Add Pennsylvania to the list of states examining the video game violence issue.

As reported by the Harrisburg Patriot-News a committee of the Pennsylvania House held a hearing in late August to consider the effects of violent games on children.

Rep. Ronald Waters (D) said, "I watch young people play these games, and they play them for long periods of time. It's hard for me to watch that kind of activity without wondering what kind of effects it's having on them. What are we doing subliminally to our children that we allow them to entertain themselves with this type of activity..."

Waters expressed concerns about Grand Theft Auto and worried that the ESRB rating system might not be working at the retail level. Although he would support video game legislation, Waters was more interested in research similar to the federal government's proposed CAMRA study.

"I'm just asking for a study," Waters said. "Whatever the outcome of the study is, I'm willing to accept it. If we find that there is no consequences of this, then I will be someone who will say 'OK, I accept the study.' But if the study says yes, there are things we need to alarm parents about, then we need to make sure that parents know that."
( Read more... )

A number of readers have expressed difficulty with trying to listen to the audio of Wednesday's video game hearing before the Utah legislature.

If you are still having issues, GP has thoughtfully placed it on the web for download in MP3 format. Click here.

It's a 56mb file, so be patient.

And if you're playing catch-up, click the link for all GP coverage of Utah's game legislation efforts.

You want the inside scoop on yesterday's video game law hearing in Utah? We've got it covered like a blanket here at GamePolitics, including the impressions of a local game developer who attended the hearing.

Although he indicated last week that he would be there, anti-game activist Jack Thompson didn't make it due to what he described to GP as a "pressing litigation matter" in Florida.

Lame duck bill sponsor David Hogue (R) and Rep. Scott Wyatt, apparently the bill's new sponsor, offered an amendment to have HB257 mirror the language of Thompson's ill-fated Louisiana video game law.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, according to an industry source, did a thorough job of explaining the bill's constitutional problems to the committee. As GamePolitics has previously noted, Shurtleff has a friendly relationship with the ESRB, and has engaged in a Utah-based campaign to educate parents about video game ratings.

GP has learned that some legislators apparently left the hearing, causing the committee to lose its quorum just after lunchtime. That development led to an adjournment with no action taken on the bill. Discussions are likely to resume next month.

As mentioned, a video game developer attended the hearing. We provide his report, preserving his request not to publish his name. The content, which arrived in e-mail, has been edited slightly for readability (not that it wasn't well-written, but the author didn't plan on it going straight into a GP article. Material in parentheses was inserted by GP. We greatly appreciate this on-the-spot info):

"Well, Jack Thompson wasn't there today, so I'm disappointed... What did happen is that the sponsor, Rep. Hogue, came up and talked about his bill. He brought up Columbine, and all sorts of school shootings. He described how violent 'videos' were, and how they should be regulated."

"He brought up the American Psychological Association (APA); how violence in video games made kids violent; and how kids between 14-18 are in a critical development stage. And of course, he brought up those favorite whipping boys, 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' and - as Hogue calls it - 'The Bully'."

"Then they brought up an amendment to the bill, and basically changed the bill so that instead of defining certain types of violence, they just use the same three prong test as with pornography. Some committee members brought up the idea of porn equalling violence in video games, asking 'if we can regulate porn, why can't we regulate violence the same way?' At least one committee member did bring up the first amendment, and it was discussed briefly."

"The Attorney General (Shurtleff) came up and discussed the bill and its likelihood of passing court scrutiny. He mentioned that every district court has ruled against every violent video game law made so far, and that the odds of this bill surviving court scrutiny was 'very slim'. Rep. Hogue tried to defend the bill, saying that this bill does something different from other bills, and that it doesn't try to take games off of shelves. Other committee members brought up concerns about supporting a bill that would be 'tied up in the courts' and 'waste of money defending it'.

"Then an old lady came up and complained how society was becoming more violent, and that something needs to be done. She said that this bill needed to be passed, and it didn't matter if we wasted money defending it. It's for the children, etc."

