"It was certainly bad judgment for me to play a computer game even for just a few minutes during the final House session on the budget," Rep. Jack Hennessey, of Bridgeport, wrote. "I am embarrassed, and I apologize to each and every person in the North End and to people across the state."

The Associated Press photo, taken Aug. 31, caused a category three foofaraw because, naturally, few things convey such disrespect as to play goddamn Solitaire when the opposition's talking about the budget. Hennessey could have at least played Bejeweled or Peggle or something. Not only that, he's playing the unwinnable Canfield. His colleague to the left, Rep. Barbara Lambert, was absorbed in either Freecell, Forty Thieves or Montana. Hard to tell. Guy back and to the right is reading about Andy Pettite on ESPN.com. What in the hell is the matter with you people!

Rep. Larry Cafero, the dissed House Minority Leader in question, faced off with the state House Speaker on a local public affairs program. "This has made international news because it captures the frustration of the public. While Rome is burning, they're playing solitaire.''

Yes. How dare someone fool around with games, the Internet, whatever, during a super important speech.

Rep. Jack Hennessy Apologizes For Playing Solitaire at State Capitol During Late-Night Budget Debate [Hartford Courant via GamePolitics]

In the ESA's last fiscal year, state legislatures introduced 43 bills that would have regulated the content or access to video games. No bill regulating sales became law. The most notable failures came in Utah, California and New Mexico.

Not all of the ESA's relationships with state lawmakers are so antagonistic. The annual report also touts the three states - Alabama, Georgia and Michigan - that enacted tax incentives to lure video game development, and another 17 states still considering the idea.

At the federal level, the game industry's top lobby focused on copyright and IP protection, and also beat back efforts at game content regulation. Internationally, piracy remains a top concern to the ESA; it says it sent takedown notices to ISPs that covered "more than 45 million instances of infringement of member company games in more than 100 countries world wide."

The ESA added seven members, including Southpeak Interactive, XSEED Games and Koei Corp. The 160,000-member Video Game Voters Network, sponsored by the ESA, was also highlighted in the report. The VGVN organizes letter-writing campaigns to elected officials and candidates whenever legislation or political sentiment threatening games pops up.

You can grab the entire report [pdf] here

Crafted lovingly by Assemblyman Keith L.T. Wright, measure A01474 would prohibit underage sales of games that promoted racial stereotypes or negative actions towards specific groups. The wording, exactly:

Prohibits the sale to minors of certain rated video games containing a rating that reflects content of various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes or derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons.

Oh my god...this man wants to keep our children from playing Final Fantasy VII! Damn you, Barrett!

Really though, isn't this a redundant sort of bill? You don't get many games that portray young black men as gang bangers coming out with T for Teen ratings. Besides, who decides what a stereotype is? Does the game B-Boy fall under this law because it depicts minorities as break dancers? It's too general. Probably too general to pass.

According to Game Politics, Wright tried to pass a similar bill in 2007, which failed. Poor guy.

Bill Summary - A01474 [New York Assembly via Game Politics]

The bill takes effect in 2010.

"The state has ignored legal precedent, common sense and the wishes of many New Yorkers in enacting this unnecessary bill," said Richard Taylor, senior VP of communications and research for the Entertainment Software Association. "This government intrusion will cost taxpayers money and impose unconstitutional mandates for activities and technologies that are already voluntarily in place. It also unfairly singles out the videogame industry over all other forms of media."

Laws that try to enforce the ratings system by providing fines against retailers have been ruled unconstitutional over and over again — just look to states such as in California, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois and Minnesota for examples. In those cases, the ESA ended up collecting hefty damages from the states — at taxpayer expense.

"One wonders where this overreach by government in New York will end," said the ESA's Taylor. "If New York lawmakers feel it is the role of government to convene a government commission on game content, they could next turn to other content such as books, theater and film."

