normal porn?
Jack, how about F' off already!
Contact Us:
|
The QJ.net Network |
|
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - November
| Most Commented | |
| (98) | |
| (43) | |
| (39) | |
| (35) | |
| (34) | |
| (32) | |
| (30) | |
| (29) | |
| (29) | |
| (23) | |
| (21) | |
| (21) | |
| (20) | |
| (19) | |
| (19) | |
| (19) | |
| (17) | |
| (17) | |
| (17) | |
| (16) | |
User Favorites - November
Accessories
(473)Applications
(15)Artwork
(86)Cheats
(47)Deals
(236)Diamond Card
(3)Events
(211)Games
(10541)Hacks & Exploits
(228)HD DVD
(217)Homebrew Applications
(32)Homebrew Development
(39)Homebrew Emulators
(4)Homebrew Games
(22)How-To
(96)Humor
(94)Imports
(16)Interviews
(1277)IPTV
(11)Linux
(4)Mods
(193)News
(11709)Off Topic
(1176)On Shelves This Week
(33)Opinions & Analysis
(1172)Previews
(1079)Project Natal
(26)QJ How-To Series
(0)QuickJump QuickPeek
(35)Reviews
(87)Rumors
(961)Scans
(125)Screenshots
(887)Site News
(55)Software
(85)Videos
(2533)Weekend Warrior
(32)Xbox Live
(2472)XNA Studio Homebrew
(48)
Titles
Archives
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
