Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Senate OKs Violent-Games Bill
CNet is reporting that the Oklahoma Senate unanimously approved a new violent-games bill on Monday that makes it a crime to sell violent video games to children under 18. From the article: "The bill passed 47-0 in the state Senate, but is being held on a motion to reconsider the vote within three legislative days before being sent back to the House to vote on Senate amendments."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I found some of the definitions extremely amusing. Selected quotes:hahaha - turgid (sounds like its written by a 14 y.o - why don't they just say 'erect'). Also we have:Thanks guys - I would never have guessed! - here's a scarier one:wtf? Does this mean you can't have two guys holding hands in a game? *shakes head*
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Make Your Point, a political internet radio show, had a show about this kind of thing a couple of weeks ago. You can find it here, the show was on 4-13. Interviewed was the head of the Video Game Voters Network, parodied on penny arcade here.
that after the similar Michigan law was drop-kicked by a Federal judge that the Okies wouldn't even try. I guess there's always that sound-bite they have to go for...
You know... "We're doing this for the children!"
What a load of bollocks.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
This type of thing really pisses me off. Are they going to ban violent sports games like football, boxing and hockey? There is a lot of hitting in those games. Are they going to ban sales of violent rated "T" games? This is just another example of legislators usurping parents' roles. It will be struck down, they're doing it all for show.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Seriously, this isn't a big deal. If the kid wants it that bad, they just need to get older. It happens to all of us. Either that or convince someone to buy it for you. The bill makes it illegal to sell to someone under 18 but not give it to them. Even Penny-Arcade agrees.
I recommend that people interested in the effects of violents in the media should this book/site. The guy makes some very interesting points, one of them being that the effects of being desensitized don't surface until someone is actually confronted with a violent situation.
Was it not a crime already? Here in the UK the same rating system for movies is applied to certain video games, thus a game rated 18 cannot be sold to anyone under this age. Supplying GTA to a minor can land the shop keeper in a lot of trouble.
Does the US rating system differ?
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Could we please let the parents determine if something is or isn't "too violent?" Honestly, how are the kids going to buy the game unless the parents give them money?
Making it a crime to sell such games is pointless if one can simply supply a child with them. Say, for example, on the 25th of December after weeks of begging.
The problem isn't some immoral shopkeep hawking his wares to unsuspecting kiddies whilst twirling his moustache, but the permissive parents at home who mostly don't give a damn if their child is virtually running around with a virtual gun shooting virtual people with virtually aroused sexual organs.
Robbers, thieves, murderers, assaulters, drunkards, slanderers, rapists, pedophiles, embezzlers, illegal drug makers/dealers/users, illegal aliens, kidnappers and all the rest of humanity's evil doers get to continue their nefarious acts while you and I and every lawful, polite, peaceful citizen get to pay for it.
What a mess. Is this all humanity can aspire to? I sure hope not.
Where's my nano-factory and space ship. I want off this rock. The meek shall inherit the earth, but hopefully just after I've left it for the stars.
(3) the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors, or
I'd say video games hold serious artistic value these days.
Slashdoters will probably poo-poo this, but I think it's a good thing.
To me it's obvious that there is some content that is not appropriate for minors, that's why we have ratings on movies PG-13 and R -- video games are no different.
boxlight
It's as if these legislators don't pay any attention to what happens in other states.
This has been tried before--the courts have ALWAYS struck it down as a first ammendment violation. What makes each state think that they can get away with it?
I don't have much of a problem with not selling "violence" to children under 18. Matter-of-fact, whatever is marked "violence" will make the demand grow larger for that game to the youth.
:)
My problem is the male-slanted characters, that have gone to literally being able to adjust the "bounce" and size of the breast of women, and pits them in scantily clad outfits to feed the male appetite. Is the definition of nudity just showing an erection and showing nipples?
