Techdirt. Stories filed under "connecticut" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "connecticut"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:50:02 PST Connecticut State Senator Seeks To Ban Minors From Playing Arcade Games Utilizing Fake Guns Tim Cushing http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/12292022063/connecticut-state-senator-seeks-to-ban-minors-playing-arcade-games-utilizing-fake-guns.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130221/12292022063/connecticut-state-senator-seeks-to-ban-minors-playing-arcade-games-utilizing-fake-guns.shtml An Act Concerning Minors and Violent Point-and-Shoot Video Games," Harp's bill seeks to ban minors from operating violent video games in public. More specifically, it seeks to take the play guns out of kids' hands, while presumably leaving them free to de-spine each other at the Mortal Kombat upright.
(b) No owner or operator of any public establishment or amusement arcade shall allow any individual under eighteen years of age to operate a violent point-and-shoot video game on the premises of such establishment or arcade.
The offending devices that may not be pointed-and-shot by minors are as follows:
(a) For purposes of this section, "facsimile of a firearm" means (1) any imitation of a firearm, as defined in subdivision (19) of section 53a-3 of the general statutes, which was manufactured, designed and produced since 1898, or (2) any representation of a firearm, other than an imitation of an original firearm, that a reasonable person would understand was intended to depict a weapon of violence; and "violent point-and-shoot video game" means any electronic gaming device that utilizes a facsimile of a firearm as an essential component of game play.
This rules out such offenders as House of the Dead and Area 51, but also other, non-human-killing games like Jurassic Park, Big Buck Hunter, Nintendo's Duck Hunt (for arcades with a retro vibe) and, presumably, Michael Cimino's Deer Hunter Arcade.

If a public establishment does allow the under-18 crowd to start pointing-and-shooting, there will be consequences.
Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall have committed an infraction.
(..and will have to go sit in the corner for a 15-minute "time out" or serve as the sole host of a child's birthday party, whichever is more severe. Six infractions in six months will result in the offender becoming a permanent member of the Chuck E. Cheese animatronic band.)

Presumably, the real fines/jail time/conversion to a cyborg trapped in kids' birthday hell will be added to the bill at a future date. But there's more to this bill than disarming teens and tweens. Senator Harp has also borrowed a bit from the President's call for a study of the link between violent media (including violent video games) and actual violence. Harp's version, however, gets rid of anything related to "violent media" and concentrates solely on video games.
Sec. 2. (Effective October 1, 2013) (a) There is established a Violent Video Game Task Force within the Department of Children and Families to study the effects of violent video games on youth behavior...
(b) The Violent Video Game Task Force shall: (1) Study the effects of violent video games on youth behavior; (2) make recommendations to the General Assembly and the Governor for new or enhanced policies to address the findings of the task force; (3) gather and maintain current information regarding violent video games that can be used to better understand the impact of violent video games on youth behavior; and (4) advise the General Assembly and Governor concerning the coordination and administration of state programs that may reduce the effects of violent video games on youth behavior.
Here's the kicker, though:
(c) Not later than October 1, 2014, the task force shall submit in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a of the general statutes a report to the General Assembly and the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to children specifying the task force's findings and recommendations pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
That's right. The bill will first enact a blanket ban on shooting games (using "point-and-shoot" gun "facsimiles") and then start looking into the question of whether or not there's a connection between violent arcade games and violence. It's almost literally a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach (except without the shooting). All this bill does is present a foregone conclusion and ask for it to be preemptively enforced. The statement of purpose doesn't even try to hide this fact:
To prevent minors from using violent point-and-shoot video games in public arcades and to create a task force to study the effects of violent video games on youth behavior.
In Harper's mind (and bill), the facts, whatever they may be, simply do not matter. Kids are forbidden from playing "gun games" in public. Full stop. Why even bother proposing a study? She's already made her decision. This is the kind of baseline, weightless lip service that makes regular glad-handing, fundraising lip service look sincere and upstanding.

Even the wording for the "study" itself forces me to throw scare quotes around the word: "gather... information... that can be used to better understand the impact of violent video games on youth behavior." It's accepted that there's an "impact." "Coordination and administration of state programs that may reduce the effects of violent video game on youth behavior." Again, 100% chance there's an "effect," so let's work to "reduce" it.

