Another stupid law

[kane_magus]

A proposed law that would prohibit the sale of certain, loosely defined types of video games to anyone below the age of 30?

So, let's get this straight. If this law passes and I were to move to New York, I would legally be able to drive, go to war, buy booze, buy cigarettes, buy porn, and so on and so forth ad absurdum, but I couldn't legally buy certain video games for another two years?

How incredibly retarded is that? This whole "video games are the spawn of Satan and must be stamped out for the sake of the children" mind-set (with children now being defined as anyone under 30 years old, apparently) has long since passed the point of becoming excessively tiresome, stupid, aggravating, and out of hand.

(UPDATE)

Okay, so in the actual bill, the age limit seems to be eighteen instead of thirty. It's just that they have to card you if you look like you are under thirty, apparently. Guess nobody (myself included) bothered to actually read the thing before going on a rant about it. Well, GamePolitics seems to have gotten it right, but Gamasutra suprisingly misinterpreted it.

17    3. SALE OR RENTAL OF ANY VIDEO GAME THAT CONTAINS ANY CONTENTS  LISTED
18  IN  SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION, SHALL BE MADE ONLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL
19  WHO DEMONSTRATES, THROUGH (A) A VALID DRIVER`S LICENSE  OR  NON-DRIVER`S
20  IDENTIFICATION  AND  ISSUED  BY  THE COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES, THE
21  FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT,  ANY  UNITED  STATES  TERRITORY,  COMMONWEALTH   OR
22  POSSESSION,  THE  DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA,  A STATE GOVERNMENT WITHIN THE
23  UNITED STATES OR A PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE DOMINION OF  CANADA;  OR
24  (B) A VALID PASSPORT ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER

     EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                          { } is old law to be omitted.
                                                               LBD01241-01-7

    A. 547                              2

1  COUNTRY;  OR  (C)  AN  IDENTIFICATION  CARD ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES,
2  INDICATING THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IS AT LEAST EIGHTEEN YEARS OF  AGE.  SUCH
3  IDENTIFICATION  NEED  NOT  BE  REQUIRED OF ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO REASONABLY
4  APPEARS TO BE AT LEAST THIRTY YEARS OF AGE, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH
5  APPEARANCE  SHALL  NOT  CONSTITUTE A DEFENSE IN ANY PROCEEDING INVOLVING
6  SALE OR RENTAL OF ANY VIDEO GAME, TO AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER EIGHTEEN  YEARS
7  OF AGE.

Honestly, I'm not as opposed to this as I was to the blatantly retarded, but thankfully illusory, 30-years old minimum age thing, since this, at least, would be somewhat more in line with what is already in place via the ESRB, except actually providing a bit of teeth to it now. Still not saying that I think it's entirely a good idea though, on the whole. Slippery slope, and all that good stuff.

(/UPDATE)

Comments

[david-grana.livejournal.com]

The first bill, A00547, was proposed on January 3, 2007 by Democratic representative Kieth Wright...The second bill, A02024, was proposed days later on January 11, 2007 by Democratic representative Aurelia Greene...

WHAT

At any rate, I completely agree; there's NO WAY that the college crowd that enjoys M/AO games is going to let this slide. NOt to mention the fact that all this really does is let adults purchase games for their kids, once again shifting the responsibility factor to the game manufacturers and stores.