The bill was part of a group of public safety bills that the governor signed as a "package"; the official announcement from the New York Governor's Office follows. The part about the video game bill is in bold:

GOVERNOR PATERSON SIGNS PACKAGE OF BILLS THAT WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND RIGHTS OF NEW YORKERS

Includes Reforms to Protect Children and Adults in Residential Care and “Jonathan’s Law” Extension

A New Law Will Protect Children by Automatically Revoking Teaching Certificates from Educators Convicted of Sex Crimes

New Law Will Expand Access to Civil Orders of Protection to Victims of Abuse

Governor David A. Paterson signed a package of bills, many of which are focused on public safety and protecting the rights of New York residents. Among the more than three dozen bills signed into law by Governor Paterson, some will enhance protections for children and adults in residential care, revoke teaching certificates for educators who are convicted of sex crimes and ensure the State will explore the negative effects of violent video games.

“We have the obligation to be constantly vigilant about amending our laws to protect the residents of New York State. Many of these bills will do just that by closing loopholes or creating new laws to enhance the quality of life for all New Yorkers,” said Governor Paterson. “The first duty of government is to provide a safe society for our resident to live, work and raise their families. These new laws will enhance the protections afforded to the citizens of this state and will address gaps in protection that have existed for years. I applaud the Legislature for working with me and my staff to reach agreements on fixing these problems.”

Governor Paterson has also signed a new law (S.8665 / A.11707), which will expand access to Civil Orders of Protection, allowing a person who is or was in an intimate relationship with an abuser – even though not related to that person – to seek an order of protection in family court. This substantially expands protections for victims, who for a variety of reasons may be unwilling to press charges in criminal court.

Another specific package of reforms – consisting of four bills – will represent a significant improvement for adults and children who live away from their families in residential care, particularly in mental hygiene facilities. The package includes: enhancing the standards used to determine if child abuse or neglect has occurred in residential facilities (S.8534-A / A.11753); extending the time period for retroactive requests for information under Jonathan’s Law (S.8389-A / A.10897-A); prohibiting the withholding of food or hydration from residents of mental hygiene facilities (S.8551-A / A.11482-A); and making recommendations as to appropriate work hours for direct care employees in mental hygiene facilities (S.8679-A / A.11757).

Two other bills signed by Governor Paterson are directly aimed at protecting children: A.11500-A / S.8553 automatically revokes the teaching license of any school official who is convicted of a sex offense; A.11717 / S.6401-A establishes an advisory council to conduct a study on the connection between interactive media and real-life violence in minors exposed to such media. This bill will also require new video game consoles to have parental lockout features by 2010, and mandate that games sold at retail disclose the ratings obtained from the gaming industry's voluntary rating system.

In addition to these bills, Governor Paterson signed another 31 bills relating to criminal justice and the judiciary, as well as education issues and business and finance.

From the bill's description, it:

Creates an advisory council on interactive media and youth violence and requires video game consoles to be equipped with a device or control to permit owners to prevent the display of violent or indecent video games; defines "video game"; addresses sale and rental of video games.

Now that the bill, spearheaded by Staten Island Republican Senator Andrew Lanza (R), has been passed 61-1 by the State Senate, the proposed 16-member advisory council still needs to meet with the approval of New York Governor David Paterson (D). If he signs off, the bill could become law in 2010 - which could open the door for the New York State Senate to use its judgment to control video game content.

GamePolitics, who yesterday broke the news of the bill's passage in the Senate, also obtained an mp3 of Senator Lanza's argument to the Senate in favor of the bill:

If you look closely at this bill, [concerns expressed by Sen. Duane] are not valid. Let's start with speech. There's all kinds of speech. If we take an old-fashioned pinball machine and plunked it down here in the middle of the chamber, no one would call it speech. But when we put that up on a video screen, it does become speech and I acknowledge that. And it deserves protection under the Constitution... There is some confusion with respect to what this bill actually accomplishes... The word prohibition was talked about. I want to be clear. This bill does not prohibit the sale of any video to anyone...

This simply says that every video game sold in the state of New York simply should have a rating consistent with what the ESRB does presently in a voluntary way... it does work. But the problem with "voluntary" is that tomorrow someone can change their mind. Someone could decide tomorrow to no longer place ratings on these games. So this is not about prohibiting the sale, this is simply about providing information to parents...

