Saintless

Thanks to @gwarchol for alerting me via Twitter that Gov. Huntsman vetoed HB 353 (Truth in Advertising Act Amendments aka Video Games Bill) today! At the very end of this News Advisory on the Gov’s site, it’s mentioned.

Thanks to everyone who called, wrote and otherwise let the Governor know their opinions on this one! And thanks to all of the people who commented on my original post about the Bill. It’s been a great conversation! And most of all, thanks to Gov. Huntsman for vetoing this one! I think maybe a thank-you card is in order!

Update: This is what Gov. Huntsman had to say in a letter to Speaker Clark and President Waddoups about why he vetoed the video games bill:

Dear Speaker Clark and President Waddoups:

After careful consideration and study, I have decided to veto HB 353, TRUTH IN ADVERTISING ACT AMENDMENTS, and have transmitted it to the Lieutenant Governor for filing.

While protecting children from inappropriate materials is a laudable goal, the language of this bill is so broad that it likely will be struck down by the courts as an unconstitutional violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and/or the First Amendment.

The industries most affected by this new requirement indicated that rather than risk being held liable under this bill, they would likely choose to no longer issue age appropriate labels on goods and services. Therefore, the unintended consequence of the bill would be that parents and children would have no labels to guide them in determining the age appropriateness of the goods or service, thereby increasing children’s potential exposure to something they or their parents would have otherwise determined was inappropriate under the voluntary labeling system now being recognized and embraced by a significant majority of vendors.

Sincerely,

Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.
Governor

I’ve been meaning to write this blog for a while now, and now seems to be the perfect time. I adore the Play N Trade in Sugar House. Really, truly adore them. I’ve been a customer for at least a couple of years.

Now, Play N Trade itself is a national chain. But, each of them are independent franchises.

I have always had good experiences at their store. Almost anytime my 9 and (almost) 11 year old sons get extra money, they can’t wait to head to Play N Trade to spend it. They can trade in games they don’t want anymore, because the store sells both new and used video games. One of my biggest reasons for using this business is that when my boys go into the store, they are treated with respect. The employees aren’t dismissive of them, and they are happy to answer all of the kids’ questions. They let them try almost any game before they buy it, which has helped the boys to make good decisions on what games to buy.

Last fall, we moved across town, so the Sugar House store isn’t around the corner from me, anymore. Preston, my 9 year old, wanted to buy Nintendogs for his DS. Since there was a national chain nearby, we went there. I immediately saw the difference between the national chain, and my Sugar House PNT. When we were finally greeted, the employees talked to me. I let them know my son had some questions.

Now, Preston sometimes is hard to hear. He’s got an appliance in his mouth for his teeth, and until his recent adult teeth came in, in the front, he had been missing one front tooth since he was a toddler. He kind of mumbles sometimes, especially when he’s feeling intimidated.

So, Preston begins to ask about the game he wanted. The employee gave him a short answer and then, as Preston began to ask another question, the guy turned around and walked away. Preston went browsing, because he wasn’t entirely sure what he wanted to spend his money on. He came back a few minutes later, hoping to play the game, to see if he wanted it for sure. We waited patiently while another customer was helped, and then the employees again walked away. I called them over, and Preston asked to try the game. He was told they don’t do that there.

There were actually 2 employees, but because I wasn’t the customer, and my son was, I guess the second employee had better things to do.

This sort of thing continued, and we were in the store for about 20 minutes. I finally pointed out to Preston how rude they were being to him, and told him that I didn’t want to spend money at a store like that. I reminded him of how the PNT employees treat him, and asked if he would wait a day, so we could go there, instead. Being a kid with money burning a hole in his pocket, Preston decided to buy Nintendogs anyway.

A couple of weeks later, after Preston’s birthday, he again had some money to spend, and some games to trade in. So, we headed off to Sugar House to Play N Trade. The owner, Patrick Murphy, was in, and recognized us. He asked how the games we had bought for Preston’s birthday turned out, and we chatted. One of the employees greeted both Preston and Drake, and patiently let them try what seemed like a bazillion different games. Sometimes one of the boys would ask the employee about a game, and the employee would tell them that they didn’t think he’d have much fun with that game, and suggest a different one instead.

Thinking back over my experiences, I recall one time that I was considering letting Drake (my older son) get a Play Station Portable (PSP). The guy advised me that, while there were kid games available, that most of the games were aimed at adults for that system, and that he’d be better off buying the Nintendo DS, even though that was less expensive. Another time, I was considering a game that the boys had been asking about, and mentioned it to an employee. I was told there’s no way I should let them have that game, because it was had graphic violence and was gory.

