Comments about ‘Retailers selling adult games to minors could face fines’

This issue is a direct result of the sort of filthy entertainment pushed on the public by modern media in which pornography and violence are glorified. The legislature is wise to take steps to protect our children. This Country will be in serious trouble unless we return to the old fashioned values that made it great: modesty, chastity, self-control, and respect for others.

I'd be more impressed if this bill actually accomplished anything. Retailers don't advertise games. Nothing has been accomplished, except maybe a loss of tax money from Utah's already strained budget.

So - fantastic. This bill will probably accomplish the opposite of what it's intended - stores will simply quit promising to card minors when selling R-Rated movies and M-Rated games.

Brilliant move, folks.

Unless that was the goal all along.

I work at a game store. It's not like we don't check i.d.'s for M rated games. The problem is the parents buying the games for thi children without scanning the content first. We've had someone come in buying Grand Theft Auto for thier 7 year-old because he said, "It's a driving game." We obviously filled her in on what it was really like, but parents need to get more involved with what thier children are playing.

Charity springs forth, John. You're wrong.

Step 1. Make a law that puts stores in danger if they have a policy of I.D.ing minors.

Step 2. All stores get rid of their policy to ID minors.

Step 3. Cut the politicians their paycheck for working all day on a law that no longer applies to anything.

Sorry to break the news to the naysayers here, but Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, GameStop, just to name a few, ALL have promised Congress, both individually and through the Entertainment Software Rating Board, to age ID kids for Mature games.

The gamers posting here, then, don't even know that they can't "opt out" of this public declaration. They're stuck. So now they have to get serious about their public promises.

I helped write the bill, and it is a great bill because of the fabulous sponsorship of Rep. Mike Morley. All Utah parents should rejoice that now these retailers can neither in their stores nor on-line pretend to age ID kids when they don't. Hooah! Jack Thompson, Miami

Jack
1. Why should we believe you? From what I've seen, this law has been so heavily neutered it no longer carries any sort of true effectiveness.
2. By including R and Unrated movies will put this law on a collision course with the movie industry, who are backed by thousands of competent lawyers who do not live off of their spouses, unlike you.
3. Someone like you doesn't even deserve to quote the battle cry of the people who defend our country.

Hate to break it to you, Jack, but I've shopped at Target and they don't "advertise" their ID policy at all, so Target's definitely immune from this bill. And alledged "public promises to Congress" doesn't count under this bill as the policy has to be "advertised" in the store itself for the bill to be triggered.

Actually, Thompson, they can "opt out" if it becomes a liability to conducting business. All they have to say is "We maintain the right to check ID" and they're in the clear.

In fact, game retailers are actually immune from this bill moreso than the movie theaters and retailers because of the amendments Rep. Morley filed. That is, if it weren't unconstitutionally broad and vague.

Toothless law is toothless.

Does this law also include game displays in the stores where children are always trying the demos? Allowing the use by demo is just as criminal as selling them. Perhaps there should be more information on the ratings of a game printed in bold as to content. Parents buy these games to keep their children occupied and not have to deal with being a family and having any values. Never having played any computer games I don't know what any of them are, but I am of the strong opion they have no place in a home and are neither educational nor condusive to society at large. Too many parents don't know how to say no to their child and the children end up running the parents. We have tought them that through our schools and laws giving children too much freedom and control of parents. A disgruntled child just has to dial 911 with any accusation and the parents are off to jail without cause. So who is really in control of the home, parents or children?

Jack:

Did you even read the Truth in Advertising Act before you got to prancing around in areas of the law about which you apparently know very little? Who says an advertiser can't "opt out" of previously published advertising? You may say so but what the Act says is that before a plaintiff may bring an action for injunctive relief against an advertiser, the plaintiff must give the advertiser notice of suit and the advertiser thereafter has 10 days in which to correct the alleged false advertising in the same medium as which it was originally published. The Act itself, Jack-O, contemplates advertisers retracting their false advertising. It's advertising, Jack, not a sworn oath carved in stone.