All that being said, the last games I have bought were Black and the last GTA. Like my movies, I really only like to watch rated R given the choice. So I don't shop at Walmart
I guess this is the kind of bill that comes out when our elected officials are completely bereft of the intelligence and courage needed to do the hard things that really need to be done. This kind of law has been invalidated in state after state, so this is just stupid and a waste at this point. Indeed, this is no longer news at all.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Kids find ways of getting their hands on all sorts of things whose sale to minors is prohibited. Who here was even close to 18 years old when they first saw a set of boobies a raunchy magazine that your friend got from his older cousin? Or had a friend's cool mom buy you smokes? Or knew someone over 21 that bought you booze? Smokes, pr0n, and later on, booze. We had all these, no one gave a shit, and if they did, you hid it from them, simple as that.
Check out the cave on the east side of lake Hylia. Strange and wonderful things live in it.
I mean, yes, it will be hard to enforce and probably won't stop minors from playing or viewing violent games, but at least the law is there to protect minors, and for people that grossly neglect this law, there will be penalties.
I mean, making it illegal to sell cigarettes or liquor doesn't stop underage teenagers from getting drunk or smoking. But when stores blatantly overlook this law then they will be penalize, either revoking their license to sell these items, or forcing the store to close.
Stores like Wall-Mart will ensure this law is enforced. Everyone is talking about how Wall-Mart influences retail sales and game development, so I am sure this is another way that game companies will ensure their games are not overly-violent or inappropriate for minors.
Sorry, I don't believe we need more games filled with whore bashing and cop killing. This is a fad I am very happy to see waining, and I applaud any state or country or franchise that attempts to curb the proliferation of this kind of crap. Games can be fun and exciting without being derogatory, racists, sexist, or promoting behaviour that many minors in fact mimicking in real life.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old. Nobody over the age of majority should have to worry or complain about this bill. If you feel you need games of senseless violence to make your life complete, you will still be able to buy those games at will, it isn't affecting you, so why complain about it?
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
I wonder what they will do about all the kids playing Doom online?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
I read in New Scientist a long time ago an article about violent video games and whether or not they actually affect children, and they seemed to suggest that it really doesn't affect them at all. Here's the article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622425.000 .html, although I'm afraid you can't read much of it unless you're a subscriber.
GTA: San Andreas has an R18 rating here. Fair enough, its an adults game, not a kids game.
Why are the publishers against this law? I would have thought it would have given them some protection: When some idiot kid shoots someone, and hoards of drooling ambulance-chasing lawyers start scream "GTA trained them to be killers! Rockstar are responsible!! they must PAY!!!" Then the publisher can turn around and say what were they doing playing the game in the first place?
I played SA right though, and loved it, but I certainly wouldn't want my kids playing it, and I'm not too comfortable with someone elses kids playing it either.
It seems perfectly straightfoward to me.
The problem isn't in saying "Okay, these games are violent, we shouldn't be selling 'Game-Name-Here'".
The problem is that what THESE guys define as violent and in bad taste could range from anything from overly pokey nipples to firing off guns of any type (And when you can include Ratchet and Clank or Final Fantasy VII on a list of banned games with enough legalese...)
By that token should we infer that the effects of playing Frogger will not surface until the player attempts to cross the street?
the summary says "that makes it a crime to sell violent video games to children under 18"
I wasn't aware that there were any children in the US over 18.
You can suck my balls. How's that for homo-sex? YOu lose!
GOOD DAY, SIR!
Nothing wrong with this Bill. There is enough violence on CNN anyway for kids to be exposed to.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
From the text of the bill:
"Harmful to minors" means:
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Great, now not only will I have to deal with theese little hoodlems when I go to the quickie-mart, I'll have to watch out for them when I go to Bestbuy too.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
This is exactly the sort of post I was saving my mod point for...then they expired last night. Hopefully someone else will have some to share.
Violent games fund terrorism and child pornography, don't they.
As an Okie, I'm glad that the bill is passing to protect the kids. Although, I thought blocking what kids see is the parents duty, but I guess parents are doing a pretty crappy job of that lately.
