I feel sorry for gamers in Utah. UPDATE: Bill has been Vetoed!

[Gerry]

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/02...-overwhelmingly-approved-utah-house-committee

He wasn't on hand to testify, but the influence of disbarred Miami attorney Jack Thompson was apparent in yesterday's meeting of the Business and Labor Committee of the Utah House of Representatives.

By a 10-3 vote, committee members approved H.B. 353, a bill drafted by Thompson and sponsored by Rep. Mike Morley. The measure targets the video game and film industries by amending Utah's current Truth in Advertising law. Retailers and movie theaters which advertise that they don't sell M-rated games or R-rated movie tickets to underage buyers and then do so would be liable for fines of $2,000 per incident.

Those testifying on behalf of the bill included Alan Osmond, the most senior of the Osmond Brothers vocal group and Gayle Ruzicka, the politically powerful head of the ultra-conservative Utah Eagle Forum.

For his part, Osmond, read into the record verbatim passages from an e-mail circulated earlier yesterday by Thompson. Osmond, however, did not identify Thompson as the author:

This link shows a montage of sex scenes from the Grand Theft Auto IV game which has been sold and is presently being sold at BestBuy.com, WalMart.com, Target.com, GameStop.com, and at other retailers’ sites, with no age verification whatsoever.

As you can see, there are graphically depicted lap dances in a “gentleman’s club” in this game, including simulation of oral/anal sexual intercourse between women. The hero in the game then has intercourse, clearly depicted... The hero then kills the woman by gunfire and running her over with his car.

Now that’s entertainment.

I solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing description of what is in GTA IV is true, correct, and complete, and that this game is being sold to kids under 17 in Utah.

Utah must do something about these major retailers who are flat-out lying to the public when they assert they are not selling this and other similar pornographic “games” to kids when in fact they are. That is precisely what HB 353 is intended to do.

Conservative power broker Gayle Ruzicka also testified on behalf of the bill with a Thompson-esque flavor, mentioning Devin Moore, a GTA-playing Alabama teen who murdered three police officers in 2004. Thompson, representing the officers' families, subsequently brought suit against Rockstar Games, Sony and others before being thrown off the case by an Alabama judge for professional conduct violations in November, 2005.

For those familiar with Thompson's anti-GTA crusade, Ruzicka's testimony had a familiar tone:

These [games] are the kind of things that are training our children. This is the vile stuff. The Grand Theft Auto games are cop-killing murder simulators. And when [Devin Moore] was faced with being arrested he knew exactly what to do. He knew how to aim... at the head and each time killed these [officers]. We don't want this for our children. Not at all. Please, please vote yes today on this bill.



Anything we can do to protect our children from the violence, from the filthy pornography that the only way they can get into the pornography is being good at the game. They work hard and get to certain levels and when they get to the high enough levels then they get into the pornography - filthy, vile stuff that you would be appalled and never want your children to see. And then as a reward, they get to kill the women...

Dick Cornell of the Utah Association of Theater Owners was among those who testified against the bill:

Theater owners have taken pride in enforcing [MPAA] ratings... There isn't any forgiveness in this [bill] for an intent by someone else to deceive us, so we would be penalized for that...



One thing that we're very susceptible for in this legislation is that we would be penalized if there was a ticket purchase over... online or on the ticket kiosk. Because as soon as that purchase was made... we would be in violation of this law... We know of some theaters here in Utah that 40% of the ticket sales are done through a kiosk or online purchases... We have theaters that will on the weekend pull in 10,000 people of a Saturday. The chances of exceeding this [bill's] limit, it's possible, even though our intent to keep the kids out.



This bill really discourages compliance with our voluntary system. The only protection that we would have if this passes is to not follow the enforcement rules... And we don't want to do that...

Oddly enough, Rep. Morley said at the hearing that it was not his intent to have the proposal apply to movie tickets, although the language of the measure would seem to encompass theaters.

I feel really sorry for gamers in Utah, your First Amendment rights have been stolen by a fucking retard called Jack Thompson. If anyone here lives in Utah, Appeal this to the supreme court!

 

[Xalioniaf]

Just Utah being Utah. No worries about this spreading out to other states, but the LDS State is gonna get a lot of conservative legislation passed.
Although it doesn't seem to severe. Just that they're gonna try to regulate online transactions, which is funny.

 

[Skaw]

Atleast the bill targets the right target this time. Retailers and register jockeys who hand over M Rated games to minors without adults around. Ofcourse, now we'll start seeing hobos hanging out around Wal-Marts, buying kids M-Rated games for a few extra bucks like they do for beer.

 

[Bajaratt]

I feel really sorry for gamers in Utah, your First Amendment rights have been stolen by a fucking retard called Jack Thompson. If anyone here lives in Utah, Appeal this to the supreme court!

What the hell are you talking about? There is no first amendment violation in punishing someone for selling something they shouldn't be selling.

This bill is actually a good thing, and has absolutely nothing to do with the developers. The only thing this bill does is punish retailers who sell an M-rted game to a minor. This is similar to what the ESRB has been trying to do for years, the only people being hurt by this bill is the people who are doing something they shouldn't in the first place.

