New York goes insane, Felony to sell M-rated games to minors Options

[James]

I found these games for you in a quick search:
http://www.sexstation7.com/ - FPS
http://www.zoomtang.com/ - uhh...not quite sure
http://sociolotron.amerabyte.com/website2/index.htm - RPG

[Mommy]

And it's the GOVERNMENT'S job to make sure that the PARENT'S autistic child is kept away from anything that may influence them? Right.

no. I was just commenting on what you said about influence... children can be influenced by what they see and hear on video games, movies, music, television. Sadly, New York has a high population of low-income residents.... with low-income comes weaker family values. Things like this have to be made law to keep kids away from this stuff. Kids dont need to see that stuff. period. So I dont see what the big deal is....still

[impala454]

heh i remember that anime looking flash game someone on here posted a long time ago. where you had to go to work, make money, so you could buy gifts, go to the gym, buy an impressive car/house, etc to get the girl.

[FORSAKENR320]

*waits for Brandon to call her a kinky harlot again...*

too busy fapping to the mental image you created of yourself

[JRockTTU]

I see...yeah I was confused by that post.

I still say if there is live porn, why can't there be a porn game? there's porn in print, in e-internets, on video, via phone...all the game is is another medium?

the logic baffles me. it's like they think of movies for everyone regardless of age, but interactive consoles are just for kids...which is retarded.

I think it's mostly because of production costs. Video games cost A LOT of money to produce on the newer systems (if you're talking about anything up to and newer than PS2/XBOX) and then if you want to make it good or "realistic" you're going to have to pay for some top notch production value. Then, since it will get a M or (more likely) an Adults Only rating it wouldn't be carried by any top retailers (wal mart, best buy, circuit city). I just don't think it would be a profitable venture for these companies that are making a ton off of their current media.

Plus, you have to hold the controller with TWO hands.

[Spectatrix]

did anyone bother to check the existing laws?

this would seem to be pretty consistent with laws already in place:
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0235.21_235.21.html
New York Penal Law Section 234.21:

all they're doing is extending this law to video games, which makes sense. I was unable to find anything that would confirm what people are saying about 1-4 year sentencing though. section 235.24 actually releases the employer from responsibility should their employee commit the crime without their knowledge.

here's the actual sentencing from New York Penal Law Section 70.00
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN070.00_70.00.html

so, I'd doubt that some lil cashier at best buy selling an M rated game would receive much prison time. at least, not as much as the owner of some pr0n shop selling debbie does dallas to a five year old for the 3rd time.

I got the 1-4 years thing from this site: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/30/new-york...me-legislation/. I hadn't looked at the penal code in enough detail to find the alternate sentencing.

The difference between this and current legislation regarding the dissemination of indecent materials is that it is illegal for minors to view pornographic material. It is NOT illegal for a minor to play a violent or sexually explicit (non-pornographic) video game or watch an R-rated movie. Thus, distributing porn or other "indecent material" to a minor is facilitating a crime, whereas selling a M-rated game or R-rated movie ticket to a minor is not.

[Spectatrix]

Oh and most (all?) laws of this type in other states have been overturned as unconstitutional:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140739.html
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6147061.html
http://gamepolitics.com/2006/11/29/breakin...-federal-judge/

I could find more, but you get the picture. I read somewhere that laws like this (criminalizing, in some form or fashion, sale of video games to minors) in something like 11 states had been overturned.

[impala454]

I got the 1-4 years thing from this site: http://www.joystiq.com/2007/05/30/new-york...me-legislation/. I hadn't looked at the penal code in enough detail to find the alternate sentencing.

The difference between this and current legislation regarding the dissemination of indecent materials is that it is illegal for minors to view pornographic material. It is NOT illegal for a minor to play a violent or sexually explicit (non-pornographic) video game or watch an R-rated movie. Thus, distributing porn or other "indecent material" to a minor is facilitating a crime, whereas selling a M-rated game or R-rated movie ticket to a minor is not.

you're mixing up your arguments here. this law doesn't say it's illegal for a minor to play a rated M video game, it says it's illegal to sell it to minors. if you'll look at the post I made with the similiar law which is already in place (in post #26), it clearly states in part 2( that selling a minor a ticket to a film which contains the described material is in fact a class E felony.

[Spectatrix]

you're mixing up your arguments here. this law doesn't say it's illegal for a minor to play a rated M video game, it says it's illegal to sell it to minors. if you'll look at the post I made with the similiar law which is already in place (in post #26), it clearly states in part 2( that selling a minor a ticket to a film which contains the described material is in fact a class E felony.

No, I'm not mixing up my arguments, though perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The law you quoted is with regards to the distribution of pornographic materials, specifically "nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors". Here's what I'm saying:

#1 It's illegal for minors to view porn -> Felony to distribute porn (magazines, films, tickets to NC-17 films, etc)
#2 It's NOT illegal for minors to view rated R movies -> It's NOT a felony to sell tickets for rated-R movies
#3 It's NOT illegal for minors to play rated M and AO games -> It shouldn't be a felony to sell such games to minors

I'm saying that #3 has more in common with #2 than it does with #1. This law isn't with regards to pornographic content (at least not exclusively). It's regarding violent content, specifically "rape, dismemberment, physical torture, mutilation or evisceration of a human being".

