The Real War on Virtual Vice

LANSING--Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today signed the final two pieces of the bill package that will make the sale or rental of mature or adult-rated video games to children illegal. The new law applies to children age 17 and younger and will take effect on December 1, 2005.

More here.

Reason discussed Grand Theft Scapegoats not so long ago.

Comments

[Rich Ard]

"Protecting our children must be everyone?s top priority" - Gov. Granholm, from the link

Clearly it isn't keeping jobs here - I've gotten to watch several kids be protected from their parents' ability to earn a paycheck.

OTOH, the Michigan Works! building behind my office seems busier by the day.

[mediageek]

?This is a common-sense law that provides parents with the tools they need to protect their children from the effects of violence and graphic adult content.?

Raise your hand if you think this fails the "People's Democratic Republic of..." test.

[Lord Duppy]

What's the "people's democratic republic of" test?

It seems to me that this legislation is, for once, sound, or at least harmless. It doesn't restrict an adult's right to buy what he pleases, it just keeps stores from selling M and AO games to minors.

With this law, its harder for kids to play these games without parental permission. If their parents approve, their parents can rent the game for them.

Of course, most if not all stores in Michigan already followed such a policy. Since I look about five years younger than I am I get carded a lot.

[David]

I can't find the penalties for violating this law anywhere in the article. Does anyone know what they are?

[Rich Ard]

I hope you don't have any kids, Lord Duppy.

David - the penalty, I believe, is imprisonment of up to one year, a fine of $5,000, or both.

So if one of those retailers has a child, and they end up in jail for a year, is that good for the kids?

[SR]

"Protecting our children must be everyone's top priority"

All in favor of slapping the white off of Gov. Granholm please raise their hands....

[Mr. Nice Guy]

All this means is that when a stoner game store clerk accidently sells Grand Theft Auto to a hairy 17 year old, the shop owner will risk losing his business and possibly go to jail.

But this is still important because it makes the government look like it's doing something, and the soccer moms can feel more warm and fuzzy. We got that going.

[blah]

So the kids can continue to use an amazon account and paypal to get whatever they want with no penalties for anyone?

Okay. Good.

[kwais]

Once again and even more so, the government is trying to sell the illusion that it can raise and look after your moral values for you.

So when your kid becomes a loser drug addicted rapist or prostitute, you can relax and know that it wasn't your fault as a parent, it was the governments fault for not doing enough.

And rest assured the government will always always fail.

[mediageek]

What's the "people's democratic republic of" test?

Ever notice how countries that call themselves "The People's Democratic Republic of Soandsoastan" are usually not of the people, democratic, or a republic?

Basically, if you have to label something with special high-falutin' words, then it probably isn't.

Another example: Fancy Ketchup isn't.

[kwais]

It is lovely that we have the government to decide who should be allowed to get married, to decide at what age we can start drinking, and what drugs we should use recreationally.

What do you need adults or responsibility for if you have government?

[Larry Horse]

Well, mediageek, Ronald Reagan once said that "The difference between a republic and a people's republic is a lot like the difference between a jacket and a straight jacket." Seems to be an apt analogy.

[Lord Duppy]

"I hope you don't have any kids, Lord Duppy."

And why's that?

Of course I might be wrong, but nobody's said anything yet as to why its a bad idea to prohibit the sale of M-rated games (or porn or cigarettes) to minors.

Raise the minimum age a hair above eighteen years and I will instantly object. But we're talking about kids, here.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

LD:

Should a store owner risk losing his business and possibly go to jail because one of his clerks sells Halo to a hairy 17-year old?

[Rich Ard]

"Raise the minimum age a hair above eighteen years..."

That's why; your suggestion that arbitrary ESRB ratings (tied to what the board decides is violent, prurient, etc.) should be used to keep something from a human until they reach that magic age of eighteen, as well as the obligatory "we're talking about kids" implies an unwillingness to take full responsibility upon oneself.

[Tonio]

Lord Duppy,

This is a libertarian forum, and such things are usually taken for granted, but since you're new in town...

"why it's a bad idea to prohibit the sale of M-rated games (or porn or cigarettes) to minors."

1) It pumps up the state. Generally, libertarians favor reducing government, not expanding it. More laws equals more government since you need cops, prosecutors, judges and jailors to enforce the ever-expanding laws.

2) It promotes the nanny-state, which is an anathema to most libertarians. Government qua government is a necessary evil, but most libertarians agree that morality is not the purview of government. When government regulation of morality is legitimized, it inevitably results in things like 1920's alcohol prohibition in the US.

3) It stomps on the ability of families to define their own values. Some families believe it's ok to serve the kids a small glass of wine at holiday meals, but you would seem to wish to remove this choice from them.

4) It creates a chilling effect on the things regulated, ie fewer places will sell cigs, girly mags or m-rated video games for fear of running afoul of the regulators. This, of course, plays into the hands of the moralists.

Think about it.

Regards,

Tonio

[ChicagoTom]

Should a store owner risk losing his business and possibly go to jail because one of his clerks sells Halo to a hairy 17-year old?