@ Game displays

1)No, it doesn't, since they can see what the game is about before making the purchase.

2)There's enough information on the back of the case the game is in. In fact, it's in much bigger print than the movie ratings and content discriptions.

3)Computer games are educational and condusive to society, since you have to read dialogue(or subtitles, since games are like movies now with voice acting) and does teach life lessons.

4)You are right about parents today, though.

John Clarity, those very values you described are things that the author of this article has proven time and again that he lacks. Especially self-control and respect. Not to mention outright lying compulsively about 'studies' that supposedly prove his views (most of which have been long-since debunked by the scientific community) and wishing death upon anyone who dares speak a word against him. What a child he is.

This is a poorly thought out act that achieves nothing, and actually only drives shops to remove the protection they voluntarily gave.

It encourages parents to be lazy and not take an interest in their childs' activities since they will assume the Government will do it for them, and, in the middle of a recession, shops would rather withdraw their own voluntary system than risk being fined by gold-diggers.

In other words, this law has done far more to damage a shops ability to regulate what it sells, and absolutely nothing to help them do so.

That is where so many laws go wrong, they always assume the parents need help 'to protect the children', when, in truth, the outcome is usually far more damaging to them.

If you want to help the Children then HELP them, start giving them knowledge of how to moderate themselves, and how to respect themselves, stop wondering what you can take away from them, and start wondering what you can give to them. They aren't the enemy, they are your children, take responsibility for them, or, one slice at a time, people like Thompson will give them to the Government.

Whenever people talk about this law, they only talk about the mature video games. Never do they mention the fact this law makes no judgement based on age or media type, only whether or not an age recommendation is involved.

So what happens to the movie theaters? Or the shops that sell movies? What happens if a 12-year old buys a PG-13 movie or a game rated Teen? The defenders and legislators never mention these cases, while their law clearly covers that as well. Do they just close their eyes, or do they honestly believe their intent against games means all other ways to use and abuse this law by disgruntled individuals will not happen?

And even if the law were to only be used by intent, wouldn't that be a violation of the constitution due to not treating all media-types equally?

And, for your information, Jack-O, the Act, which you apparently haven't ever read, defines "advertising" as a statement made in connection with the solicitation of business. Unless Best Buy, Wal-Mart, Target, Toys R Us, GameStop, and other retailers made the alleged promise to Congress to "age ID kids for Mature games" while soliciting Congress to purchase their products, then the promise doesn't even qualify as "advertising" under the Act. And, Jack-O, the Entertainment Software Rating Board, for your information, doesn't sell any videogames or any other goods and services -- other than a videogame rating service -- so any statements by the ESRB on behalf of videogame retailers wouldn't be advertising as defined by the Act, either.

How you'd dupe Morley into sponsoring legislation drafted by you when you're obviously so ignorant on the issue? Did Gayle Ruziack twist his arm for you?

Jack, you have no idea what this bill really does. It essentially forces retailers to abandon any type of ratings system, which is designed to educate the parents about what age group the game is intended for.

Congratulations Jack on your EPIC FAILURE!!!

Stating that this bill allows any angry parent to sue for selling one game to one minor is misrepresentation. This simply calls for a *reasonable* enforcement of store policies (ie one cannot simply continually "sting" a store in a deliberate attempt to sue them at the first slip-up).

According to amendments to the bill, a store is *NOT* considered to commit deceptive trade practices if the store in question has trained its employees to not sell age labeled products to a person under that age. In other words, it's only a deceptive practice if the store doesn't even try. Only an unreasonable person or someone acting in bad faith would deny that this is not the case; most big stores have a reminder at the cashier when scanning a rated product, and studies have shown that enforcement of this policy is positive, and has been rising in recent years. And even then, unless the *same employee* sales a product to someone under the age recommendation *three times*, the store is not in violation.

I doubt this bill will ever need to be invoked.

Jack, I think your recent permanent disbarment in your home state and record of penning bills later ruled unconstitutional is indicative that your own legal opinions concerning these matters are somewhat suspect.