If they were talking specifically about pornographic games, then I'd say that making it a felony to sell such games to minors is consistent with their current legislation. I still wouldn't support it, but at least it's consistent.

[impala454]

it doesn't say pornographic movies, it says movies with any nudity whatsoever. however, the video game industry does not specifically categorize games with nudity (or sexual content for that matter), they rate them M. so this is the only way for a law to address those specific games. it's honestly the game industry's own fault for not developing a good enough rating system. they obviously don't want a rating system that tells parents there's nudity in their games, because then wouldn't sells as many!

do I agree with the law? no not really, but it is most definitely consistent with the existing law, in the best way it can be.

either way, I highly doubt the best buy cashier selling Gears of War to a 15 year old kid is going to get four years in prison.

[Spectatrix]

it doesn't say pornographic movies, it says movies with any nudity whatsoever.

Read again. It says "nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors." I'm no lawyer, but I believe that second part is to distinguish between seeing someone's naked butt and full frontal nudity or explicit sex.

But again, we're not lawyers, so us arguing about the finer points of New York's penal code is probably an exercise in futility.

Ignoring precedent for the moment, since it's unclear, I think this (and similar crimes) should be a misdemeanor. However, I agree that it's unlikely that a clerk charged with this crime would be sentenced to much (if any) jail time. Even so, it looks really bad for someone to have a felony on their criminal record.

[impala454]

I love how you slyly throw in your agument and then say it's futile to argue

instead of assuming what the terms mean, all we have to do is go back to the code:
http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0235.20_235.20.html

§ 235.20 Disseminating indecent material to minors; definitions of
terms.
The following definitions are applicable to sections 235.21, 235.22,
235.23 and 235.24 of this article:
1. "Minor" means any person less than seventeen years old.
2. "Nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals,
pubic area or buttocks with less than a full opaque covering, or the
showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of
any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or the depiction of
covered male genitals in a discernably turgid state.
3. "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual
intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed
genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
4. "Sexual excitement" means the condition of human male or female
genitals when in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal.
5. "Sado-masochistic abuse" means flagellation or torture by or upon
a person clad in undergarments, a mask or bizarre costume, or the
condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on
the part of one so clothed.
6. "Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description or
representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual
excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse, when it:
(a) Considered as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex of
minors; and
(b.) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult
community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for
minors; and
(c.) Considered as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,
political and scientific value for minors.
7. The term "access software" means software (including client or
server software) or enabling tools that do not create or provide the
content of the communication but that allow a user to do any one or more
of the following:
(a) filter, screen, allow or disallow content;
(b.) pick, choose, analyze or digest content; or
(c.) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset,
organize, reorganize or translate content.

so... what shouldn't be much surprise, we see that the law ends up being.... drumroll.... vague and open to interpretation! (although "nudity" is described very explicitly... (LOL "penis in a 'turgid' state")). also, if you look at #6, all of those terms are anded together. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find many video games (especially at stores where minors are allowed to shop) which will fit this bill.

now go to the new part of the bill:

1. A PERSON IS GUILTY OF DISSEMINATING VIOLENT AND INDECENT VIDEO
GAMES TO MINORS WHEN, WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ITS CHARACTER AND CONTENT, HE OR
SHE SELLS OR LOANS TO A MINOR FOR MONETARY CONSIDERATION ANY VIDEO GAME
WHICH INCLUDES DEPRAVED VIOLENCE AND INDECENT IMAGES THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE
TO A USER.

note the anded part, then the defintion of those two terms. for a person to be guilty of breaking this law, the game must have both of B and C here:

(B.) "DEPRAVED VIOLENCE" MEANS ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC, PHOTO-REALISTIC OR
SIMILAR VISUAL REPRESENTATION OR IMAGE DEPICTING THE RAPE, DISMEMBER-
MENT, PHYSICAL TORTURE, MUTILATION OR EVISCERATION OF A HUMAN BEING.
(C.) "INDECENT IMAGE" MEANS ANY PHOTOGRAPHIC, PHOTO-REALISTIC OR SIMI-
LAR VISUAL REPRESENTATION OR IMAGE OF A PERSON OR PORTION OF THE HUMAN
BODY WHICH DEPICTS NUDITY, SEXUAL CONDUCT OR SADO-MASOCHISTIC ABUSE AND
WHICH IS HARMFUL TO MINORS.

and even if all of these things get a checkmark, we still have the sentencing we talked about earlier, where on a first offense, the judge may opt to give a less than one year sentence (which we decided saves our best buy employee).

again I'm not defending the law. it's just that when people get all melodramatic about some new law, I think it's important to learn about it myself rather than take what the criers say as the honest to God truth. some of the blogs and sites i've seen talking about this act like they could never sell rated M games again.

[James]

So wearing a thong is considered nudity? Weird.

[impala454]

only if it shows genitals or buttocks

[Spectatrix]

So... depiction of someone wearing low-riding jeans and a thong would be nudity?

Man, I'm glad I never had any aspirations to be a lawyer.