Last year's version... that included a provision that would have made it an E-felony to sell these games, we all thought it was wrong. And we took that out. We worked with the [video game] industry. We worked with the Assembly and we do have an agreement here on a piece of legislation that I think will go a long way in allowing parents to make good decisions in regard to what is and what isn't appropriate for their chidlren...

As with similar laws struck down in the past, we can likely expect a lawsuit - in the meantime, though, there is something you can do. If we can defend our favorite games in flamewars in comments on message boards, it's not too much to ask for us to write a letter.

The ESA had established a page within its Video Game Voters network that offers an easy letter form for New Yorkers to write their representatives in opposition to this measure, and even though the bill has already been passed, it might be a wise move to petition the Governor's office now as Paterson considers signing the bill into law.

You can even recruit your non-gaming, tax-paying friends to petition this cause, because history's shown us that efforts to regulate games through law - especially through legislation that precedent has established as unconstitutional in California, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois and Minnesota - end up a futile expense of taxpayer dollars, when the same end can be accomplished through industry self-regulation.

We've contacted the ESA for comment and will update with any response we receive.

Consumer site GameCyte recently interviewed Sen. Yee and asked him to explain why he thinks games are more dangerous than other forms of violent media, such as films and television:

LY: Well, the bill that we had, that was signed into law, is a bill that deals with interactive violent video games. It's not just any violent video game - it is the interactive nature of these violent video games that are particularly harmful to our children. This is where literally, youngsters are sitting with their computer and pushing buttons not hundred s of times, but thousands - hundreds of thousands of times, whereby their action is coordinated with what happens to a human being, what happens to an individual. So pushing a button will then decapitate someone. Pushing a button will hack of a limb of a particular individual, burn some individual. It is this interactive nature that connects your behavior to a particular consequence that is particularly horrific.

think there's two major problems with the ESRB (the rating board): one is that there is a conflict of interest. The money that is used to sustain their particular activity is paid by the industry — the industry that that board is supposedly trying to regulate. So long as you have that conflict of interest, there's no way that anyone's going to believe that these rating scores are going to be objective.

Number two, the ratings are not valid; because the way in which you determine those ratings is that you get a snippet of these particular video games. The industry will provide you with some of the information that causes one to rate in a particular way. So, getting the information from the industry; number two, not being able to look at all the content, the rating system is a flawed and an invalid system. It is those two reasons that I don't believe that the ESRB is accurate for our parents to make some informed decisions about whether or not these games are appropriate for kids.

Discussing Game Violence with Maturity: Senator Leland Yee [GameCyte]

Nonprofit advocacy group the Parents' Television Council takes their position on enforcement beyond just demanding legal consequences for retailers who sell M-rated games to kids under the age of 17. The council wants games like GTA IV locked up behind store counters, like cigarettes, tobacco and porn.

Gavin McKiernan, national grassroots director for the council, has never played a GTA game and does not dispute the right of mature adults to have access to it.

"The PTC thinks that there's room in our society for adult products, be they video games, movies, magazines, guns, whatever you want," he said. "But scientific research has shown and common sense tells you also that until [as children] we reach a certain stage, your mind and body are still growing and things have a different effect on you than they do as an adult and you don't have the perspectives to make the best decision."

"I know I was a blithering idiot when I was 16, and most people were," he said.

McKiernan believes that violent media actually causes harm to young people, pointing to studies from the University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, Michigan State University, and the University of Oklahoma Medical School, among others, that appear to demonstrate a correlation between exposure to violent games and "aggressive" brain activity in adolescents.

"All of these correlations are the basis for preventative medicine... and the need for preventative steps to be taken, and the medical community accepts that on the whole," he said. "The potential for harm has been proven over and over again."

Video games like GTA IV are evaluated by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and assigned a rating that indicates the age group for which it is - or isn't - appropriate. And these games are intended for adults, not kids. The Entertainment Software Association's data finds that the average video game player is age 35, and the average video game purchaser is 40 years old.

