I'm a little late on this (and so many other things) but on Tuesday New York Governor David Paterson signed into law a bill aimed at cracking down on video game violence and shielding children from exposure to violent video games. So, why hasn't there been the usual outcry from civil libertarians about flagrant infringement of our First Amendment rights? Unlike all other state-level legislation that seeks the same ends, this bill will probably go unchallenged, and if a lawsuit is filed, will probably withstand legal challenges...because it's toothless.
As Joystiq columnist and gaming association editor Dennis McCauley noted last month, the video game industry probably won't drag this bill into court because it's "largely symbolic" and "impotent."
First, the bill requires video game makers to build in parental controls, which the Wii, Xbox 360 and Playstation already do. The bill also calls for the formation of an advisory council to study the impact of violent media and make recommendations on ratings.
The only insulting aspect of the bill is that the advisory council is charged with setting up a parent-teacher awareness to identify and help students who may have a propensity toward violence. By including this provision in a video gaming statute, the law seems to equate violent kids with video games. But insults are not necessarily unconstitutional, so even this aspect of the bill is relatively harmless.
For these reasons, McCauley says the bill will smack the industry "with all the force of marshmallows." The logical question then is: why even bother with such useless legislation? So far as I can tell, a much stronger version of the bill had been championed by now-disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer. Spitzer decided to tone down the most controversial aspects of the bill to ensure its passage and then resigned from office.
The bill kept had some sort of momentum propelling it thanks to sponsor Sen. Andrew Lanza (R-Staten Island). Now it's New York law.
Cynthia Brumfield at 12:38 PM|Comments(0)
Blogs We Read
