Utah's Attorney General Under Fire in Videogame Case

[vansau]

Utah's Attorney General Under Fire in Videogame Case

Various "pro-family" groups in Utah strongly disapprove of how the state's Attorney General might be willing to support the games industry in an upcoming Supreme Court case.

With Schwarzenegger v. EMA's day in the Supreme Court <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100643-Gaming-Faces-Its-Single-Most-Important-Challenge-at-the-Supreme-Court>fast-approaching, various state Attorney Generals have been approached to sign on to each side's amicus briefs. A surprising potential ally for the videogame industry has been <a href=http://gamepolitics.com/2010/08/19/utah-might-be-game-industry-side-schwarzenegger-case>Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, which led to a number of "pro-family" groups in Shurtleff's state to hold a press conference yesterday so they could voice their disapproval.

The representatives from these various groups included Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka; Laura Bunker, Chairwoman of United Families Utah; and State Representatives Jim Dunnigan and Julie Fisher sat in on the conference, too. Essentially, all of these folks seem to consider Shurtleff's potential support tantamount to endangering children.

According to Bunker, "As the most family-oriented state in the nation, Utah should support this law that promotes the protection of children."

Fisher, in turn, chimed in by saying "If we took a poll here in Utah, most people would be outraged that our children have access to those games."

According to the Desert News, Ruzicka, "said people she talks to assume Utah already prohibits children from buying video games in which participants have sex with prostitutes and then kill them; shoot innocent shoppers walking in a mall and decapitate people with shovels and have dogs fetch the severed heads."

Ruzicka's comments may sound a little bizarre, but they're also nearly identical to what a certain Miami attorney used to talk about when he crusaded against the games industry. There's a reason for this: it turns out that <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/89877-UPDATED-Jack-Thompson-Authored-Truth-In-Advertising-Bill-Passes-Utah-House>Ruzicka worked with the man to author a "truth in advertising" bill last year in Utah that was <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/90480-Utah-Governor-Vetoes-Bill-HB-353>subsequently vetoed by the state's governor.

I'm clearly biased when it comes to this Supreme Court case, but I'm not a fan of groups trying to strong-arm politicians based on what seem to be ill-informed misconceptions. Thankfully, it sounds like Shurtleff isn't going to give in to their pressure: A spokesman explained that Shurtleff is talking to other states' Attorney Generals as he tries to make a decision about what his course of action should be.

Source: <a href=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700059724/Pro-family-groups-urge-Shurtleff-to-avoid-violent-game-case.html>Desert News via <a href=http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/08/25/pro-family-groups-trying-sway-utah-ag's-schwarzenegger-stance>GamePolitics

Permalink

 

[Silvance]

"According to the Desert News, Ruzicka, 'said people she talks to assume Utah already prohibits children from buying video games in which participants have sex with prostitutes and then kill them; shoot innocent shoppers walking in a mall and decapitate people with shovels and have dogs fetch the severed heads.'"

Whoa, does a video game like that exist? Why haven't I found it yet?

Also, if they polled people in Utah, I imagine they'd get an overwhelming amount of people who had no opinion whatsoever. Also, 90% of students would probably be against it, and there are a lot of students in Utah.

 

[Evil the White]

There is a thing that prohibites children from buying those games. It's called an age limit. Y'know, that big M or red 18?

 

[Stryc9]

There is a thing that prohibites children from buying those games. It's called an age limit. Y'know, that big M or red 18?

Except that rating isn't the law, it's up to the retailer's discretion as to whether or not to use the rating system on the boxes to restrict sales.

 

[The Amazing Tea Alligator]

OH GOD THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Fun-ruining little bastards...

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

These family oriented tight wad really must start looking into the age limit thing that is posted on every game box.

 

[Silvance]

"According to the Desert News, Ruzicka, 'said people she talks to assume Utah already prohibits children from buying video games in which participants have sex with prostitutes and then kill them; shoot innocent shoppers walking in a mall and decapitate people with shovels and have dogs fetch the severed heads.'"

Whoa, does a video game like that exist? Why haven't I found it yet?

It's called Postal 2.