"If you go into your Wal Mart, the guns are not marketed at eye level to children," McKiernan says. "They are not promoted widely and broadly as something everyone should be heading over to the gun aisle to pick up... But the stores are not treating these games as adult products."

And the ESRB's voluntary regulations are not enough, he said. "Parents can punish their kids for drinking when they're 15, but we still have laws to keep alcohol out of kids hands to help the parents because they can't be everywhere at every time."

"Specifically with GTA, there is no legal ramification for selling this game to children," McKiernan said. "We ask that stores not promote it to the wider audience, to children, and that it be treated like any other adult product, like an adult magazine, that is kept behind counters and not at the sight line and within reach."

Dan Hewitt, the Entertainment Software Association's senior director of communications, said that the laws the Council hopes for have been found unconstitutional over and over again, at every instance.

Nonetheless, McKiernan is frustrated that the ESRB advocates a responsible use of its rating system without lobbying for adoption of these laws, and he feels industry groups like the Entertainment Software Association should be on the front lines of this battle. "It seems hypocritical, from our viewpoint," he said. "These rules should become law and that would increase the enforcement of them... voluntary things tend to meet with varying levels of success."

"An unconstitutional law that repeatedly gets thrown out by the courts is not an effective way to empower parents," said the association's Hewitt, who still feels the most effective regulatory methods involve a collaboration between parents and family advocacy groups to inform themselves, such as the efforts made through ongoing partnership between the Parent-Teacher Association and the ESRB.

"And it's setting up a parameter by which games are being treated differently than other First Amendment-protected material. Treating games differently than books, magazines and movies goes against the First Amendment. You can't codify the ratings system; you can't give it the rule of law, because then you're giving the power of government away to a private entity."

So according to Hewitt, information and communication is still the best way to protect kids from material inappropriate for their age level. "Really robust actions that drive the messages out there, that put tools and information into parents' hands are great ways to educate, empower and ensure that the games kids are playing are the right ones... the activities that we're talking about don't waste taxpayer money, don't waste state resources, and don't waste legislators' time," he said.

King's been writing horror novels for nearly four decades, many of them reaching the big screen, some of them even winning Oscars. And he rightly points out that to a politician, a 17-year-old can see gruesome flicks like Hostel or Saw, but would be a danger to society playing the less graphic Grand Theft Auto or Hitman series.

Then he loses it on a bill before the Massachusetts state legislature, and it gets good.

You really should read the whole thing, but his kicker is well worth quoting here:

What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture — not just videogames but TV, movies, even Harry Potter — as a whipping boy. It's easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud. Also, it allows legislators to ignore the elephants in the living room. Elephant One is the ever-deepening divide between the haves and have-nots in this country, a situation guys like Fiddy and Snoop have been indirectly rapping about for years. Elephant Two is America's almost pathological love of guns. It was too easy for critics to claim — falsely, it turned out — that Cho Seung-Hui (the Virginia Tech killer) was a fan of Counter-Strike; I just wish to God that legislators were as eager to point out that this nutball had no problem obtaining a 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Cho used it in a rampage that resulted in the murder of 32 people. If he'd been stuck with nothing but a plastic videogame gun, he wouldn't even have been able to kill himself.

Case closed

Stephen King: Video Game Lunacy [Entertainment Weekly, thanks Avi Gold]

And, by the way, at any moment, if some kid in West Virginia goes and blows away 32 people, and they find out that he played a video game, guess what, we've got a problem again. Just as if he had watched a movie and then done that. Or just as if he had read "Catcher in the Rye" and blamed it on J.D. Salinger. . .

Gaming exec assesses impact of technology, legislation [Miami herald via Game Politics]

Via PlayNoEvil, "Congressman Robert Wexler introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act, to exempt games 'where success is predominantly determined by the skill of the players involved' from being considered gambling ...." The law won't apply to most American MMOs, but could affect "Asian MMOs and the tournaments/arena modes of Western-style MMOs."