I don't have a problem with someone commissioning a study on the connection between violent video games and acts of violence. But when someone starts with a ban and then stacks the deck to justify a ridiculous ban, it's only going to return the results the commissioning politician is looking for. If it doesn't, it will simply be back-burnered until the public eye is distracted elsewhere.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> does-this-include-banning-'point-and-shoot'-cameras? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130221/12292022063 Fri, 8 Feb 2013 06:14:56 PST CT State Representative Proposes 10% Tax On Mature Video Games Timothy Geigner http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/14455721898/ct-state-representative-proposes-10-tax-mature-video-games.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130206/14455721898/ct-state-representative-proposes-10-tax-mature-video-games.shtml labeling of games, doubling down on unconstitutional laws, and even special 1% taxes for games with a rating of "Teen" and above... It's quite difficult to parse out the well-intentioned silliness from the grandstanding silliness. What's clear, however, is that there are a great many people who don't recognize games as the speech that they are.

One state representative from Connecticut, home of the Sandy Hook tragedy, is now upping the ante on that last idea and proposing a 10% tax on games that are rated "mature". Here's Rep. Debralee Hovey's idea:
“That the general statutes be amended to establish a sales tax on the sale of video games rated “mature” at a rate of ten per cent on the entire sales price and to require the moneys derived from such sales tax be used by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services for the purpose of developing informational materials to educate families on the warning signs of video game addiction and antisocial behavior".
There is more than one problem with this type of legislation, but let's get the most obvious out of the way: it's likely unconstitutional. Courts have held in the past that both limiting violent games, as well as taxing specific types of speech differently than others, fails on constitutional grounds. Hovey's proposal would appear to violate both precedents. But even if that weren't the case, Forbes goes further in explaining how dangerously dumb this is.
This is of course punishing an industry based on conjecture, as no concrete evidence has yet been put forth linking video games and violent actions. The Obama administration’s new gun plans do involve the NHS studying this link, but as nothing is proven (and likely won’t be), video games should not be treated in the same way as a product proven to cause cancer.
I've said this before, but I will say it again: emotion is not a reliable basis for legislature. Ever. Data is what should drive laws and, in this case, the data is at best inconclusive and at worst non-existent. Proposing laws without data to perform the function that is supposed to be performed by parents is the height of a nanny state.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> unconstitutional http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130206/14455721898 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:58:25 PDT Tweeting Deemed Not 'Broadcasting' And Allowed In Courtroom Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00362113643/tweeting-deemed-not-broadcasting-allowed-courtroom.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110328/00362113643/tweeting-deemed-not-broadcasting-allowed-courtroom.shtml Michael Scott points us to a case in Connecticut state court, in which "broadcasting" from the courtroom was forbidden, but there was a debate over whether or not Twittering from the courtroom should be allowed. The arguments go back and forth, noting that there are some similarities to broadcasting with Twitter, but not necessarily enough. The judge then looked at the reason behind prohibiting broadcasting, and realized it was to keep direct images from being seen, but that reporting from the courtroom should be allowed. The only concern is if the actions were disruptive (such as with a loud keyboard), but noted that such problems could be dealt with on a case by case basis. The guy trying to restrict the use of Twitter claimed that such "communications tend to be either trivial or inaccurate and thus play no useful role in educating the public about the judicial process," but the judge pointed out that a court should not be controlling the "substance of courtroom reporting," and said that Twittering would be allowed, so long as there is no disruption (which would be dealt with specifically). Seems like a reasonable outcome.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> nice-of-them http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110328/00362113643 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:28:35 PDT Richard Blumenthal Grandstands Over Violent Video Game Ban, While Publicly Displaying Ignorance Of Facts Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01555510316.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100722/01555510316.shtml filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the case about California's failed attempt to ban the sale of violent video games. As noted, more than 10 states have enacted such laws, and every single one of them has been struck down. You might think that an attorney general in charge of upholding the law would recognize that.

