Slashdot Mirror
Violent Games Bill On Tap In Florida
Gamespot is reporting that a violent games bill similar to the one recently signed into law in California is being considered in Florida. From the article: "The bill bears more than a passing resemblance to the game restriction bill California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law. The language for what constitutes a 'violent video game' is identical, as are the $1,000 limit on fines resulting from breaking the law and the requirement that violent games be labeled with a 2-inch-by-2-inch sticker depicting a solid white '18' outlined in black. About the only difference between the two bills is that Diaz de la Portilla's legislation makes it illegal for violent games to be made available to minors in arcades as well as in stores."
It is the parent's responsability to control and limit their kid's gaming choices, not the government's. I really hope that this doesn't get passed.
I swear, if parents spent as much time with their kids as they did talking on their cell phones, America wouldn't be as fucked up as it is today.
If you live in florida, for god's sake, write to the lawmakers and tell them not to do this!
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Guns don't kill people, kids who play video games kill people!
Since state legislators have a harder time pressing the look-over-there-it's-a-terror-alert button, they have to resort to crap like this to save their flagging support.
FTA:"The bill would likely be a welcome change of tone in publicity for Diaz de la Portilla, who has spent much of the year embroiled in an ethics scandal over his failure to comply with campaign finance laws"
Given that the bill is nearly identical to the CA bill, doesn't this just seem like a publicity stunt for de la Portilla?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...will someone tell these people to stop doing drugs and use thier brains a little.
i swear they shoot first (no pun intended) and ask questions later. little things like "what kind of future implications might this bill have" aren't even considered.
what's it gonna take to get someone with half a brain in office?
If you actually read the bill...
here
at first, it doesn't seem that bad. "Violent" is described (para 2) as specifically heinous, depraved, or cruel. In other words, police shooters and military combat games aren't affected. And the bill specifically states (para 5) that parents are allowed to buy or rent violent games for their kids. In other words, if a parent thinks its OK a kid can still play a targeted game.
So in reality, is this bill that bad? Yes, I know its "parenting by legislation" but from a certain point of view this is no different than not allowing underage kids to buy alcohol. The question, of course, is whether alcohol is better/worse than playing a violent game.
My personal concern is that if the bill is passed it becomes some sort of "slippery slope" for other legislation. The bill states that playing violent games mentally affects and even damages kids but no scientific evidence is cited. So a bill could be written that says playing soccer is bad without any scientific evidence and it could become illegal.
"You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
The way the American government is fighting violence in games and movies makes it seem like there's nothing else wrong in the world. "Oh, we've already solved the problem of real life violence and crime. Now all we need to do is put a stop to all this make-believe violence, and we've achieved Utopia." You'd think time and money would be better spent on more important things, like curing cancer, or feeding the homeless or something.
First, developers are not going to feel obligated to make game to people of all ages only to avoid their game being pushed into a back room somewhere. Financially having good shelf space or location in arcades is important.
Secondly developers will avoid this content because of the legal reproductions that are possible. When the game ships it could be seen as good enough for all audiences but later in court the jury could decide otherwise. This creates a system that is subjective and open to change depending on who is deciding weather the game is only for adults or not.
Third, (this one is a little bit tin foil hat) this will allow for censorship on reasons other then violence and nudity. Because of the statement below statement this will allow games to be removed because of ideals or mentalities. For example say there is currently a war going on and a video game comes out with a strong anti government theme. Perhaps you are organizing protests against the country and using underhanded political tactics to undermine the government in order to evoke a revolt (like in the game "Republic: The Revolution"). Because the government is currently active in a controversial situation it could be seen that this game is instilling anarchy in our youth and should not be sold.
I'm sure many people would say that point C would ensure that that wouldn't be a problem but it's not hard to say something doesn't have a "scientific value" literary, artistically, or politically when the ideals given are controversial.
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
Johnson had a War on Poverty, Reagan a War on Drugs, Bush a War on Terror.
What's next? America's War on Violence.
Now there's a post worth some mod points. Returning open box software to best buy under the pretense that it was purchased by a minor. Thanks!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Florida gets whacked by a hurricane a few days ago and this is what's top of mind to fix? Please.
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
If this is the same as the California bill in its definition of "violent", it is a good bill. Not all games that involve shooting or killing are necessarily "violent", since this bill's definition of violence involves torture/mental anguish or force beyond what is necessary to kill the enemy. Most fighting games wouldn't then be considered too violent: every strike decreases the opponent's HP (which has a minimum of 0) and does nothing else to them. There's not much gore, and there's nothing that mentally harms the player.
Similarly, Halo single-player has only one part IIRC that would be considered violent: the soldiers sometimes shoot corpses if you're not moving and there are no enemies nearby. Multiplayer isn't that regulable, but it's supposed to be non-"violent": the only infringing aspect would be teabagging, etc.
I can't say anythinng for games such as GTA, because I've never played it, but unless it involves really bothering/torturing people instead of merely shooting it, it probably won't be considered violent.
So this is a good bill. It doesn't affect most games rated M for pure violence.
With the advent of live CDs
You say that as if it self-booting game disks were something new.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
What's next? America's War on Violence.
Isn't that what we've been hearing for years though anyway? It seems like the government in particular, and to an extent, the greater U.S. culture is progressively getting more focused on violence. Which is troublesome, especially since youth violence is decreasing.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
"fuck."
ResidntGeek
I can't say I can beyond a shadow of a doubt. But the question I have is, is this law for AO games? Or M games as well? Or does it define a new standard?
It totally disregards the ESRB ratings and defines it by content, which could include content found in T or E-rated games. It would apply to any boxing game as that sport meets the criteria "maiming", "depraved", "serious physical abuse", and "torture" as it defines them. Wrestling games could also qualify.
Though peppered with the criteria "killing", this bill has interpretations that allow the prosecution over a game that has no death in it at all. Particuarly note how a single "or" defeats a three-prong "and" test.
IANAL
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Arnold Schwarzenegger was in some of the most violent movies... god knows how many kids watched those when they were underage. now hes trying to stop kids from playing violent games? how about making them stop watching those more graphical and violent movies he produced?
Next up? A ban on all small plastic army men, water-guns, and action figures...