Although I believe the penalty may be strong, is this statement meant to imply that a store owner should not be responsible for the actions of his employees?

Shouldn't a store owner be responsible if one of his clerks sells alcohol or cigs to a minor?

I don't see a problem with this at all. In the same way that we restrict the sale of cigs and porno to minors, I don't see why AO or rated M games can't be restricted to minors.

If I, as a parent want allow my child to have the game then I can buy it for him.

[Tonio]

LD:

And another thing...

Around here, the phrase "for the children" is a self-parodying catchphrase indicating that the speaker is a craven idiot (if used seriously), or expressing profound contempt for the nanny state (if used tongue-in-cheek).

[ChicagoTom]

2) It promotes the nanny-state, which is an anathema to most libertarians. Government qua government is a necessary evil, but most libertarians agree that morality is not the purview of government. When government regulation of morality is legitimized, it inevitably results in things like 1920's alcohol prohibition in the US.

THey arent regulating morality, they are restricting default access. And why is that so wrong? Minors shouldn't have unrestricted access to everything should they ?

3) It stomps on the ability of families to define their own values. Some families believe it's ok to serve the kids a small glass of wine at holiday meals, but you would seem to wish to remove this choice from them.

No it doesn't! I can still define the values for my family. The law doesn't state that kids aren't allowed to play or view them. They just can't buy them on their own. I can still buy it for my child and allow them to play it however I see fit

4) It creates a chilling effect on the things regulated, ie fewer places will sell cigs, girly mags or m-rated video games for fear of running afoul of the regulators. This, of course, plays into the hands of the moralists.

It does no such thing. In the case of cigs, I can still get them EVERYWHERE, gas stations, drug stores, the local convenience store. It only restricts access to adults.

[R C Dean]

THey arent regulating morality, they are restricting default access.

So if I say no child under the age of 18 should be allowed to look at any book other than the Bible, I'm not "regulating morality." The regulation of morality consists in large part of regulating access to things the regulator considers immoral.

Minors shouldn't have unrestricted access to everything should they?

Perhaps their parents should decide this? Besides, its rather a large leap from "Minors shouldn't have access to working nuclear weapons" to "Minors shouldn't have access to some video games", don't you think?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

(ChicagoTom: I'm not blasting you in particular, this is just a general rant towards "the parents")

Okay, it seems that many parents are having difficulty understanding their responsibility. Granted, I don't have any snotlings myself, but I'll still lay it out for you:

1) Don't let your kids have video consols, DVD players, or computers in their bedrooms. Put the damned things in a common area in the house where you can pop in from time to time.

2) Make it clear to the kids that nothing gets played on these devices without your explicit consent. Violations result in immediate removal of said devices.

3) There are filtering and locking mechanisms on most of these machines. Try using them.

4) Keep in close contact with other parents to monitor your kids' gaming and movie viewing in their homes.

5) GET INVOLVED. Play the games and watch the movies with your kids. Show some genuine interest in what they are doing.

[ChicagoTom]

So if I say no child under the age of 18 should be allowed to look at any book other than the Bible, I'm not "regulating morality." The regulation of morality consists in large part of regulating access to things the regulator considers immoral.

I think its a rather large leap to equate the restriction of access to content which caters to mature audiences with restricting access to any literature other than the bible. If you don't see a difference than I dunno what else to say. Your example seems like a straw-man to me. As for regualting morality, I just don't see it. If they were trying to ban the games altogether then it would be regulating morality, but limiting the access to objectionable material to minors and forcing the parents to intervene if they want to allow them access is hardly regulating morality. Just like I dont have a problem with the adult section of the video store being only open to adults. The regulating of morality is when my township stops allowing video stores to have an adult section at all.

Perhaps their parents should decide this? Besides, its rather a large leap from "Minors shouldn't have access to working nuclear weapons" to "Minors shouldn't have access to some video games", don't you think?

The parents can and will decide this. A law like this helps the parents by making harder for a kid who wants to disobey his parent from getting access to it. With restricted access though, the parent is much better empowered to police the child. Like I said, I can buy the game for my child if I have no objections to it. The law doesn't restrict minors from playing or owning it, it just doesn't let them buy it on their own. It would seem this option is actually the best one to make sure that parents really can make those choices for their kids.

Furthermore, I don't see why the "leap" is so large. There are many things that aren't on the level of nuclear weapons that minors shouldn't have unrestricted access to.

[Girth]

So now we have someone working at EB Games making $7.50 an hour legally responsible as a gatekeeper to keep "adult" games out of the hands of minors, to the tune of a penalty comparable to DUI. Fabulous.

I'm wondering if this is going to stand up in court. I seem to remember a similar measure being passed in Illinois within the last year, where lawmakers acknowledged that the law would not pass constitutional tests, but they had to vote for it anyways, otherwise their no vote would come back to bite them in the ass in the next election.

