Slashdot Mirror
Games Are Porn in Utah
GameDailyBiz reports that there is new anti-videogame legislation brewing in both Iowa and Utah. Utah's law is more poorly thought out than most, essentially classifying violent games as porn. From the article: "Meanwhile in Utah, State Rep. David Hogue (R-Riverton) is taking a different approach. Hogue's HB 0257 would seek to amend an existing Utah statute by adding an 'inappropriate violence' clause--such as violence exhibited in some of today's popular video games. Under the existing Utah statute the distribution or showing of pornography and explicit nudity to minors is a felony. Hogue is certainly not the first politician to compare violent video games to pornography. CA Assemblyman Leland Yee and countless others have put playing violent games in the same category as porn or smoking cigarettes."
I have yet to hear (from friends, in the press, whatever) from any parent who claimed that he was unable to stop his child from playing these kinds of games and therefore needed a law like this one. These politicians talk about how children are playing inappropriate games, so you would think that they could fine one parent who needs this law. Has there ever been a case of a politicians proposing a law for parents without having a parent vouch for it? Where are these parents supporting these laws???? I want to hear from them!
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
So he is saying that immorality, by his definition, is okay as long as you have the money?
As correct as you are, if enough parents compalin about violence in games then we will see more laws like this one.
Simple math really.
This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
Catahoula!
Do you have any idea how much violence there is in the Bible? I don't think even GTA showed genocide of entire races, a la the Midianites. Sure, it's a quite a stretch to ban the Bible (well, that and a violation of the first ammendment), but is it any more of a stretch than to ban a video game? What, just because one has thousands of years of entrenchment it should be given a pass?
I don't think it's right for the government to draw that line, in either case. Besides, aren't there a lot more important issues to deal with?
The video game industry was given awards for their rating system by concerned parent groups and the government. The real problem is that there's a disconnect with parents. To them, "videogames" are like "comics" and "cartoons" - they're for kids. So anything that's a videogame MUST be suitable for little Johnny and there's no need to check any sort of ratings system. So even though a game called "Grand Theft Auto" has a big M - MATURE: VIOLENCE, SEX, REALISTIC BLOOD AND GORE on the cover, it still must be OK for their kid.
The other problem is that the retailers don't take the ratings as seriously as the movie theater operators do, and frequently sell kids games that aren't meant for them. However, this isn't as big a problem as the other one; it turns out that 84% of games that kids get are bought for them by parents.
I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
This is just a continuation of the let's ban/restrict "violent" video games political bandwagon. Once these laws have been proposed and struck down in all 50 states and D.C., then things should cool off. Even the stupidest politician must know by now that they can score points with this without the threat that any of these laws will withstand constitutional muster. It's a great way to get yourself in the news on the right side of what is "decent and pure".
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I can't believe how many people (the politicians/ law figures in particular) are still storming over this issue. And what's worse is the solutions they come up with to fix this alleged problem. Out of all the violence that occurs on our planet, the make-believe and at times imaginative forms is the biggest concern? Please, why not spend the energy alleviating the ACTUAL violence that consumes many people's lives, and which hardly even stems from fictional violence...
> Utah's law is more poorly thought out than most, essentially classifying violent games as porn.
Well waitaminute...
Why does porn need to be censored again?
If Utah suddenly stopped censoring everything it currently considers "porn" and started censoring games, will the state have improved or degraded itself in terms of moral standards?
I think maybe when we talk about censorship of games, we might as well open up the notion of censorship in general: when is it it wrong, when (if ever) is it right, and what objective standards can we use to decide whether to toss a communication into one bin or the other?
'Cause, to me, it wouldn't matter if games were classified as "porn", so long as porn is freely available to all.
Thus, while I wouldn't want violent VGs marked as porn, we do want/need some sort of effective rating system.
We do have such a rating system. Hell, I'm 33, huge with a bushy beard and a register monkey at Target tried to card me when buying an M-rated game - probably because he thought it was funny, but the important thing is that the register stopped him and reminded him that the game had a "not for little kids" rating.
These videogame laws are attempting to criminalize something which I don't think should be criminal. In fact, in the case of Utah the result of their law (if it held up, which it won't) would be to make it a felony for a parent to let their minor child play GTA3 or Medal of Honor. The article doesn't contain the actual text of the amendment, but if it's as vague as they say an adult could go to jail for showing Serenity to a 17-year-old, let alone giving them a copy of Call of Duty. The Iowa law is hardly better since someone would have to determine on a case-by-case basis which games would cause a violation and the "offender" would still end up with a friggin' criminal record.
These legislators are just trying to get publicity. I doubt they truly give a rat's ass about videogame content or they would recognize that the ESRB sets some good guidelines and at least reference those standards when constructing their patently unconstitutional laws...
The Bible is a textual, documentary description of events.
Video games are a visual, interactive and immersive medium where the player generally takes part in the virtual violent conduct.
There is a clear difference, like the difference between saying that Anne and Bob had sex and showing a video of it.
Although I disagree with these laws, it's correlation, not causation. A person with violent tenencies may be drawn to violent video games, but a person without violent tendencies will not develop them by playing violent video games.
Wouldn't this make it illegal to show "the Passion" to a minor?
Somehow, though, I think a more ideal situation would be where you no longer have to worry once they get older and you lose direct control.
And no, I don't mean external controlling forces.
What I mean is that children are probably better off it raised such that "bad external influences" don't have "negative effects" on them. The last think you want is anyone to grow up too sheltered, because then they may lose all control once they enter the real world.
This sort of reminds me of the environment that I grew up within...
I basically started school in a relatively sheltered private school environment. The school ran from K-8, but people typically left for public schools in the 6-8 range. (I was there all the way from 1-8)
In any case, almost everyone there was from a upper-middle-class family (not everyone but most of 'em). No idea of anyone's true home environment, but chances are that they weren't that dissimilar.
Once entering into unsheltered public school, however, it seemed like there were a very high percentage that got "screwed up". (I turned out ok, as well as most of my class, but it seemed like many ahead of me, behind me, and even those in my younger sister's class fell into this trap.) Frankly, I'm glad for my experiences in a "normal" public high school. It didn't screw me up, and gave me exposure to more kinds of people.
Then again, I may have still been isolated from the "negative" influences even in public high school, due to a number of factors:
1) I only took "honors" or "gifted" classes when possible. (often the difference, especially with honors classes, seemed more like "decent vs. trash" than "smart vs. dumb", though I think the gifted classes were 40% druggie)
2) I was never really sociable (like the rest of you), which isolated me from the "popular kids".
3) I had a conservative enough upbringing that I always thought negatively of those "bad behaviors" such that I was never really even at risk on the few occasions where I might have been exposed.
I vote. I hung out and watched who went to the local poll I voted at. 30+ voters. A lot of white haired voters.
If you want the politicians to behave themselves, then you need to use that stick called voting to put them in their place.
I have five friends who moan and complain and did they vote? Nope. They went on about this "I didn't vote as a jab at the system."
Well guess what - if you don't vote that means the morons have fewer people to attract to gain power over YOU. THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO VOTE.
Go vote for a green or a third party if you don't like someone - at least they will recognize that they have people actively working against them. It is a lot harder for someone to say they have a mandate with 53% of the vote than someone with 70% of the vote could say.