The bill itself sounds like a tall order:

The Federal Government should take appropriate steps to ensure that, with respect to skill games— (A) minors are prevented from playing for money; (B) persons with compulsive behavior should be identified and referred to treatment; (C) operators of such games should not be vulnerable to, or participate in criminal or terrorist money laundering; and (D) appropriate taxes are collected.

But we'll see what happens, and what ramifications (if any) it has for online games that most people don't think of as gambling. Maggie Greene

HR 2610 - Skill Game Protection Act - If you are in Online Gaming Read This [PlayNoEvil]

We are deeply troubled by the prospect of New York enacting legislation that would treat video games differently from other protected, creative expression...

In 2005, we became a part of Activision... but we are committed to long-term growth in the Albany area... We have worked hard to keep strong, creative "home grown" talent here in New York, rather than having them leave for places like California and Florida...

At a time when New York is working hard to maintain its competitive edge... we have to avoid stigmatizing video games and game development in our state.

We know many in our state may not like the content of some video games, and, to be frank, we do not like some of it either. However, a better way... would be to... encourage use of video game ratings and parental controls...

More power to them if their voices get heard, because in the long run, it does seem confusing that the powers that be want to create a law for something that is already standard in the industry. Kim Phu

Developer Vicarious Visions Weighs in on New York Game Legislation

From GamePolitics comes a news article stating that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich blew through a million dollars of taxpayers' money trying to fight "a 2005 federal court ruling that a state law banning the sale of violent or sexual-explicit video games to minors was unconstitutional."

From the Quad-Cities Online:

The governor raided funds throughout state government to pay for the litigation. Some of the areas money was taken from included the public health department, the state's welfare agency and even the economic development department.

... the governor's staff, testifying before the committee, admitted they just stuck state agencies that had available funds with the bills ....

GP notes that "the amount Illinois owed to the video game industry in legal fees was $510,000. We assume that the balance ... relates to legal costs Illinois incurred in unsuccessfully defending against the industry's First Amendment challenge."

Politicians spending funds earmarked for public use on pet projects is hardly anything new, but it's still appalling to see the numbers in print when it comes to frivolous appeals on legislation that shouldn't have been put into place to begin with. Maggie Greene

Blagojevich's quest to ban violent video games cost nearly $1M [Quad-Cities Online via GamePolitics]

GamePolitics reports that a new legislation in the works by New York State Republican Rep. Brian Kolb adds a twist to the standard proposal prohibiting the sale of violent or sexually explicit games to minors:

In addition to blocking retailers from selling such games to minors, the bill, A02787 provides "the Courts" the power to confiscate any games which do not clearly display a rating label. The bill also requires retailers to make games available for review by parents prior to purchase.

Kolb's bill calls for fines of up to $1,000 as well as unspecified criminal penalties. If passed, the measure will take effect on November 1st.

I can see the ESA and ESRB actually liking this, it essentially pushes those rogue publishers who still put games out, and I don't think there are a lot of them, to go through the ratings process. Brian Crecente

NY Legislation Permits Confiscation of Unrated Games [Game Politics]

In a move that could have oppressed German game developers looking jealously towards the southwest, the French Parliament has approved a plan to allow game developers creating games with a "with a cultural dimension" a tax credit equaling 20% of development costs up to 3 million euros a year. That's a pretty sizeable chunk of change aimed at keeping developers in the country, providing a sharp contrast to Germany, where some game developers are looked on and treated like borderline criminals.

So what determines if a game has a cultural dimension? Anything from the story the music, the look and feel, etc., so while a game about killing space aliens on a made up planet might not fall under the criteria, killing space aliens in the Louvre to the music of Jean-Marie Leclair just might.

Devs shouldn't start counting their euros yet however, as the European Commission is currently looking the plan over to see if it constitutes a EU policy violating subsidy. Michael Fahey

France Approves Video Game Tax Credit [GamePolitics.com]

This morning the Video Game Voters Network sent out an email to its members urging them to make their voices heard this Tuesday by voting in the mid-term elections.