I did hear Granholm on the radio this morning saying the law was very carefully written for this reason

[ChicagoTom]

Mr Nice Guy,

I agree with all 5 of your points. But I also believe that allowing unrestricted access to these things undermines a parents ability to do what you are demanding they do. You can't expect parents to be everywhere and watching everything all at once. That's where restricetd access comes along. It makes it much harder for the kids to do these things on the sly. Why is that so bad??? Unless you expect parents to never let their kids do anything ever unspervised, unrestrited access will empower them to not only disobey me, but also keep me in the dark about theie breaking of the rules.

[ChicagoTom]

So now we have someone working at EB Games making $7.50 an hour legally responsible as a gatekeeper to keep "adult" games out of the hands of minors, to the tune of a penalty comparable to DUI. Fabulous.

How is this different than the min. wage employee at the liqour store / 7-11 who has the same responsibility? (I'll admit that the penalty is excessive in my opinion)
You are acting like its such an impossible task to have the clerk, when presetned with something marked as "for adults" to ask for id, like they do with porn, cigs, and booze. It's already happening at the gas station, at the drug store, at the video store, so why should the fact that its an employee at a game store make a difference?

[Rich Ard]

Part of growin' up, ChicagoTom is breaking the parents' rules and reaping the consequences. It is not the state's job to act as all of our childrens' guardians.

And as far as "limiting the access to objectionable material" - it's absolutely legislating morality, as 'objectionable material' depends completely on what the regulating party sees as prurient.

[Rich Ard]

"It's already happening..."

That's why it's dangerous.

[ChicagoTom]

Rich Ard:

To me legislating morality is when the DOJ goes after pornographers and tries to prosecute anyone making a porno movie and attacks the industry, or when they try and outlaw homosexuality, not when the evil state says "you need to be an adult" to do certain things. It's pretty well established (at least in this country) that minors do not have the same rights / freedoms as adults, and the state is well within its rights to enforce some of those restrictions.

Look, the bottom line is, minors should not have unrestriceted access to the same stuff that adults should have by default. There are things that the government can and should do to assist / empower parents in policing their kids or at the very least make it harder to undermine their parents wishes. I believe that is a very much part of the states responsibility.

There is a HUGE difference between saying NO CHILD CAN PLAY THIS GAME vs. "You need parent's permission to buy this game". The 2nd condition seems quite reasonable to me.

[Girth]

ChicagoTom-

Well, the penalty being excessive was my main point. But beyond that, I just don't see video games as anywhere near as harmful to minors as booze, porn or tobacco.

[Jennifer]

There are things that the government can and should do to assist / empower parents in policing their kids or at the very least make it harder to undermine their parents wishes. I believe that is a very much part of the states responsibility.

Are you saying it's the state's responsibility to make it as hard as possible for kids to be exposed to ideas their parents find objectionable?

There are places in this country where the majority of adults oppose the teaching of evolution, and believe that ALL sexual knowledge--even the basic where-do-babies-come-from stuff--should be kept away from kids. If a religious state made it illegal for kids under 17 to buy books of geology or evolutionary history, would you support that?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

CT:

When I was little my mom kept a list on top of the TV of shows I was allowed to watch. The understanding was that if I strayed from this list, I couldn't use the TV, period.

I don't remember my mom demanding that the broadcasters only show programs on her list. I don't recall her imposing my particular viewing restrictions on anyone except me.

And granted, I'm a pretty sick fuck who loves to watch filthy movies and play Grand Theft Auto, but that's besides the point.

[ChicagoTom]

Girth,

I agree completely.

And just for the record, if you were to ask for my vote I would vote against the law, but I just don't see this law as something to get worked up over nor is an attack on my choices/freedoms as a consumer.

There are a lot of things that the state does that I dont think it should, but to me this is not an example of the "nanny state" out of control.

[Rich Ard]

I'm not saying that this sort of action is outside the state's constitutional ability, ChicagoTom, just that as a parent, it incenses me that this sort of action is deemed necessary. That video games are seen as an vice equal to the big three (see Girth's post above, is just ludicrous.

If my daughter rents a copy of Grand Theft Auto and buys some booze and she knows she wasn't allowed to do either, is that her responsibility or that of a counter jockey? I think there's a scary gap between "Mom and Dad might find out" and "the State might find out".

I've always found it odd that these sort of laws, be they for dealing drugs or selling beer, punish the supplier more than the customer.

[ChicagoTom]

Jennifer :

No, what I am saying is that assisting / empowering parents ability to restrict access to material that is made for and caters to adults is not an improper use of the state's power.

Somehow I don't think that information that is taught in schools around the country is on par with adult oriented material. Nor would I equate sexual education (like the film I saw in HS that showed a mother giving birth) to Debbie Does Dallas.

Let me turn it around on you... do you think there should be no age restrictions on purchasing alcohol, pron or cigs?

I dont think there is a one size fits all answer to restriceted access. I don't think everything should be regulated, nor do I think nothing should be regulated. I just can't get outraged when a state passes a law that says minors shouldn't have unretricted access to ADULT MATERIAL.

