States woo game developers...

It SHOULD be illegal to sell M-rated games to underaged kids. That's why they're rated. I think a law like that would further the ESRB as an official standard for video games. Why do you want M games in kid's hands without parental permission?

Thanks ofr commenting Jythier,

Except that M-rated is a subjective statment that the ESRB puts onto the label. Subjective to them, not you. It is a paid for industry group, not a governmental protection group.

illegal is one thing, potentially going to jail for something like that is entirely another thing all together. Oh ya, I forgot to mention, the law as written by the elected officals cost the tax payers of Michigan (I believe) $75,000 for passing a law, which they were repeatedly told was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law. I stress the unconstitutional part as they were told and had evidence from other laws being overturned in other states that it would not fly. It was all political pandering.

Of course, I didn't state the backstory above, so I wouldn't expect you to understand that part of it. It isn't that I am for kids having M-rated games, it is that I am opposed to unconstitutional laws. You could google it or I could provide you links if you would like.

I am all for parents being parents, but let us leave them to being parents, shall we?

How do you let parents be parents if the kid can walk into a retail store and buy an M-rated game by himself?

The rating system is no more subjective than the one used on movies, after all. Is it unconstitutional to deny movie access to children without parents to R rated movies?

I think it's better that the industry itself came up with a rating system instead of the government doing it. That way, the government can't mess it up.

Why did the passing of the law cost the Michigan tax payers $75,000? What does that have to do with video games?

I am against unconstitutional laws, too. But I don't know the Michigan constitution, nor why it would be against it to limit the age of buyers for certain products rated innappropriate for that age group.

Would you support a rating system on books too, Jyth?

No, but only because the system we already have is so terrible due to lack of clarity as to be unsalvagable. I mean, c'mon, Harry Potter banned? On the same list as some of those other books? It's ridiculous. But, I would also support the right of the parent to purchase that book for their kid, as I support the right of a parent to purchase an M-rated game for their kid.

See, I see ratings systems as completely superfluous anyway. There are a lot of R-rated movies I'd rather have my kids watch than some of the PG-13 movies out there.

As a parent, I will expect that those controls be left in my hands. I don't want the government getting involved with it, period.

It's like you don't even realize that your kids are capable of moving from here to there without you. If there's no law that says you can't sell _ to a minor, you now have LOST control of that to your kids.

I know there are ways they get around it now, but they have to go out of their way, and maybe even pay a guy to do it for them. But seriously, the law is a step in the direction of parental control, not away from it.

The best article on the subject was posted by Gregg Sealhoff of Sophsoft Software out of Lansing:
Link
and
Link about half way down in his post.

Here is my post about when the law was created by Granholm: Link

Here is another post of mine related to the Michigan Law, which shows links to unconstitutional comments from the industry: Link

My post on the original proposed bill: Link

Here is another post related to the topic at hand, but for the State of Illinois: Link