But, as Ben Kuchera at Ars Technica notes, Blumenthal seems to have announced this particular grandstanding campaign with a rather stunning number of factual errors that demonstrate an immense level of ignorance about what he's sounding off about.
Blumenthal also seems sadly ignorant of the state of video games and retail. "In the face of continued industry inaction--enabling unattended children to buy such games--states must preserve their critical right to protect children," he stated.

The problem with Blumenthal's argument is that the industry has not been in a state of inaction, as the ESRB has long assigned ratings to games, giving an accurate idea of the content included in them, and has made serious efforts when it comes to community and parental outreach to make sure the ratings are both understood and used. Chains such as GameStop and even Walmart actively check the ID of customers buying M-rated games.
Then there's the claim that video games should "follow the leadership of the motion picture industry" in its system to prevent children from viewing certain content. What he seems to be missing is that video games already have a very similar system, and have for years, and, in some ways, it's even more restrictive than the movie industry's.

And, of course, none of this notes that the research seems to show that violent video games aren't actually harmful to kids after all. But, you know, when you have a Senate campaign to run, "think of the children" just plays so well with the ignorant masses...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> your-next-senator? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100722/01555510316 Tue, 4 May 2010 09:12:39 PDT Connecticut Police Use Craigslist To Fight Prostitution; As Their Attorney General Grandstands To Take Away That Tool Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100503/1100119284.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100503/1100119284.shtml misguided crusade against Craigslist on the topic of prostitution. For years, he's complained and threatened Craigslist because prostitutes use the service. Of course, he's never taken legal action because he must realize that there is no legal action he can take. The law is pretty clear: the liability is on the users of the service, not the makers of the service. Even so, Craigslist has repeatedly changed the way its service works to appease Blumenthal, and while he initially seems happy with those changes, months later, he's always back to complaining (just in time for elections too...).

Of course, the point we've made all along in response to Blumenthal is that for smart law enforcement officials, Craigslist is an excellent tool for monitoring and cracking down on prostitution. In fact, it appears that some police in Connecticut are doing exactly that. Eric sends in the story of police in Naugatuck, Connecticut using Craigslist to crack down on prostitution in their city.

The police responded to a few ads that they believe were from prostitutes seeking money for sex, and arrested two women. Separately -- and a bit more questionably -- the police also put up an ad themselves, waiting for men to reply, and eventually arrested eighteen men who replied (including a city official). It's difficult to see how that latter part of the sting isn't entrapment, but they insist it's not. Either way, it does seem like a bit of a contradiction when the state's Attorney General is seeking to block Craigslist from dealing in such ads entirely while police in the state are using it as a tool against prostitution at the same time. Maybe they should talk to each other. But, of course, when Blumenthal's real purpose is not about stopping prostitution, but instead making sure he's re-elected, suddenly the seemingly contradictory actions make a lot more sense. Oh, and if Blumenthal is really looking to grandstand about Craigslist, why not complain about the fact that the guy who bought the Nissan Pathfinder used in the failed Times Square car bomb attack this weekend supposedly bought it via Craigslist. Surely, if Craigslist can be blamed for prostitution, now it can also be blamed for terrorism...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> what-a-tool http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100503/1100119284 Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:41:00 PDT Attorneys General Upset That Craigslist Is Profiting From Procedure He Forced Craigslist To Put In Place Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1609299179.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100426/1609299179.shtml blamed Craigslist for prostitution ads that appear on the site. Blumenthal, as the state Attorney General should know about the law, right? He should know that he has no legal basis for this complaint, and that under Section 230 of the CDA, Craigslist is not liable for the actions of its users. In fact, legal attempts to pin the blame for such ads on Craigslist have been quickly dismissed on just those grounds. Even more importantly, from a common sense standpoint, Blumenthal should realize that when police work with Craigslist in partnership, they're able to use it as an effective tool to track down lawbreakers who use the site.

But that doesn't get headlines.