I love the personal service and great advice that I get at this store, and have let the boys know why I value PNT. We don’t buy anything video game related anywhere else now, if there’s a choice. Being a local company, they sometimes can’t get products that are hard to find, like when the Wii was the it Christmas gift. But, they usually tell me when I’m going to need to go somewhere else, and where the best place to find that product is.

So, if you are in the market to buy or sell anything video game related, do consider checking out this great store. And don’t forget the Tournaments!

Play N Trade
1126 East 2100 South
Sugar House, Utah, 84106
801.433.2552
Hours: Mon-Sat 10am-9pm, Sun 12pm-6pm

So, awhile back, you’ll probably remember that the Utah Senate invited all of us blogger types over for a “blogger presser”. Or if you don’t, you can look back through some of the #utpol tweets to see several people’s twitters about it (look for the ones on March 11), or TheSideTrack has a roundup.

Senator Dayton, along with Representative Morley, came in to talk about HB 353, aka the Video Games Bill. As Jason wrote on KVNU:

Genesis of bill is to thank video game retailers who’ve taken a pledge to keep mature games out of the hands of minors and increased compliance. Offer them “safe haven.” Gone from 15% compliance to 80%. Not an attempt to create or enforce ratings, create lawsuits. Subjects retailers to fines for non-compliance. Civil statute only. Question: Would this be incentive for manufacturers to no longer label, or to decide to not sign pledge to avoid fines? Answer: I don’t think it will. A lot of misinformation. It’s not a punitive bill.

I didn’t feel like Dayton and Morley came out to share details of the bill, but to introduce it with the idea that this isn’t a punitive bill, so that maybe we would all have warm fuzzies about how good this was for our children. Because really, think of the children, will you?

I think the oddest thing about this was when one of them mentioned something to the effect of ‘retailers won’t get in trouble if kids present fake IDs’. I did a double take at that. Seriously, I can see kids trying for a fake ID to get into a bar. But I’ve never heard of a fake ID being made so a kid could go buy Grand Theft Auto. I know stranger things have happened, but that really made me think that the sponsors of this bill were looking at it from entirely the wrong viewpoint.

As a parent, I feel very strongly that it’s my responsibility to my children to educate them about what they can play, and why. They’ve asked me for video games that are rated T. They know they can’t have M games. My boys are 9 and (almost) 11 years old. They don’t just say “Can I have this game, Mom?” They look at the games they want, and try to decide if I’m going to let them play it, and if I’ll have any objections. I’ve overheard them explaining to each other why they can’t play certain games, such as too much violence, too gory, etc. And frequently, those games never come up when they start making birthday lists. When they do, the boys generally come prepared for my objections.

Drake: Mom, can I have this game for my birthday?

Me: What’s it rated?

Drake: Well, it’s “T”, but it’s not because it’s gory. It’s just because it’s a shooter. But I saw it at my cousin’s house and there’s no blood, and it’s just machines.

Me: Hmmm, I don’t know.

Drake: Let’s go watch the preview and then you can ask at Play N Trade and they’ll tell you.

And my 9 and 11 year old boys probably aren’t going to make their way into Play N Trade without my assistance. If they do, I get a Parenting Fail card. Which is a much bigger problem than them picking up Halo 2 on their own.

Parenting isn’t the government’s job. It just isn’t.

Now, the rating system for video games isn’t quite the same as the rating system for movies. The rating system for video games is known as ESRB. The ESRB is not overseen by the US Government. It’s a non-profit organization that is self-regulated. It’s been a great success in helping parents choose age-appropriate games for their children. The ESRB is accomplishing what it should.

Now back to the bill in question. What is HB 353? It’s a bill titled “Truth in Advertising Act Amendments”. The brief description of it from the bill’s text says:

This bill prohibits a person from advertising that a good or service will not be sold to a certain age group and then selling the good or service to that age group; and makes technical corrections.

According to Dayton and Morley, the basics of the bill are that IF a business advertises that it’s a family friendly store that won’t sell “M” games to kids, they will be held to that. So, if a business doesn’t have that sort of advertising, this doesn’t even apply to them. So, kids who are without supervision (again, parenting fail) will still be able to go to stores without such advertising, and if the store decides to sell them the games, no penalty at all.

So, what happens to these “family friendly” stores, if they are caught selling inappropriate games to minors? Well, they’re stuck with a $2,000 fine. There’s some incentive for you, right?

