New Game Law is Retarded, and Here’s Why

In the ongoing fight against free speech, New York Governor David Paterson signed a law today on videogame violence. The law makes it a requirement for consoles to have parental controls and for game boxes to carry age restriction labels. Great job, dumbasses — all that stuff is already being done.

The law also suggests the formation of an “advisory council to study the effects of violent games on the children” and requires the aforementioned parental controls and box labels be in effect by 2010. Gee, I hope we have enough time to get that done.

New York Senator Andrew Lanza states that the study is needed because various other studies in the past have shown that violent behavior is learned, and many violent games these days are kinda violent. They might even be so violent that 9- and 10-year-olds shouldn’t play them. In order to study the affects of violent games on children, however, the children are going to have to play the violent games. Maybe it’s just me, but this just seems ever so slightly fucking stupid.

Maybe the biggest problem with this law, however, is the fact that the same law has been ruled unconstitutional in all of the other states in which it was previously passed. A lawsuit will inevitably be made, and the state will more than likely lose. In this case, the state picks up the tab, and 70,000 taxpayer dollars are wasted on pointless legislature.

Richard Taylor of the Entertainment Software Association comments:

“It also unfairly singles out the video game industry over all other forms of media. If New York lawmakers feel it is the role of government to convene a government commission on game content, they could next turn to other content such as books, theater and film.”

Not everyone is a total moron, though. New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman puts it quite nicely by saying:

“New Yorkers do not need the state judging which video games are appropriate and which aren’t. Parents, not government committees, should be responsible for making those judgments.”

Source: SILive.com

Please Recommend RipTen on Facebook

TAGS: , , , ,

Related Articles

  • madpuppy

    It’s amazing that people in government can even stand with how much they jerk their knees around non-issues.

  • Global
  • Dan Landis

    Wish I could see what you’re trying to link to, but it only goes to the homepage.

  • http://www.barackobama.com/ DavidGX

    I demand a law that requires butter to be spreadable. Only then will my confidence in politics be restored.

  • Krispy Demon

    Global gets .05 cents for every hit to that site.

    See, the problem is that politicians can’t actually come out and say anything on real issues because that might divide the voters or, worse yet, upset their big business financial contributors. They can’t speak out against “Big Butter” because too much money and support is in the system from “Big Butter”. I mean, we all know spreadable butter is the way to go and the only way to make the world a safe and stable place to inhabit, but it just won’t happen because of all the money invested in solid, and environmentally unfriendly, butter bricks.

  • Ben

    well said Krispy.