OP: All major games retailers self regulate as goes age limits. I've never heard any indication that that system was a failure, so why not keep it up? A law recognizing games as separate under the first amendment could be anathema for the American games industry.

I doubt most people that played Postal 2 could stomach the horrendous gameplay long enough to get to the head fetching.

 

[imnot]

Y'know if you just used the age rating's that can be located conviniently on the bock's and the disc, it might tell you that CHILDREN SHOULD'NT PLAY THAT GAME!

 

[Lullabye]

0.o
yay! Unexpected friend in southern politician has me doing happy dance!

 

[Altorin]

There is a thing that prohibites children from buying those games. It's called an age limit. Y'know, that big M or red 18?

Except that rating isn't the law, it's up to the retailer's discretion as to whether or not to use the rating system on the boxes to restrict sales.

most major retailers are strict about enforcing the ESRB. It's parents that don't care that are the problem really. They typically buy the games for their kids. But that's their prerogative. The system works just fine how it is implemented. There doesn't need to be a law. Parents should frankly be embarrassed and outraged that the government wants to police their kids video games, and clearly thinks that they're incapable of doing it themselves.

 

[Generic_Dave]

"most people would be outraged that our children have access to those games."

Yes, as am I. That's why we have laws in place to prevent children buying content that is not approved for them and why good parents should supervise what their children are playing.

I'd be appalled by 10 years olds playing GTA too, in fact my aunt bought it for my 14 year old cousin and I thought that was a bit young too. But this argument that the mere presence of games endangers children is like saying cars endanger children because they exist. Do we ban cars because one child gets behind the wheel? No, in fact what we do is educate children on road safety and how to drive carefully. We need to do the same, except it's parents as well as children (probably moreso) that need the education. This logic is FLAWED! FLAWED I TELL YOU!!!

 

[BreakfastMan]

This is extremely silly. Doesn't she think that parents should actually, you know parent their children? Not to mention that at most stores it is store policy too not let children buy age-inappropriate games without parental consent. By the way, what games she been playing lately? Postal 2 or something?

 

[Iffat Nur]

My little retards, we have the ESRB for the purpose of making sure not enough kids get their fat, greasy, Jersey Shore, dated and jizzed on hands on M-rated video games.

Seriously, this is not okay, but then MTV reality shows are okay?

 

[Delock]

Why is it that I don't need to be carded for just about any book despite the fact that a lot of them without plastic wrap or a warning on them do indeed have things much worse than most videogames will ever have (said books, where to see the story, I have to create visuals in my mind, meaning that it's thought about more than any visual medium), but when it comes to games with some blood or even a glimpse of nudity require me to show off my ID? (Here's an example: Halo and its books. One requires an ID and has at most what looks like paint on the ground after you shoot an enemy, the other has details about what a bullet does to flesh, bones breaking and piercing skin, melting flesh, nudity, and seeing through the eyes of someone about to die and I could have a five year old buy it).

For that matter, why is it that we need to "protect the childern" when A. we never really did before (in fact, go back in history and we not only gave them dangerous jobs for less pay but also trained them to kill later in life) and B. sheltering never ends good (either they're unprepared, or the just go out of their way and learn it anyways)? And why the hell are parents not responsible for parenting anymore? It's not the government, the school, or a store's job to do yours. Here's a better idea: talk to your kids, learn what they're interested in (Whattheyplay.com is an excelent place, written by gamers for parents), and learn when to put your foot down.

 

[Gamegodtre]

There is a thing that prohibites children from buying those games. It's called an age limit. Y'know, that big M or red 18?

Except that rating isn't the law, it's up to the retailer's discretion as to whether or not to use the rating system on the boxes to restrict sales.

as a kmart employee it was explained to me if i ever sold a underage person a game M rated or higher i'd get fined 500 dollars.

 

[paragon1]

"Most family oriented state in the union"? How do you even measure something like that? You know, if these guys are really so concerned about their children, then maybe they should spend more time with them. You know, get to know them, understand their hobbies, talk about why homicide is wrong, etc. Somehow I can't help but feel that they should be more concerned about that sort of thing than policing an industry they have next to no knowledge of.