I agree that some penalties might be in order for the selling of adult materials to those underage but ’strict’ wasn’t really what I was thinking. Though I guess that would be a place to start. It’s a tough call to make. Parents should certainly be responsible to a degree as should retailers. I mean retailers of pornographic materials in video, imagery and the like are generally held responsible are they not? vendors of alcohol are as well.

I would rather the burden be on parents and retailers than the government who could simply choose to censor content orprevent its sale altogether.

Here’s what I want to know: How is jack thompson (name not capitalized on purpose; he’s not a ’proper noun’ to me) still allowed to do anything in the US legal system? I know he was only disbarred in Florida, but that’s still a pretty spectacular indication that he might be a failure as a lawyer.

That said, I’m not sure a comparison to alcohol vendors is quite right. We can scientifically prove that a younger body reacts even more poorly to alcohol than an adult does; demonstrable harm is done. I don’t think the same can be conclusively shown for games or -- and I say this with full due caution -- sexual materials in and of themselves. There’s definitely a lot to be said for parents keeping their kids away from both, but in theory I’d think the loss of good-will for the business providing Grand Theft Auto to kids would be enough to keep them in line. A monetary penalty can only rightly be assigned if demonstrable, conclusively proven harm (or genuine endangerment) is done, in my mind.

In reality, I’m sure that’s not true. But I don’t see any better solutions, and government intrusion in our hobby is never a good thing. They can’t even properly handle things they’re supposedly well educated on, such as law and economics. How much less so an entertainment industry? Gov. Huntsman had the right idea in vetoing this, and he did it for mostly the right reasons.

I’d like to point to Ireland as an example.

They went no smoking. They stated that if someone were to smoke in your establishment and were asked to put out the cigarette and failed to do so, they could be fined up to 300 Euro. The law also stated that if you, as the owner of the establishment, failed to uphold the law and have the person put out the cigarette or remove them from the premises you were liable to be fined up to 3000 Euro (I think) and/or lose your alcohol/vending license.

It worked. So why not apply something similar to retail outlets? I mean can they wontonly and without any due diligence simply sell their products to anyone? What is the point of warning labels on music and age ratings on film/games if they’re ignored by the actual sellers of said materials?

In your case Jim, you say a monetary fine can only be determined when harm is proven. But if the law states something is illegal, as in the sale of tobacco or alcohol to a minor (which you yourself admitted could prove harmful) then shouldn’t they be fined for not taking a large enough interest in their business to preclude that from happening? Since the point of business is profit, then wouldn’t monetary be the only possible recourse the government has to deter such activity? I mean aside from completely banning the sale of the materials altogether which then is borderline police state and 100% censorship?

I vote for monetary fines over censorship any day.

It’s probably my fault for not saying this sooner outright: I’m arguing the minarchist position, which is that regulating games is none of the government’s business, much as it has little place in alcohol, tobacco, pornography, etc. That is to say, I don’t think state level or federal level governments have any place assessing fines or legal controls against game retailers, even if it’s "for the children" as such things usually are.

In any case, I definitely wasn’t trying to argue legal fact, especially on the part as to when fines can and cannot be assessed. I was meaning that I’m completely against both the fines and censorship, and I’d much rather see capitalism handle any resulting fallout of a store selling GTA to little Johnny. I’m certain that won’t actually happen, but I’m equally convinced leaving things to the government will make the problem even worse, and affect even more innocent people.

I even feel the same way about anti-smoking laws like the one you described. I feel the owner, and customers, can make their own decision about what they want. If the business permits smoking, I can opt not to go there for any of several valid reasons I may wish to avoid the smoke. If I don’t care, and the owner doesn’t care, then who is any government to say otherwise?

I concede up front that my solution is not perfect. I’m not sure there is a perfect fix to be had. I just feel that government intervention in this is even worse, and I hope the veto-override does not happen.