[ChicagoTom]

If my daughter rents a copy of Grand Theft Auto and buys some booze and she knows she wasn't allowed to do either, is that her responsibility or that of a counter jockey? I think there's a scary gap between "Mom and Dad might find out" and "the State might find out".

Responsibility in this case falls on both your daughter for doing something wrong, and on the person who empowered her to do the wrong thing.

What exactly is your complaint though? That there are laws that restrict certain ages from doing things or that enforcement of these laws is left to retailers?

[Jennifer]

I just can't get outraged when a state passes a law that says minors shouldn't have unretricted access to ADULT MATERIAL.

And who decides what material is "adult?" Hell, in Puritan days most families (especially in the cold winter months) lived in a single room, and when Mom and Dad had sex they did so behind a privacy curtain with no sound-dampening effect whatsoever. Those little Puritan babies knew quite a bit about human sexuality.

Nor would I equate sexual education (like the film I saw in HS that showed a mother giving birth) to Debbie Does Dallas.

No, you wouldn't, but a LOT of people would. Take a look at a "banned books list" sometime and check out some of the incredibly innocuous titles that parents have demanded be pulled from schools. Again, who decides what material is "adult?"

do you think there should be no age restrictions on purchasing alcohol, pron or cigs?

I'd even be radical enough to say yes. And before anyone gets huffy, I do NOT think it's a good idea for kids to smoke or drink. But when I was a kid, even if cigs, booze and porn were for sale to all ages I wouldn't have been able to buy them anyway, because my allowance wasn't enough to support it. So as for this video-game nonsense, well, where are these kids getting the money to buy sixty-, seventy or eighty-dollar games in the first damned place? Why don't the parents step in and--you know--RAISE their own damned kids, rather than expect the government and the video-game clerks to do it for them?

[David]

There is a HUGE difference between saying NO CHILD CAN PLAY THIS GAME vs. "You need parent's permission to buy this game". The 2nd condition seems quite reasonable to me. Is does seem reasonable, except that storeclerks bear the responsibilty for checking ID's on every "M" game purchase. Have you been to an EB recently, Tom. The kids working there are barely over 17 themselves. To my thinking, being incompetant/susceptible to peer pressure at work is more a termination-worthy than a fine/prison-worthy offense.

So, how long before the Michigan State PD entraps one of these game store rats as Georgia State PD did with convenience store clerks selling cold medicine and lighter fluid?

[ChicagoTom]

Jennifer :

As for the money, I have been working since I was 13 years old and I always had money....not gobs of it, but it would only take me a couple of weeks of part time work to be able to save what I needed to buy the games.

As for the complaint of wanting others to raise their kids for them, Im gonna call BS on that statement. Putting an age restriction on something is not the same as having a clerk be a parent to my child. Retailers have a responsibility to distribute their product responsibly and that means having to card for certain products.

Furthermore, since you admit that your position is radical (the no age limits for smokes, cigs porn ) then I think the DEFAULT should be the mainstream belief with the radicals given the ability to override the default. e.g limiting access to all kids and letting the radical parents give access to their kids.

[kwais]

Chicago Tom,
It should not be the state trying to prevent your kids from buying porn, cigarettes or alcohol. (or drugs for that matter)

I know that is a hard one to grasp. But consider this; the state is INCAPABLE of stopping kids from aquiring the stuff.

In most states alcohol is forbidden to people under 21. DO YOU KNOW A SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY THE LAW FROM GETTING ALCOHOL PRIOR TO THEIR 21st BDAY?

The state cannot and should not attempt to regulate morality. Only the parents can and should. And the fact that they believe the it is the states job, or that they have assistance from the law, only hinders them IMHO.

[Rich Ard]

My complaint in this case is the suggestion that videogames are so dangerous that we need to make sure that those wonderful children can't be corrupted by them. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see the utility in raising a child sheltered from things which haven't been proven to be detrimental.

Would I go as far as Jennifer and demand that age restrictions be completely lifted? That I don't know, and wish I did; I'll admit that I've spent more time drawing typefaces than reading The Nature of Man and His Government.

One thing that also gets under my skin, though, is that Granholm has time for this sort of voter-magnet bullshit as our state undergoes a Leon Uris-style Exodus of jobs.

Where I do agree with Jennifer is that I didn't get wasted or spend all day shooting cops on a tv screen, because my folks raised me instead of tossing me in the sensory deprivation chamber with a copy of The Lion King and a Happy Meal.

[Jennifer]

I always had money....not gobs of it, but it would only take me a couple of weeks of part time work to be able to save what I needed to buy the games.

And your parents wouldn't or couldn't check to see how you were spending it? So the government should make laws to spare them the trouble?

Retailers have a responsibility to distribute their product responsibly and that means having to card for certain products.

Only because the government has decreed it thus.

I think the DEFAULT should be the mainstream belief with the radicals given the ability to override the default. e.g limiting access to all kids and letting the radical parents give access to their kids.