We need to send a clear signal this Tuesday: video games are protected speech, afforded constitutional protection by the First Amendment. Our taxpayer time and money should be spent on the real issues affecting our country and taxpayers.

Watchblog GamePolitics reports that the Muskogee Phoenix is full of piss and vinegar about the shamefully-constructed anti-games law in Oklahoma:

Some things are definitely inappropriate for children and harmful to them, and society has a duty to protect young people. But if it's wrong for minors to view a game that "depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely" — as the new law states video games do — then minors shouldn't be watching Indiana Jones and a host other characters who freely and gratuitously indulge in violence.

Characters like the Kotaku Brians, who were taking turns sucker-punching a four-year-old when I dropped that DDR video by the "office" this morning.

In addition to decrying the actual wording of the law, the article points out that if even a small percentage of children playing these hideous games were actually acting on the demonic instructions issuing from their PCs, then juvenile violence rates would be rising, not falling.

Have any of the anti-games pundits ever actually addressed that data? I can't recall a single instance, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'm genuinely baffled by the apparent ignorance of the facts that these, to borrow the new Stewartism, Insane Jackasses display. Eliza gauger

Editorial Roundup: Oklahoma Paper Slams New Video Game Law [GamePolitics]

The Washington Times is a traditionally right-leaning newspaper, and they've recently published an article damning games legislation. I would normally endorse such a tirade, but the article makes some tiresome omissions, keeping it from being just a decent opinion piece and turning it into an agenda-whore. GameDaily has a nice little piece calling the Washington Times on their crap:

Interestingly—or perhaps conveniently—the newspaper completely omits the fact that there have been a number of Republicans who've been on the violent video games legislation bandwagon, including Sam Brownback (R-KS), Rick Santorum (R-PA), as well as a number of Republican legislators who've sponsored video game bills in a number of states (Minnesota, Maryland, Louisiana, Oklahoma, etc.) over the last year.

Santorum's anti-gay nattering has gotten him into colloquial trouble already, but it occurs to me we have a wealth of legislators' names to appropriate for the video game cause. Something really revolting that relates to gaming should be nicknamed much as Santorum was. Now taking suggestions in the comment box. Eliza Gauger

Washington Times Blasts Democrats Over Game Bills [GameDaily BIZ]

Luke over at 1Up chatted with California politician Leland Y. Yee about freedom of speech and video games. Yee spearheaded a bill through the State Assembly that prohibits selling ultra-violent video games throughout the Golden State. Banning the sale of these games does not contradict First Amendment rights contests Yee.

"When you have information that says there are harmful effects to children - you have to draw the line. Just like adult material laws do not prevent anyone from producing adult movies and adult magazines, just don't let kids buy it, that's all," the politician said.

But, isn't that where the retailers and the ESRB come in? "The Federal Trade Commission's undercover study that nearly 70% of kids would be able to purchase an M-rated video game," he add. "More recently, the Harvard study says that the ESRB doesn't give accurate information."

Hal Halpin read Luke's piece and sent in the following retort: "It is unfortunate the Mr. Yee remains woefully uninformed regarding the FTC's findings with regard to voluntary retail efforts at self-regulation. He is either quoting an out-dated several year-old study, or has missed the press regarding their latest findings: that the nation's leading retailers, our members, are successfully carding for M-rated games 65% of the time - which puts the games industry on par with his "Gold Standard," the movie theatre owners, who card at 69% of the time."

If retailers (and hopefully parents) are handling the situation, should the government be regulating "ultra-violent" games as it does pornography? And honestly, should it let politicians that hob-knob with Paula Abdul propose legislation?

Luke's Article [1Up]

Well, if the CDC can provide the link between video games and violent behaviors, then the courts that have been striking down state legislature left and right over the last year will have the link they've been looking for and the face of game legislation will change. Currently, when state X tries to enact some kind of law it eventually gets overturned by the courts - if the CDC shows a link that may no longer bet the case.

Clinton, Lieberman propose CDC investigate games [GameSpot]

Video Game Legislation Tracker [Game Politics]