Thomas L. McDonald writes in his "Game Theory" column on page 16 of the May 2005 issue of Maximum PC about how he doesn't like this house bill that's being passed. I don't think he actually read the bill, but rather read about it from another news site. He misrepresented the intent of the bill. Sure, actually it was originally the news site that misrepresented the intent, and McDonald was just repeating what he read on the Internet, but being a journalist, McDonald should have done his research.

Thomas L. McDonald writes:

The article was about a Washington state House bill that would "hold the makers and sellers of violent video games liable if someone under 17 years old commits a crime, due in any part, to playing the game." (KOMO 1000 News, 3/1/05, emphasis added)

The emphasis being added by McDonald, not I. When you read this, you think "I played Solitaire, I got frustrated that I didn't win, so I killed twenty police officers, and so Microsoft is liable and not me." Well, that sounds really dumb, so I typed in McDonald's quote into Google and found the KOMO article.

The KOMO article mentions the bill number, so I do a Google search for House Bill 2178, and it's here. Here's the actual wording from the bill:

House Bill 2178

A person may maintain an action for personal injury or wrongful death against a manufacturer or retailer of violent video or computer games if the manufacturer or retailer has distributed, sold, or rented a violent video or computer game to a person under the age of seventeen and the game was a factor in creating conditions that assisted or encouraged the person to cause injury or death to another person.

In other words, the intent behind the bill, I assume, is to force the retailers to card people before selling them games rated R. I don't like the way it's phrase though. I would have put it as so:

Nebu's version

A person may maintain an action for personal injury or wrongful death against a retailer, if the retailer has distributed, sold, or rented a video or computer game with an ESRB rating of 17+ to a person without taking reasonable measures to ensure that said person is above the age of seventeen and the game was a factor in creating conditions that assisted or encouraged the person to cause injury or death to another person.

The main changes in my version is to not make the retailers liable if some kid makes a fake ID, or gets their older brother or parent to buy the game for them, and so on. Also, it avoids the issue of "defining violent videogame" by using something that's easily measurable (the ESRB rating). To me, this is just as "common sense" as holding a bar liable if they fail to card someone before selling them vodka. If I get carded at EB Games for buying a rated R game, I'm not gonna complain "ZOMG, PRIVACY INVASION!"

Now unfortunately, while I don't really understand the legal process behind turning bills into laws in the United States, based on this document, it sounds like this bill was already passed with 6 votes for the bill, and 1 abstaining. It also sounds like this is like "stage 1", and that it has to go to another stage before actually becoming a law. If so, I hope it gets amended to sound like my version before it passes.

I don't like it when people (politician or otherwise) blame videogames for violence, but I'm a reasonable adult and I think the inconvenience of being carded is worth it if it eliminates even just one death. Also, I don't like it when the people who are "on my side of the argument" (i.e. who dislike above mentioned politicians) distort the truth to support their case.