I'll be honest--if I had kids I wouldn't want them playing violent video games, either. However, I don't think that if they DO manage to play some, that means somebody should lose their freedom or their livelihood over it. Apparently you disagree.

[ChicagoTom]

"M" game purchase. Have you been to an EB recently, Tom. The kids working there are barely over 17 themselves. To my thinking, being incompetant/susceptible to peer pressure at work is more a termination-worthy than a fine/prison-worthy offense

David the same things happen in video stores, liquor stores, restaurants, grocery stores, 7-11, etc. etc. etc. Have you been to a grocery store?? DO you know how many times I needed to wait for the HS checker to get someone over 21 to ring up my case of beer? Or how often I've had teens at the gas station card me for cigs? SO what? What does that prove?

What is so wrong with saying that if you are gonna be in the business of stocking and selling adult materials than you are responsible for distributing it responsibly. The 7-11 next door to me say "we card everyone under 30 for cigs" -- why is that such a problem? If merchants dont like the fact that they have to be responible for the way they sell and distribute the materials they are free to not stock them aren't they ?

So, how long before the Michigan State PD entraps one of these game store rats as Georgia State PD did with convenience store clerks selling cold medicine and lighter fluid?

"Entraps" ?? If they send someone in posing as a youngster to see if they are following the law, this is hardly entrapment? What good is a law if there is no enforcement.

[Jennifer]

DO YOU KNOW A SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY THE LAW FROM GETTING ALCOHOL PRIOR TO THEIR 21st BDAY?

Only the really unpopular ones.

[Yogi]

If a religious state made it illegal for kids under 17 to buy books of geology or evolutionary history, would you support that?

Excellent point.

Nor would I equate sexual education (like the film I saw in HS that showed a mother giving birth) to Debbie Does Dallas.

No, you wouldn't, but a LOT of people would.

Even better.

Jennifer 2
ChicagoTom 0

[ChicagoTom]

In most states alcohol is forbidden to people under 21. DO YOU KNOW A SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS BEEN PREVENTED BY THE LAW FROM GETTING ALCOHOL PRIOR TO THEIR 21st BDAY?

kwais: no, but i know people who have been prevented from buying alcohol before their 21st. Many others had it given to them by older friends or something.

But whats the point? Nothing is going to get 100% complaince. Does that mean that if we cant stop everyone we shouldn't bother even trying. Just cuz ppl speed does that mean we shouldn't even bother with speed limits.

[dagny]

One thing that also gets under my skin, though, is that Granholm has time for this sort of voter-magnet bullshit as our state undergoes a Leon Uris-style Exodus of jobs.

Granholm won partly because she did better than most Democrats in West Michigan. I suspect she's hoping to hold on to the votes of West Michigan's social conservatives while still keeping Detroiters happy by sending them the lion's share of the state budget, as per normal.

[dagny]

No one's gonna blame her for the economy, anyway, the unions are all national and they'll tell workers they don't have a job because George W. Bush personally sat down one morning and said "wouldn't it be great if we sent this guy's job to mexico?"

[ChicagoTom]

I'll be honest--if I had kids I wouldn't want them playing violent video games, either. However, I don't think that if they DO manage to play some, that means somebody should lose their freedom or their livelihood over it. Apparently you disagree.

Jennifer that's just not honest. You are completely my position.

I have stated in this thread that I feel the penalties as written in the Michingan law are excessive. Further, I dont believe that if they do manage to "play some" there should be punishment. I feel that if a retailer doesn't actively card for games that are rated M or AO they should be punished some way, probably a fine.

I don't think anyone should go to jail for selling GTA to a minor, but there should be some penalty for it.

[dhex]

gta - and console games in general - retails for 50 to 55 bucks new, grinding down to 39.99, 29.99 and 19.99 as the shelf life wears on.

[ChicagoTom]

"You are completely my position "
should be
"You are distorting my position"

[Jennifer]

CHicagoTom--

The real question is, is the idea of kids (most likely the offspring of negligent parents) playing certain video games so horrendous that people should be deprived of their freedom if it happens? Sounds like you're advocating a major evil as the cure for a minor one.

[Jennifer]

Whoops, Tom posted the answer before I posted the question.

[ChicagoTom]

Jennifer,

That is not the real question. The real question is is it improper for the state to set age limits on "objectionable" material? It is not at all improper in my opionion. I dont think people should be jailed over it, but if they decide that they don't want to take the necessary steps to try and prevent minors for procuring that material from them than there should be a consequence.

We can debate all night and day who decides and who doesn't but its pretty well accepted that excessive sex and violence is objectionable material for kids to have access to. And having the state add an extra hoop for a kid to jump through to get it if the child is so determined is not something that I find outrageous.

[Danimal]

Libertarian Dogma: Only a child's parents have responsbility for that child's upbringing; society has none.

[Jennifer]

its pretty well accepted that excessive sex and violence is objectionable material for kids to have access to.