Calling it pornography or saying it's the most vile stuff ever is stupid; but that's just rhetoric that's irrelevant to the bill they're talking about. Yeah, Jack Thompson's a douche bag with generally no idea what he's talking about; but if he did have a hand in this, then he finally did something right and went after the correct target for once.

 

[Tyrath]

The Grand Theft Auto games are cop-killing murder simulators. And when [Devin Moore] was faced with being arrested he knew exactly what to do. He knew how to aim... at the head and each time killed these [officers]. We don't want this for our children. Not at all. Please, please vote yes today on this bill.

Hay guys, I learned from GTA that shooting someone in the head is the best way to kill them. Never seen this in any other form of entertainment, ever.



But really this bill isn't that bad at all. You're not supposed to sell the GTA games to 12 yr olds, might as well enforce that.

 

[Gerry]

You guys do realize this is Jack Thompson we are talking about? Jack Thompson having a good idea is about as likely as a polar bear ice skating on lava >_>

Him having this victory will only mean problems for us gamers will come later on. He is the enemy of the First Amendment after all, he is not going to stop until games are banned. He will completely ignore the First Amendment until he gets what he wants. Do you actually think he cares about kids? Or was his disbarment all for naught?

¬_¬

 

[Skaw]

You guys do realize this is Jack Thompson we are talking about? Jack Thompson having a good idea is about as likely as a polar bear ice skating on lava >_>

Him having this victory will only mean problems for us gamers will come later on. He is the enemy of the First Amendment after all, he is not going to stop until games are banned. He will completely ignore the First Amendment until he gets what he wants. Do you actually think he cares about kids? Or was his disbarment all for naught?

¬_¬

itt fear mongering

 

[Halifirien]

It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. Compliance with the ratings system is voluntary, similar to movie ratings. Legal backing sounds like overkill. It's not illegal for a 10-year-old to own GTA4, so this is a waste of time.

 

[Bajaratt]

You guys do realize this is Jack Thompson we are talking about? Jack Thompson having a good idea is about as likely as a polar bear ice skating on lava >_>

Him having this victory will only mean problems for us gamers will come later on. He is the enemy of the First Amendment after all, he is not going to stop until games are banned. He will completely ignore the First Amendment until he gets what he wants. Do you actually think he cares about kids? Or was his disbarment all for naught?

¬_¬

So because he's a giant asshole and a zealot against Take Two; we should automatically fight against a good idea for a law? It's not even his idea, like I said, the ESRB has been fighting for this for years.

If this didn't have his name in it, you either wouldn't care or would be in support of it. But, you're letting idiotic prejudice override your common sense.

The law is a good thing, he's not going to be able to use this to go after the developers or stop game production or anything; all this does is target the retailers. All this does it make it harder for underage kids to get M-rated games. I'd love to see how that could possibly be considered a bad thing.

 

[Halifirien]

All this does it make it harder for underage kids to get M-rated games. I'd love to see how that could possibly be considered a bad thing.

I think it's a terrible idea for a law.

These laws tend to get struck down as unconstitutional, and I have no doubt this one would meet the same fate. It'll be a huge waste of taxpayer money when the state has to defend this thing in court and loses. It's another pathetic example of media scapegoating, and having Jack Thompson's ass-stink on it simply makes it that much easier to dismiss. I'm surprised the house commitee didn't check his track record before they fell for his hysterics.

You could argue the law is completely unnecessary because parents already have the tools to lock out M-rated content on their children's consoles. If they can't be bothered to learn how to do that, maybe I'm not too worried if little Bobby manages to get his hands on a copy of Fallout 3.

 

[Bajaratt]

I think it's a terrible idea for a law.

It's as terrible as stopping pharmacists from handing out whatever drugs they want, or a wal-mart selling guns to minors.

You could argue the law is completely unnecessary because parents already have the tools to lock out M-rated content on their children's consoles. If they can't be bothered to learn how to do that, maybe I'm not too worried if little Bobby manages to get his hands on a copy of Fallout 3.

They should also be stopping their kids from using drugs, joining gangs, or watching reality television; doesn't mean that it shouldn't also be illegal.

You're not explaining why it's a bad thing that the rule about no M-rated games to minors would actually be enforced. Only a few of them do it now, and there's absolutely nothing stopping it on the internet. So, why is it a bad thing to take a pro-active step towards preventing kids from getting the games? Yes, it's not perfect and there's a bunch of ways they can still get the games; but just because it's not a perfect solution doesn't mean it's completely worthless.

Again, if it hadn't been jack thompson who helped push this through, no one would be complaining. I don't enjoy that he was behind it, but since it accomplishes what legitimate bodies that actually care about the gaming industry have been trying to do for so long, I'm fine with it passing.

 

[RaidrX]

Yeah I really don't see how this is bad. Hell maybe it will even keep a couple loud mouthed little shits off XBL or PSN which I'm fine with.