The whole point of the ESRB is that it’s a voluntary ratings system, so that the industry can police itself. And if the industry is succeeding in that endeavor, why should any government attempt to mettle? If it’s not, then shouldn’t something entirely different be done? The Utah Legislature seems to be approving of ESRB by trying to enforce it. So, obviously that’s not where the problem is? Which leads me to wonder if businesses in Utah are ignoring this ratings system?

No one seems to be saying that’s the case. In fact, Mac World says this:

According to a recent audit, Utah video game retailers enforce their store policies regarding the sale of M-rated games an impressive 94 percent of the time — without any laws or requirements that they do so. That level of compliance took many years to achieve, and speaks to the strong commitment of video game retailers to do the right thing.

Wow! 94% of the time, huh? Where’s the problem?

I’m thinking that if this law goes into effect, Utah businesses, especially small ones, are not going to be trying for the idea of being “family friendly” anymore. Here’s what the National Coalition Against Censorship has to say on that topic:

The bill may result in consumers getting less information.  Stores not willing to risk lawsuit or fines for violating age restrictions may simply decide not to display ratings information.  The industry as a whole could even consider dispensing with its voluntary rating system if the result is to make retailers vulnerable to lawsuits and judgments.

Hmmm, so instead of giving parents more tools in being good parents, this might end up giving us fewer? Not to mention straining businesses that might actually be trying in good faith to comply with the (voluntary!) ratings system?

My favorite game store is a little one in Sugar House called Play N Trade. They are an independant franchise. I’ve met the owner several times, and spoke with him about everything from his Dad to how they decide which games to stock, and whether or not I should let Drake play in the Guitar Hero tournaments. He’s a really good guy, and I won’t shop anywhere else if I have the choice. When I’m trying to decide whether my boys get a certain game, or not, I often ask his advice, or that of one of his employees. Frequently, they’ll tell me that there’s no way I should let my sons play a game that I might otherwise have been considering. Last year, when I was considering letting Drake buy a PSP, they told me it was a bad idea, because most of the games were aimed at adults. Exactly the sort of thing you want from your local video game shop, huh?

So, if they display the ESRB logo, and attempt to make sure that they are a “family friendly store”, they’ll be subject to this new law. I’m pretty sure that if I let my 11 year old go in and try to buy an “M” game, they’d tell him to come back with me if he wants to buy it. Just a guess. But, let’s say that the state’s undercover sting operation sends in a very mature looking 17 year old to buy that game. If they don’t card him, and sell him the game, they’re slapped with a $2,000 fine? I’m wondering how long it would be until they make up for that loss? I’d venture to guess it might put them out of business. I’d also guess that the law itself would probably make them a bit paranoid, and less focused on the great customer service that brings us back to their store.

I don’t want this law passed. Not because I don’t want to protect children. But, because I think it’s a bogus attempt to regulate the ESRB, and won’t do anything for our children. It will cost local businesses money, and is likely to remove some great tools I have in making decisions about video games as a parent.

Ask Governor Huntsman to veto it.

Call Gov. Huntsman at 801-538-1000 or 800-705-2464

Utah State Capitol Complex
PO Box 142220
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2220

Or send an email through the Video Game Voters website.

Update: I didn’t have time to verify the rumor that Jack Thompson wrote this bill, but it looks like Glen Warchol did my homework for me. Uh, last month. Anyway, according to Glen’s research, Thompson may or may not have written the bill, but the idea for it, at least, did originate with him. If you’re not familiar with Jack Thompson, he’s a disbarred lawyer from Florida, who is more than a little nutty. If you don’t believe me read this whole article, but here’s a taste (emphasis mine):

Jack Thompson looks nothing like 9/11 orchestrator Mohamed Atta. He wears a slick business suit and lives in a million-dollar home in Coral Gables. Yet the 56-year-old lawyer hand-delivered a letter to U.S. District Court Chief Judge Federico A. Moreno last week that sounded a lot like terrorism: “Maybe,” he wrote, “my ‘mistake’ was not killing 3,000 people to make my point.”

On Monday, federal marshals showed up at his home to question him about the matter. Next up for the man who for 20 years has worn the mantle of the puritanical police: disbarment.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Dava Tunis last month found Thompson guilty of 27 violations of the Florida Bar code of conduct. The case against this vexatious litigator is detailed in 4,100 pages of exhibits and testimony. Examples of his sins include sending members of the Florida Supreme Court gay porn and a picture book with images of (1) swastikas, (2) a kangaroo clutching an outsize gavel, (3) a kangaroo in judge’s robes sitting on the bench, and (4) Ray Charles. His point was to illustrate that Florida’s high jurists simply could not comprehend the ineffable complexities of his arguments.

Update 2: The Gov vetoed this bill.