That first assumes that everyone agrees on the meaning of "excessive," but more importantly, I'm trying to figure out how your earlier statement: There are things that the government can and should do to assist / empower parents in policing their kids or at the very least make it harder to undermine their parents wishes. I believe that is a very much part of the states responsibility. does NOT mean the same thing as "It's the state's responsibility to make it difficult for kids to be learn about ideas their parents don't want them to know about."

[Jennifer]

Libertarian Dogma: Only a child's parents have responsbility for that child's upbringing; society has none.

Mirror image: It takes a village to raise a child, and even if you don't have kids and don't want them, you still have to help parents raise their kids the way THEY think best, even if their opinion and yours are the complete opposite.

[Girth]

As for the legal issues, here's the Entertainment Software Association's response:

http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/09/video_game_indu_2.php

[Rich Ard]

ChicagoTom, do you also think that minors should be protected from other media (books, movies, magazines)? If so, how does the authority figure decide what's acceptable - by majority decision?

Further, do you see any difference between this sort of penalty and one that would bar a minor from obtaining a copy of Catcher in the Rye?

This is a law that punishes a third party, who bears no 'good samaritan' responsibility to the minor (sorry to be Danimal's straight man), more than a parent - a loophole which seems a tacit acknowledgment that the restricted material is not dangerous enough to be restricted.

I'd like to note that it's also "pretty well accepted" that cannabis is a gateway drug, and that gays shouldn't marry. There's as much evidence for those two as there is for the detrimental effect of playing Doom 3.

[David]

"Entraps" ?? If they send someone in posing as a youngster to see if they are following the law, this is hardly entrapment? What good is a law if there is no enforcement.

I'll make a prediction for you, Tom. At some point, when someone demands results from this law, a young looking officer will badger some zitty college freshman into selling him a game without verifying his age and slap the cuffs on.

[ChicagoTom]

David : If and when that happens I will join you in the outrage. The problem there is the enforcement not the law itself.

So let me get this straight, the fact that some laws MIGHT be abused is the justification for not having laws at all?

[Rich Ard]

...but the law itself imposes a jail-time penalty!

[Danimal]

Mirror image: It takes a village to raise a child, and even if you don't have kids and don't want them, you still have to help parents raise their kids the way THEY think best, even if their opinion and yours are the complete opposite.

Well, yes. It does take a village to raise a child, and even if you don?t have any yourself you still benefit from children being raised properly and you?ll suffer when they are not. And who says you have to go along with what ?they? think is best ? you?re free to contribute your opinion to the mix.

[Jennifer]

the fact that some laws MIGHT be abused is the justification for not having laws at all?

Of course not, but you have to consider the potential for abuse weighed against the supposed harm this law is supposed to prevent. And why the hell should the government use the law to make it hard for kids to be exposed to ideas their parents don't like?

[Rich Ard]

"And who says you have to go along with what ?they? think is best..."

I think the state of Michigan doing just that is how this whole discussion started. 🙂

[Rich Ard]

dagny, the WSJ burned her a couple of times recently for the tax/borrow/spend pattern we've seen of late.

[ChicagoTom]

ChicagoTom, do you also think that minors should be protected from other media (books, movies, magazines)? If so, how does the authority figure decide what's acceptable - by majority decision

Please re-read some of my other comments. There is a difference between me saying I dont find this outrageous and saying it should be done.

Furthermore, its not an either or thing. I dont believe that either the government should be able to restrict any/everything it wants or it should never restrict anything.

I have a problem with banning of literature like catcher and the rye or Huck Finn, but I dont have a problem with restricting access to Penthouse Letters. Why is this such a difficult position to understand?

Also, just because I would allow my kids to see nudity/porn doesn't mean that every kid should have unrestricted access to it.

I'd like to note that it's also "pretty well accepted" that cannabis is a gateway drug, and that gays shouldn't marry. There's as much evidence for those two as there is for the detrimental effect of playing Doom 3

And to use your examples I dont think that minors should have access marijuana nor should they be allowed to get married until they are adults.
But you're examples are about things being "forbidden" not restriceted to minors. Adults can't even do these things (which I think is wrong but a seperate thread) so how are they relevant to the discussion?

[ChicagoTom]

Of course not, but you have to consider the potential for abuse weighed against the supposed harm this law is supposed to prevent. And why the hell should the government use the law to make it hard for kids to be exposed to ideas their parents don't like?

I am considering that. I just don't believe that the police are going to abuse this law to try and put EB Games or Game Stop out of business. I suspect it will be used against retailers who decide its more profitable to sell to minors than to card

[Jennifer]

I have a problem with banning of literature like catcher and the rye or Huck Finn, but I dont have a problem with restricting access to Penthouse Letters. Why is this such a difficult position to understand?

Because a lot of people--the ones most likely to whine to the government to make rules--see no difference between the former and the latter. And once the state gets into the habit of rrestricting access to certain things, it's rarely content to stop there--it uses the previous ban as a precedent to ban more and more things.

[ChicagoTom]

...but the law itself imposes a jail-time penalty!

and I have already said on more than one occasion that I think the penalties are too severe.