Instead, Blumenthal, based on no legal basis whatsoever, used his soapbox (along with some other attorneys general) to get Craigslist to changing its policies on "adult" advertisements. Whereas, previously, those ads had been free, Craigslist now required that anyone putting up such ads pay for them with a valid credit card, eliminating many of the ads and making it much, much easier to track down whoever placed them in the first place. You would think that would make the AGs happy. Six months later, however, the AGs were still upset, and got Craigslist to change again, boosting the fee on such ads from $5 to $10 and reviewing more of the ads.

Almost all of these moves came in response to public posturing and baseless legal threats from Blumenthal. So what's he doing now?

He's apparently doing more public posturing and issuing more baseless legal threats, because Craigslist stands to make an awful lot of money from these ads -- the very same ads that Craigslist only started charging for because of Blumenthal's pressure:
"I believe Craigslist acted irresponsibly when it unilaterally decided to keep the profits from these posts," Mr. Blumenthal wrote in the letter...
Yes, and I believe Blumenthal acted irresponsibly when he put bogus grandstanding pressure on Craigslist to put in place the tollbooth in the first place. At what point does he recognize that Craigslist isn't the target here. It's the people using Cragslist to break the law -- and that Craigslist is more than willing to help law enforcement track down those law breakers?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> banging-your-head-on-the-virtual-wall http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100426/1609299179 Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:54:09 PDT Connecticut Town Tells ASCAP, BMI, SESAC To Get Lost Over Royalty Bills Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090625/0143055354.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090625/0143055354.shtml voted to ignore the bill, tabling it "indefinitely." As far as I know nothing else has happened between ASCAP and New Milford, but reader Bill Waggoner recently alerted us to the news that BMI and SESAC -- the other two collection societies in the US -- sent bills to New Milford as well. BMI's was a whopping $3,000. SESAC's was $1,500.

After being asked about it, BMI realized that it had made a "mistake" in calculating the bill, and lowered it to $305 (funny that they don't make mistakes in the other direction, do they?). However, the town council has told them to go take a hike. "They're not going to get that either" was the quote from council member Roger Szendy. The town's mayor, Patricia Murphy, says she's standing up for the principle of the whole thing, claiming that it's silly that a municipality should have to pay. BMI apparently says it's not going to sue, but it hopes that the city will "do the right thing."

I'm guessing that BMI (and ASCAP) realize it would be a public relations nightmare to sue a municipality, but if other cities start taking similar principled stands, you have to wonder if they'd reconsider.

Side Note: As regular readers know, it's our common practice to link to our source for information on stories. In this case, however, our main source is The News Times. I had the story about this open in my browser for a few days before getting around to writing it up. Then I discovered that The News Times locks up its content after a few days. So... I can no longer actually get to the article or send any traffic to the newspaper site. Perhaps I don't quite get the economics of news publishing, but I would imagine ad traffic from a bunch of our readers visiting their site would greatly outweigh the expected value of people actually paying $3 to read the article (yes, that's what they want). Oh well. I guess it's just their loss.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> get-lost! http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090625/0143055354 Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:08:00 PST Politician Recognizes That Students Deserve Free Speech Rights Too Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090206/0946223670.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090206/0946223670.shtml punished for writing mean things about teachers or school administrators on social networking sites or blogs. In the past, there was a pretty clear legal line in terms of what was and what was not allowed: if the speech took place on campus, the school had the right to do something about it. If it took place off campus, it was the student's free speech rights. However, some courts have begun to change that bright line, by saying that since internet sites can be reached from the school, schools now have the right to punish students for things they say online. This has numerous troubling implications when it comes to basic free speech.

