Friday, March 13, 2009
Utah Bill a Setback for Parents, Retailers
Utah HB 353 passed overwhelmingly last night - a bill which, as far as I can figure - is nothing more than a stimulus package for down-on-their-luck lawsuit attorneys. It punishes any store (or, with senate additions, internet site - potentially like this one) that tries to do the right thing. Which to me, means: "Don't expose yourself to liability by trying to do the right thing." Or if you try, don't commit to it in public in any way, shape, or form.
Sounds like it made for cheap "family values" points for politicians who are tilting at windmills trying to fix something that isn't broken. And it sounds like what it will really accomplish is the opposite of its stated intention.
The bill was penned in part by disbarred lawyer and general whack-job activist Jack Thompson, and apparently our brilliant politicians decided to regurgitate his self-serving, fact-deficient hyperbole as arguments during the proceedings.
While El Whack Job insists that companies can't "opt out" of even the vaguest commitments now that the underlying rules have changed beneath them. I guess they found that suspending the Constitution for this medium was too challenging, so we've now got this new backdoor for trial lawyers looking to make a buck, and when "open season" gets declared it's not about the facts - it's about dealing with the legal fees to defend yourself.
In all honesty, I don't know if, when this gets signed into law, anything will ever happen directly. It's stupid, useless, and weak, but it's really a set-up for future legislation. I actually suspect that it's real intent is to punish those who attempt to do the right thing as a set-up for future legislation in a few years that will take retailers to task for not doing the right thing. Sorta like stealing a knife, stabbing yourself with it, and then suing the person from whom you stole the knife for the injury.
Reminder: Rampant Games' official policy is... to not have a policy regarding age. Ambulance chasers and corrupt (or stupid) politicians have warped what should have been a valuable tool for parents into a disease-ridden bag of political poop, and I won't be party to it.
Nor will I be voting for my current state representatives when they run for re-election.
Labels: Politics
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:43 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Do you have some links to more in-depth discussion of the bill?
Because the only link that I could find earlier on your blog was to a fairly mild statement (that if a store advertises that they don't sell to minors, and then they do, they'll get fined -- which seems fair enough to me, provided that it applies to all kinds of media, not just games).
Because the only link that I could find earlier on your blog was to a fairly mild statement (that if a store advertises that they don't sell to minors, and then they do, they'll get fined -- which seems fair enough to me, provided that it applies to all kinds of media, not just games).
(Of course, its association with Whackjack doesn't bode well, so there's probably something obviously stupid in it that I haven't seen yet.)
[And sorry for the double-post, but your site doesn't support edits.]
[And sorry for the double-post, but your site doesn't support edits.]
Yeah, blame Google for the editing thing.
Here ya go:
Utah HB 353
My core problem with it is that it punishes companies that try to do the right thing. I mean, saying "We don't sell M-Rated Games to Minors!" isn't exactly something that's going to bring a flood of customers to your doors. Nobody makes a big deal out of it to "advertise" - but the way it can be interpreted is that ANY public statement of this kind of policy can be construed as advertising.
And then they become liable.
So I see this playing out one of three ways:
#1 - It undermines everything the ESRB and the games industry has been trying to do for YEARS to police themselves, as companies have to drop any practices that could be *construed* as a public admission that they have this kind of policy in place for fear of liability.
#2 - Companies that stick to their guns and try and do the right thing are going to be under constant threat of liability, subject to being nickeled-and-dimed to death by two-bit trial lawyers looking for a quick cash settlement, or
#3 - Companies subject to #2 will simply drop any games that are unrated, rated AO, M, or even T, out of fear of liability. Maybe THIS was the goal Wacky Jacky has... to put a chilling effect on the entire industry. What, you wanna make a game for grown ups? Good luck finding a place that'll carry it - you won't be able to sell it!
Here ya go:
Utah HB 353
My core problem with it is that it punishes companies that try to do the right thing. I mean, saying "We don't sell M-Rated Games to Minors!" isn't exactly something that's going to bring a flood of customers to your doors. Nobody makes a big deal out of it to "advertise" - but the way it can be interpreted is that ANY public statement of this kind of policy can be construed as advertising.
And then they become liable.
So I see this playing out one of three ways:
#1 - It undermines everything the ESRB and the games industry has been trying to do for YEARS to police themselves, as companies have to drop any practices that could be *construed* as a public admission that they have this kind of policy in place for fear of liability.
#2 - Companies that stick to their guns and try and do the right thing are going to be under constant threat of liability, subject to being nickeled-and-dimed to death by two-bit trial lawyers looking for a quick cash settlement, or
#3 - Companies subject to #2 will simply drop any games that are unrated, rated AO, M, or even T, out of fear of liability. Maybe THIS was the goal Wacky Jacky has... to put a chilling effect on the entire industry. What, you wanna make a game for grown ups? Good luck finding a place that'll carry it - you won't be able to sell it!
The defenses enumerated in section (2)(b) seem sufficient, though. If they have an employee training procedure and if they ensure that breaches lead to retraining, then they're covered. They're also covered if the customer convincingly misrepresented their age (eg. with fake id).
I also don't see the mention of advertising in as expansive a definition as you seem to; though I guess that could be because I'm reading it as a human and not a lawyer :)
This does seem more retail-store oriented, though. The whole bit about training and employees makes no sense to an online store.
Post a Comment
I also don't see the mention of advertising in as expansive a definition as you seem to; though I guess that could be because I'm reading it as a human and not a lawyer :)
This does seem more retail-store oriented, though. The whole bit about training and employees makes no sense to an online store.
Links to this post:
<< Home