"The ESA guy (apparently a lobbyist - the industry routinely offers testimony at these hearings) came up and talked about how in eight court cases so far, we've won eight of them. He mentioned the ESRB, and how he was working with the Attorney General in promoting the ESRB to Utah parents. Then, during question time, well, some of the committee members were rough on him. One of them nearly accused him of making violent games for kids. Of course, the ESA guy wasn't a game developer, but an attorney, so he really couldn't comment on that. Other committee members appeared to honestly not know what the ESRB was, and has questions about it."

"After the ESA guy, time ran out and several members of the committee had to leave. They tried to deny a motion to adjourn, but they left anyway. They decided that this issue was of too great importance to leave unresolved, so they shelved it until October. I'm rather disappointed that I didn't get to speak, but at least I get a chance to refine my testimony for next time."

Despite the fact that he will be leaving public office in 90 days, Rep. David Hogue (left) isn't giving up on video game legislation.

As reported by the Deseret News, the lame-duck Republican is seeking to revive failed video game legislation in the Utah House. His bill, HB257 S01, is of the "games as porn" variety. It will be given a hearing before the legislature's Judiciary Interim Committee today.

The Hogue bill passed the House overwhelmingly early this year, but died in the Senate. It would need to be re-introduced in the next legislative session, and will require a sponsor, since Hogue will no longer be a House member. Today's hearing is an apparent effort to develop support for the bill in 2007.
( Read more... )

Utah Congressman Jim Matheson (D, seen at left), is the sponsor of the Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act, currently pending in the House. Matheson has corresponded (okay, a form letter, but still...) with Jay Barnson of Rampant Games.

Unhappy with elected official's response, Jay blogged extensively about his exchange with Rep. Matheson. It's especially noteworthy, coming as it does, from the perspective of a small-studio game developer. Here are some highlights:

"Yesterday I received a snail-mail letter from Congressman Jim Matheson, who represents my state of Utah... For the most part, it reiterates the same rhetoric being bandied about in defense of the laws that are being enacted (and, so far, universally shot down as being Unconstitutional)... It contains some major inaccuracies and rather offensive comparisons..."
( Read more... )

An apparent avalanche of e-mail from GamePolitics readers caught the attention of a game-bashing editorial writer at the Henderson Daily Dispatch (North Carolina). Here's what happened:

On Sunday, GP mentioned an editorial in the Dispatch which supported Louisiana's video game statute and criticized the federal judiciary for continually overturning such laws. The industry, along with ESA boss Doug Lowenstein, came in for sharp criticism, as follows:

"...the courts have been consistently wrong... Violence continues to erode the quality of life in the United States... at least the Motion Picture Association of America makes some attempt at self-policing... Games have a rating system, too, but it is a sham and unenforced..."
( Read more... )

"Joe will still be Joe."

Thus says Hal Halpin, former president of the IEMA, speaking about Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT). The incumbent, a longtime critic of the video game industry, lost a recent, bitter primary fight to political upstart Ned Lamont.

Halpin, a favorite of GamePolitics readers for his straight talk and willingness to answer questions from gamers, spoke to the IGDA's Brenda Brathwaite recently for her Sex & Games blog.

As both a constituent of Lieberman's and a long-time video game industry insider, Hal brings a unique perspective to the Lieberman situation.

"Being a Connecticut resident... has put me in a unique position in dealing directly with the Senator over the years. Despite our obvious disagreements when it comes to restricting consumer and retailer rights regarding content, I have always found him to be very forthright and exceptionally bright. I can't say as much for many of the legislators with whom I've dealt over the years."
( Read more... )

Another busy week in the world of video games and politics...

Almost lost in the hoopla surrounding presidential hopeful Mark Warner's very cool Second Life campaign stop and the ongoing Bully controversy was news from Oklahoma that the ESA and EMA are seeking to have the Sooner State's law thrown out of court.

On Wednesday video game industry attorneys filed a motion for summary judgment with Judge Robin Cauthron.

Among other claims, the 25-page document maintains that Oklahoma's video game law is unconstitutionally vague, is not narrowly tailored and lacks a rational basis. The industry also submitted to the Federal Court a copy of Judge James Brady's recent preliminary injunction order blocking Louisiana's video game law.