[David]

So let me get this straight, the fact that some laws MIGHT be abused is the justification for not having laws at all?

No, but the fact that all laws have the potential for abuse means we should carefully consider which we pass, and what sort of penalties we attach to them.

[Rich Ard]

"I have a problem with banning of literature like catcher and the rye or Huck Finn, but I dont have a problem with restricting access to Penthouse Letters. Why is this such a difficult position to understand?"

Because where's the dividing line? At what point does media become unacceptable for the kids, and what totally subjective entity gets to decide?

"Adults can't even do these things (which I think is wrong but a seperate thread) so how are they relevant to the discussion?"

Because earlier you said "its pretty well accepted that excessive sex and violence is objectionable material for kids to have access to." I hoped to point out that 'pretty well accepted' doesn't mean a thing. The effect of alcohol on a young brain has been more carefully studied, and thus I have less problem with that restriction (although as I stated above, I'm still undecided on that one).

[ChicagoTom]

Jennifer,

when your doomsday scenario starts happening then I'll lobby my officials against it, but your slippery slope argument is not enough to convince me that the state has no business passing laws restricting access to adult materials.

I'm sorry that I can't elaborate the difference between letting a kid buy GTA: San andreas and letting a kid buy catcher in the Rye or a book talking about evolution well enough for you, but to me there is a HUGE distinction there and I dont see the two as equivalent. I don't think its the states responsibility to police everything that any parent may find objectionable, but that doesn't mean that the state shouldn't police anything. On a case by case basis, this case is hardly offensive to sense of freedom choice

[Girth]

Curious,

I'll have a regular #1 and a #3, super-sized.

[Rich Ard]

ChicagoTom, because you said:

"If and when that happens I will join you in the outrage. The problem there is the enforcement not the law itself."

I said:

"...but the law itself imposes a jail-time penalty!"

[Rich Ard]

And this has been fun, but I should probably have spent more of this time doing my job. 🙂

[John]

If the government won't sell the game to my kid without my being there, I get to make the choice whether he buys it or not. If I think its okay, I just buy the thing myself and give it to him. If the kid is allowed to buy it on his own, since I can't control him 24/7, he will buy it regardless of my thinking and I am deprived of that choice. As long as they government doesn't go overboard as they have done with alchohol and make it a crime for me to give my child something, laws preventing minors from purchasing things like violent games, increase adults and parents choices and control over their children's lives. Something I see as a good thing.

[Jennifer]

I'm sorry that I can't elaborate the difference between letting a kid buy GTA: San andreas and letting a kid buy catcher in the Rye or a book talking about evolution well enough for you, but to me there is a HUGE distinction there and I dont see the two as equivalent.

Catcher in the Rye has ALREADY been banned. Schools across the country are keeping evolution out of their curricula. Christ, even candy and cookies are being banned in schools--not the SALE of such things, but their very existence on school grounds. And yet you seriously think that once the nannies get the video games out of the kiddies' hands, they'll say "All right, our work here is done, so we'll go back to minding our own business now?"

Even your insistence that the penalty for selling this stuff should be fines rather than jailtime isn't much of an improvement. How much of a fine? How many times will one retailer pay a fine before the state decides the fines aren't working and more coercive remedies need to be employed?

[ChicagoTom]

Because where's the dividing line? At what point does media become unacceptable for the kids, and what totally subjective entity gets to decid

Well thats the question isn't it? I believe there have been a number of supreme court cases that deal with these types of issues as well. WHat kind of stuff is protected by the 1st amendment, when it becomes "obscene" etc etc. I never claimed that they are easy questions or that there is a big bright line that can be drawn. I undestand that its subjective and some people won't agree. Such is life.

As to who makes the decisions, there is a ratings board for video games. It may be subjective but its something and so far I haven't found their ratings to be too objectionable. So until the game ratings system shows me that they aren't being objective, or have some sort of agenda or even being to cautious, I can live with their ratings being the deciding factor.

[Jennifer]

increase adults and parents choices and control over their children's lives. Something I see as a good thing.

In other words, "It is the responsibility of the state to make sure kids have a hard time being exposed to things or ideas their parents don't like."

[Jennifer]

there is a ratings board for video games. It may be subjective but its something and so far I haven't found their ratings to be too objectionable. So until the game ratings system shows me that they aren't being objective, or have some sort of agenda or even being to cautious, I can live with their ratings being the deciding factor.

Sure, What's wrong with letting anonymous, unelected people be the arbiters of what kids get to see?

[Rich Ard]

How about chocolate, John? Or soda? Copies of Scientific American?

Children are not wards of the State. It's a responsibility that organization cannot handle, and an honor it does not deserve.

[R C Dean]

I think its a rather large leap to equate the restriction of access to content which caters to mature audiences with restricting access to any literature other than the bible. If you don't see a difference than I dunno what else to say. Your example seems like a straw-man to me.

I was merely pointing out that disassociating "restriction of access" from "regulation of morality" was a fallacy, by using an extreme example.

