Retail backlash to violent game bill
Californian proposal branded ‘irresponsible’ by IEMA
Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association of America has reacted angrily to proposed bills (1792 and 1793) to limit retailers ability to display games which may not be suitable for younger gamers.
“The newly proposed violent video game legislation in California smacks of me-too politics in a vein effort for local politicians to garner some perceived moral high ground when clearly there is none to be had,” said Hal Halpin, president of the IEMA.
“Assemblyman Yee knows well that the IEMA member companies have just recently implemented nation-wide carding policies in an effort to inhibit the sale of M-rated games to minors, rendering his and similarly redundant pieces of legislation wholly unnecessary and a frivolous and irresponsible waste of taxpayer resources. The bottom line on this matter is that retailers have made the public commitment to partner with parents, and quite frankly you simply cannot legislate sound parenting. We again welcome responsible parties interested in making a tangible difference on the issue to work with us, rather than pursue a legislative course proven unconstitutional time and again,” he concluded.
This is not the first time Assemblyman Yee has sought to capitalise on recent news flares regarding violence in the videogame sector, with proposed bills dating back to early 2004.
And all this before the Punisher is properly released.
“The newly proposed violent video game legislation in California smacks of me-too politics in a vein effort for local politicians to garner some perceived moral high ground when clearly there is none to be had,” said Hal Halpin, president of the IEMA.
“Assemblyman Yee knows well that the IEMA member companies have just recently implemented nation-wide carding policies in an effort to inhibit the sale of M-rated games to minors, rendering his and similarly redundant pieces of legislation wholly unnecessary and a frivolous and irresponsible waste of taxpayer resources. The bottom line on this matter is that retailers have made the public commitment to partner with parents, and quite frankly you simply cannot legislate sound parenting. We again welcome responsible parties interested in making a tangible difference on the issue to work with us, rather than pursue a legislative course proven unconstitutional time and again,” he concluded.
This is not the first time Assemblyman Yee has sought to capitalise on recent news flares regarding violence in the videogame sector, with proposed bills dating back to early 2004.
And all this before the Punisher is properly released.
Games:
The Punisher
Read More Like This
Comments
Joji 17 Feb 2005 15:30
1/4
LOL......it's so funny my heads gonna fall off my shoulders. When will these bible bashing yanks get in toucch with reality. Go around that damn big country of yours and put a few undercover cops behind the counter at a few EBs.
If said undercover cops spends a week observing the publics purchases they will see first hand that parents will end up buying the games for their kids in the end, even when staff warn the parents about the games content beforehand.
I can see where this is going. I'd so like to see stores making a parent sign a contract for a 18 cert game that requires their signature before sale. Both parties keep a copy as you do when you purchase with plastic sometimes. The contract would simply say "on your head be it if anything weird happens, you knew the risks since the person who served you warned you." Keep a database of records and if anything happened the stores have proof to take to court to defend themselves. All they'd have to do then is make sure every state uses it effectively.
This all seems silly when you can purchase games online though too.
If said undercover cops spends a week observing the publics purchases they will see first hand that parents will end up buying the games for their kids in the end, even when staff warn the parents about the games content beforehand.
I can see where this is going. I'd so like to see stores making a parent sign a contract for a 18 cert game that requires their signature before sale. Both parties keep a copy as you do when you purchase with plastic sometimes. The contract would simply say "on your head be it if anything weird happens, you knew the risks since the person who served you warned you." Keep a database of records and if anything happened the stores have proof to take to court to defend themselves. All they'd have to do then is make sure every state uses it effectively.
This all seems silly when you can purchase games online though too.
config 17 Feb 2005 15:39
2/4
Joj, for that to stick the sales assistance would have to read the contract to the customer before each sale. Otherwise the customer could (successfully) counter with "who has time to read a countract when there's a big queue^H^H^H^H^H line of people behind you"
That's how fscked up that country is.
That's how fscked up that country is.
more comments below our sponsor's message
Joji 17 Feb 2005 18:10
3/4
Just an example of what could be done to help. I'm sure the stores would train staff in the why and whatevers of the contract before it would be used.
If anyone has any better ideas by all means do post them.
If anyone has any better ideas by all means do post them.
vault 13 18 Feb 2005 17:52
4/4
Joji wrote:
Just an example of what could be done to help. I'm sure the stores would train staff in the why and whatevers of the contract before it would be used.
If anyone has any better ideas by all means do post them.
If anyone has any better ideas by all means do post them.
I used to work in an EB over here in America. I used to relagate based on each customer. Punk asses who wanted GTA would get turned. But sensible kids who were civil and seemed decent I'd let slip. You should see how many parents didn't care about violence or drug use or sex. "Oh there gonna see it eventually." THERE TWELVE! DAMN WOMAN! Oh how many kids were saddened when they couldn't take home Conker though. I thought I had a good system of relagating who deserves M games, who won't get in trouble for playing M games, etc.