GP readers can grab the industry's Oklahoma brief here in PDF format.

As expected, lawyers for the ESA (publishers) and EMA (retailers) filed a motion for summary judgment with Federal Judge James Brady (left) yesterday in Baton Rouge.

The industry is requesting that Brady issue a permanent injunction against Louisiana's video game statute, which was signed into law by Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco in June. If the industry's motion is approved by the judge, it would bring and end to a situation that has become something of an embarrassment to the Louisiana state government.

As reported by GamePolitics, a temporary injunction blocking the law was issued by Judge Brady last week. GP readers can see the industry's memorandum in support of the summary judgment motion here.

For all of GP's recent coverage of the Louisiana video game legislation, click here.

According to the Associated Press, Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch plans to appeal last month's federal court ruling that the state's "fine the buyer" video game law is unconstitutional.

"If the parents aren't troubled by their kids playing these games, they can buy them for their children," the Attorney General said.

Hatch is running for governor in November.

One of Net's most respected tech news blogs rises to the defense of Harvard researcher Kim Thompson (left). Good Morning Silicon Valley examined game critic Aaron Stanton's recent attack on Thompson's work and found it wanting.

"...there's some legitimate research being done on the potential effects of violent video games on young minds. But it's not surprising when isolated nuggets are seized upon and thrown into the grinder of the debate. Thus we see the work of Dr. Kimberly Thompson of the Harvard School of Public Health used as a punching bag one day and turned into a bit of snark about "ultra-violent Pac-Man" the next. But to its credit, Joystiq followed up with the good doctor, giving her space to explain some of the nuances of her work. And Thompson makes it clear that thinking seriously about this stuff is not child's play..."

The Herald-Review of Decatur, Illinois takes Gov. Rod Blagojevich to task for the half-million bucks in legal fees which the state must reimburse to the video game industry in the wake of its video game law being ruled unconstitutional:

"Remember the big media splash Gov. Rod Blagojevich made when he announced legislation that would ban the sale of violent and sexually oriented video games to young people? Well, the bill on that little media spotlight is beginning to come due.
( Read more... )

Louisiana newspapers are providing additional coverage to the stinging judicial rebuke which a federal judge administered to the state's controversial video game law on Thursday evening.

An AP report out of Baton Rouge quotes Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (pictured) on the judicial reversal:

"I'm calling on all parents to diligently monitor the video games that their children are allowed to play. If the courts can not protect our children, then we need to do it by rejecting the merchant of violence," she said.

The Advocate spoke with a disappointed Rep. Roy Burrell (D), sponsor of the bill.

"If you can train a military-type person using these video games, you can do it to kids," Burrell told the newspaper. He added that courts aren't yet ready to accept that premise.

GP: Maybe the court would pay more attention if Burrell provided some, you know, evidence, rather than the nonsense he put forth during the legislative debate on the bill. Just a thought. Judge Brady took note of this as well when he wrote in Thursday's ruling:

"The evidence that was submitted to the legislature in connection with the bill that became the statute is sparse and could hardly be called in any sense reliable. Much of the 'evidece' presented consisted of newspaper articles on the evils of video games..."
( Read more... )

Check out GamePolitics on Joystiq...

In today's column GP examines the circus atmosphere surrounding Louisiana's video game legislation. It's especially timely given Federal District Court Judge James Brady's trashing of the Louisiana law in a preliminary injunction ruling issued last night.

By the way, it looks like the GP column will appear every Friday on Joystiq. There was some discussion of Thursdays, but that's the day GP feeds his WoW addiction...

Last week, GP was first with the news that Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) had proposed HR 5912, the so-called "Truth in Video Game Rating Act."

Gamasutra and other sites are now reporting that ESA boss Doug Lowenstein has responded by way of an official statement.

"We share Chairman Stearns' commitment to the continued effectiveness and accuracy of the ESRB's ratings system," Lowenstein said. "However, as introduced, we do not believe his legislation will serve consumers and parents."
( Read more... )