 

[Halifirien]

It's as terrible as stopping pharmacists from handing out whatever drugs they want, or a wal-mart selling guns to minors.

That's a complete bullshit statement, and I'm shocked you'd even bother trying to equate a minor buying a Mature-rated game with those examples. Pharmacists and guns are regulated for a reason. Video games, movies, books and music are not on 1st Amendment grounds.

You're not explaining why it's a bad thing that the rule about no M-rated games to minors would actually be enforced.

Because that rule is voluntary. Not everyone buys into the idea that playing M-rated games is harmful to minors. A 15-year-old boy playing Grand Theft Auto 4 is the end of the world and the coarsening of our society. That same boy reading Catch-22 or watching Schindler's List wouldn't get the same flack.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The only problem I see with this law is the reaction people are ging to have as a result of it being passed. The only reason that is bad is because of the taxpayer money that is going to be spent by the state to defend the law in court (much like hali already mentioned).

The good thing about it is that it targets the sellers of the games instead of the games. That just means all of us responsible adults who buy games will be completely unaffected by this round of censorship.

It's as terrible as stopping pharmacists from handing out whatever drugs they want, or a wal-mart selling guns to minors.

I don't understand how you are equating one to the other. Drugs and guns are both very dangerous when not used for the right purpose (sometimes even when they are used for the right purpose). Until they make a GTA where I can pull a glock and an 8 ball out of the screen, I think it's safe to say your comparison doesn't really equate very well.

 

[Thelona]

Don't get me wrong, I despise Jack Thompson as much as the next gamer, hes a total douche-bag. and i was ecstatic when i heard about him being disbarred. anyone remember when he had that epic feud with penny arcade back in the day, looks like the PA guys got the last laugh.

But I don't see anything wrong with this law. I used to work at a gamestop and we went by these rules anyways, if a manager saw you selling an M rated game to a kid or a questionable looking teen without asking for I.D. you'd get your ass chewed out and maybe fired. All this is doing is finally putting a law to backup the esrb rating, wich I think should have been enforced from the getgo.

I really don't think a 14 year old kid should be able to walk into wal-mart and buy gta IV without a parent. If he wants it that bad and feels his constitutional rights have been violated, he can get his parents to come buy it for him. or the homeless bum sitting outside wanting some beer money.

 

[Tagrineth]

It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. Compliance with the ratings system is voluntary, similar to movie ratings. Legal backing sounds like overkill. It's not illegal for a 10-year-old to own GTA4, so this is a waste of time.

No, it's not illegal for a 10-year-old to own GTA4, nor will it ever be.

What's being made illegal is that 10-year-old going to Kmart without an adult, picking out the game, and purchasing it for himself. And it SHOULD be illegal.

It's the exact same concept as that same 10 year old going to a gas station and buying the latest issue of Playboy, a pack of Marlboros, or a bottle of Heineken. It just shouldn't happen. Said 10 year old should not be allowed to decide for himself that he can handle the content - that's supposed to be the parents' job.


edit: Keep in mind that with this law in place, the parents would still be perfectly allowed to purchase said game FOR their kids, meaning the onus is placed even more on the parents to make educated purchases.

 

[Skaw]

edit: Keep in mind that with this law in place, the parents would still be perfectly allowed to purchase said game FOR their kids, meaning the onus is placed even more on the parents to make educated purchases.

It also means dumb ass parents in Utah can't flip their lid at game developers when they find out their elementary school kid is playing Murder Machine 12, since either they had to have bought it for their kid, or their kid borrowed it from a friend whose parents bought it for them. No more are the days parents can disregard responsibility as someone elses folly in Utah. And really, if that's not reason enough for this law, do tell what is.

 

[Halifirien]

It's called freedom of speech. Video games are a protected form of speech, like music and books and movies. I won't support any law that unfairly targets video games and tries to pretend they're as harmful to children as alcohol or guns. It wasn't that long ago that comic books were treated the same way. Thankfully, the courts have repeatedly struck down these laws every time they come up.

This new "truth in advertising" angle is a novel approach, but their intent is obviously the same, and the legislators' intent is taken into account when courts make their rulings. If it gets signed into law, I'm sure Utah eventually will enjoy a lengthy legal battle and a hefty bill for legal fees.

I have no problem with any store that refuses to sell M-rated games to minors, but this does not need to be a law. It should remain voluntary.

 

[Tristam Green]

It's called freedom of speech. Video games are a protected form of speech, like music and books and movies. I won't support any law that unfairly targets video games and tries to pretend they're as harmful to children as alcohol or guns. It wasn't that long ago that comic books were treated the same way. Thankfully, the courts have repeatedly struck down these laws every time they come up.

Interesting sidebar:

I just re-read the article concerning the Comics Code Authority, and I find it interesting that only DC and Archie Comics are still actively submitting their comics for CCA approval.

No wonder I like Marvel Comics that much better.

I agree that this (in regards to the OP) does not need to be enforced as law.

 

[Morwen]

Lets broaden the statement and just say....

I feel sorry for people living in Utah.