Amazingly, there appear to be some politicians who actually recognize this. Up in Connecticut, where a 16-year-old girl was disciplined for calling school administrators "douche bags" on her blog, state Senator Gary LeBeau is actually proposing a law that would protect student free speech in such cases. Even more impressive, LeBeau was a teacher for 35-years, so he certainly understands where teachers and administrators are coming from -- but he says that the free speech issue is more important. He says that it's not right that a school should be able to interfere with a student's conversations. Not surprisingly, the National School Boards Association is fighting against the bill, and it would be surprising if it got enough support to pass -- but it's nice to know at least one politician out there recognizes a student's right to speak their mind from home.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> free-speech-is-good http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090206/0946223670 Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:10:00 PST Connecticut Government Bails Out Newspapers Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0412043436.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0412043436.shtml stepped in to save two newspapers in the state, that were about to be shut down. This is raising all sorts of questions about the separation of government from the press. What's scary is that just a few years ago, such an idea was used as satire. Then it became a serious suggestion and now it's happening. Of course, the big question is about how this will impact coverage. It is possible for the government to own a newspaper and still have that newspaper report critically on that government... but it's definitely harder, and a lot of people may wonder about how closely the papers will monitor government officials.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> will-it-impact-coverage? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090116/0412043436 Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:41:00 PST Connecticut Finally Drops Charges Against Julie Amero Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081123/1804192931.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081123/1804192931.shtml Techmeme points us to the news that Connecticut officials have finally agreed to drop felony charges against Julie Amero. As you may recall, Julie Amero was a substitute teacher who was randomly surfing some webpages on a classroom computer while students were working on some projects. On one webpage, the computer started opening a never ending series of windows showing pornographic pictures -- symptomatic of a computer infected with some malicious spyware. However, Connecticut police and prosecutors chose to try Amero on felony charges, threatening to put her in jail for 40 years, and getting a conviction.

After numerous security experts brought attention to the case, a judge finally granted a new trial, and Connecticut police and officials refused to admit a mistake and still intended to try Amero. However, as noted above, the state finally worked out an agreement with Amero, where the state dropped most of the charges, after Amero agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor) and give up her teacher's license. The article also notes that, due in part to stress from the case, Amero has been hospitalized and is in declining health.

It's great that Connecticut finally decided to drop the charges, but the whole thing remains a travesty. It's unclear what Amero did that was "disorderly conduct" or why she deserves to lose her teacher's license. On top of that, the fact that the state still refuses to admit its mistakes in the case is a tremendous shame. A bunch of technically illiterate folks basically destroyed this woman's life and still stand by what they did.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> too-little-too-late http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081123/1804192931 Tue, 5 Aug 2008 10:46:20 PDT Connecticut Gives Up Banning Cameraphones In Court Rooms Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080804/0124551881.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080804/0124551881.shtml fad that should be banned from any workplace. However, as cameraphones have become much more common, it seems that this mass hysteria is, thankfully, dying down. Over in Connecticut, they've even backed down on a rule that banned cameraphones in the court room. You're still not allowed to use them, but the courts realized now that nearly every mobile phone is a cameraphone, that it was becoming ridiculously time consuming to stop everyone from entering the courthouse, and make them tag and bag every mobile phone for storage and later pickup. Apparently, the lines to get into the courthouse were getting rather long.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> still-can't-use-them,-though http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080804/0124551881 Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:24:30 PDT Connecticut Still Wants To Try Julie Amero Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/1030551639.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/1030551639.shtml explain to everyone involved why Amero was not the guilty party. Eventually, the judge agreed, and struck down the guilty verdict.

However, the state still has not dropped the case.

In fact, as reader Phil K lets us know, the state has no intention of dropping the case, and appears to want a new trial. No one involved in the case will explain why they won't drop it. In fact, they won't even apologize for what was clearly a wrongful prosecution in the first place. The prosecutors, the police and the school Amero worked for haven't said a word. The fact that they're planning to go through another trial over this matter suggests they still don't even realize what they did.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> sickening http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080710/1030551639 Thu, 27 Dec 2007 04:20:02 PST Can Legislation Let People Opt-Out Of Having Their Info Show Up Online? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071226/145810.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071226/145810.shtml universal opt-out list for your info online. The idea is that there are so many directory sites/people search engines/list sites online, many of which have your name, address and potentially other information such as where you work. The law proposed by Connecticut's governor would allow you to "opt-out" and require all of these sites to take your info offline. Of course, as the article notes, much of that info is already public info and there's nothing illegal about compiling a list of public information. Where would the line be drawn? If your info shows up in a Google search, is Google suddenly liable? It's also unclear how you could possibly enforce a requirement that someone's name and address never get posted online. If anything, it sounds like more grandstanding legislation designed to make a politician look good rather than deal with the very real issues at hand concerning privacy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> seems-like-a-long-shot http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071226/145810