There is a HUGE difference between saying NO CHILD CAN PLAY THIS GAME vs. "You need parent's permission to buy this game". The 2nd condition seems quite reasonable to me.

And the second condition is completely within the power of every parent to implement.

Our objection is to the state sticking its nose in. As a rule of thumb, if sending someone to jail for doing X seems too harsh, then doing X probably shouldn't be against the law.

[R C Dean]

Although her politics are way too nanny-state for me, I will say that Governor Granholm is easily the hottest Governor going.

[Rhywun]

I haven't had time to read all the comments yet but... I must add that the whole "we must protect children from bad stuff" thing has just gotten SO out of hand. C'mon people. Anyone remember actually being a kid? If you're over the age of, say, three, and you still have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality, you belong in an institution, not in front of the counter at GameStop.

Plus I have to agree with Jennifer in that I see nothing wrong with lifting all age restrictions on purchasing bad stuff - especially given that it would not make one whit of difference to how many kids will get "corrupted".

[mediageek]

You know, I might, maybe, perhaps possibly consent that a law preventing minors from purchasing M-rated video games is a good thing if there were actually any verifiable evidence that such games actually cause any damage.

[Girth]

Rhywun,

I think someone said it earlier, but wasn't half the fun of being a kid getting away with stuff that your parents forbid you to do? It pisses me off that a good number of the people in favor of all this stuff were smoking dope and drinking underage when they were teenagers.

People think, "Well, I made some mistakes when I was younger, I'll protect my kids from doing that." The kids cannot be protected from everything in life. People need to make mistakes. It's how we learn.

[kmw]

First of all, let me offer a big "fuck you" to the
statists present who think making these new laws helps
society or parents. Like I've said before a couple
months ago, I had a nice little stash of playboy by
age eight. It would have been stupid for those that
helped me get them to be punished, since some were
more unwitting than others. I would offer that I
turned out all right, but some think libertarian is a
bad word.

Second, those that want to help me parent my children
can also go fuck themselves. My wife and I can do it
by ourselves, thank you, and we don't need your help.

Third... Jennifer, in case you're thrashed and/or
partying all weekend and don't post here during that
time, let me offer you best birthday wishes.

[Seamus]

"Catcher in the Rye has ALREADY been banned."

I'm sorry; removing a book from a school curriculum, is NOT the same thing as banning it. Any kid who can pull together seven bucks plus tax can buy it at any Borders or Barnes & Noble. Now if there were a law saying that the bookstore clerk could be hauled off to jail for a year or fined $5,000, yeah, that would constitute a ban.

But the idea that people should be denounced as book-banners because they don't want there hard-earned tax money going to teach what they regard as dreck is lunacy. I suppose an argument can be made that high school kids need to read Catcher in the Rye because books with whiny self-important losers as protagonists formed an important part of late-20th-century American literature, and that you have to have some familiarity with that genre if you want to really understand the canon. But I suspect the real reason Catcher gets added to high-school curricula is the patronizing notion that it will appeal to kids because its protagonist is like them. (As you may have gathered, I'd have been insulted by such a notion.)

Any week spent studying Catcher in the Rye would be much better spent taking another week to go deeper into Huckleberry Finn. Or to talk about how Faulkner took a hack novel by Hemingway and turned it into a great screenplay (leading into an examination of how what works as a novel often doesn't work as film, and vice versa). Or to read any two or three books by P.G. Wodehouse. (He lived in the U.S. after World War II, so I think we can include him in an American lit class.)

[Seamus]

That should be "*their* hard-earned tax dollars".

[mark]

Our lady the governess happens to be a former beauty queen contestant.I hate to play to common perceptions but you should have seen her picture when she signed the law punishing delinquent game players.There was a table in front of her with the contraband on it spread out so you could see the "ultra violent game" covers.And the look on her face you would have thought is was a law banning world hunger.

[master chief]

Our lady the governess happens to be a former beauty queen contestant.I hate to play to common perceptions but you should have seen her picture when she signed the law punishing delinquent game players.There was a table in front of her with the contraband on it spread out so you could see the "ultra violent game" covers.And the look on her face you would have thought is was a law banning world hunger.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

So Master Chief's real name is "mark"? Cool. But we still haven't seen your face.

My 2 cents on lifting all bans: I don't really have a problem with cigs, alcohol, and other recreational drugs being restricted from those under 18. There are reasonable health concerns (though the nannies would certainly push this to include twinkies).

However, porn, video games, movies, and other entertainment media is highly subjective, and only parents should be the ones formulating and enforcing restrictions ON THEIR KIDS ONLY.

And Happy Birthday to Jennifer. She is definitely queen of this thread 🙂

[dagny]

dagny, the WSJ burned her a couple of times recently for the tax/borrow/spend pattern we've seen of late.

Undoubtedly. However, my point was that Michigan (and in particular Southeast Michigan) voters wouldn't blame her for it. If anything, getting attacked by someone outside of your own little geographical area is a sure way to get reelected in Detroit -- just see Kwame Kilpatrick.