But I don't think this will work like they planned. They're trying to set a solid rule, as if the world still operated like that. Its like the "Porn" rule I mentioned in a previous thread, about how Oklahoma doesn't allow their citizens to purchase magazines or videos with full view of P&E. But, a short drive to Texas or a quick Google search will get around that law.
To add to that, a parent can also be persuaded to buy their teenager a violent game for them and then bring it home. Who is going to prove it was for the child? Who is going to prove they didn't have the game before the law went into place?
"Don't you hate it when 'The Solution', 'THE SOLUUUTSHION', has nothing to do with the problem."
The problem with kids today is not advertisements, pornography, drinking, or smoking pot. The problem with kids today is that they act out irresponsibly. The reason for this is that the PARENTS are irresponsible. That's right, the parents. If the parents are doing their job, the the kids will behave reasonably. They will at least PRETEND to study in school, and stay out of trouble. If THE PARENTS don't have the wherewithal to keep THEIR KIDS from doing "bad" stuff, well - you figure that one out.
If you want to make the job harder for THE PARENTS, make the thing that contributes to bad behavior "ILLEGAL." Because, we all know that something that is illegal for a stupid reason is, um what's that word - oh yeah, GLAMOROUS.
Let's take drinking for an example: In Europe, teenagers drinking is not a problem. Let me repeat: TEENAGERS DRINKING IS NOT A PROBLEM. Yes, teenagers in Europe (At least in: Great Britan, Germany, France; Italy) drink. It's true: BUT THEY DO IT IN MODERATION, mostly. IN EUROPE, it's not illegal for teenagers to drink IN MODERATION. What happens is that when teenagers start bugging their parents about drinking, they are allowed to drink (wine, beer, or other soft stuff) at the DINNER TABLE. That's right, IN EUROPE, kids learn about drinking booze from their PARENTS. AT HOME!
In America, IN AMERICA, for the most part kids learn binge drinking from their buddies. What is the difference here? Come on, say it with me... IT'S THE PARENTS STUPID. What do we learn from this? If you want your kids to drink in moderation, YOU need to teach them to drink responsibly. If you want your kids to go on giant benders, let em learn from their friends.
Now, if you want to see more games with whore bashing, general crime, and cop killing: Rely on some law making it illegal for kids to play to do the PARENTS job. You are too much of an irresponsible lazy f*ck to know that they have a copy stashed with the porn anyhow.
Disclaimer: I am a parent, and old enough to know better than to argue with some brainless idiot anyhow. Don't even get me started on the financial arguements about making pot illegal.
(And when you can include Ratchet and Clank or Final Fantasy VII on a list of banned games with enough legalese...)
Let's not get too extreme. These games won't be banned, but instead, be illegal to sell to a minor. Which, if you think about it, isn't so bad. The parent really should be making up their minds what kind of games they want their kids playing. So the parent can still buy their kid Ratchet and Clank, and the kid can still play it.
"HB2122 passed and was signed by the Governor. This new law allows Permit/License holders to carry onto private parking lots their concealed firearm and store it in their locked vehicle. The Bill States, "No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be permitted to establish any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for any vehicle." The law becomes effective 11/1/04." - in fairness, it must be mentioned that this law was set aside (forgive the nonlegalese, IANAL) by a Federal judge, and also the minimum age for possessing a firearm is 21.
But you have to wonder at the logic of a legislature that needs to "protect" kids from videogame violence up until 18, and then at 21 lets them buy REAL guns, carry them around concealed, leave them in their cars (oooh! The car has to be LOCKED - that'll stop a car thief), and so forth. Note this is not an anti-gun post - it is only an anti-hypocrasy post. Don't promote the carrage and use of weapons of deadly force on one hand and then act holier-then-thou and say we're "protecting the children" by not letting them see video-game violence on their own (on the TV it's fine, evidently).
Why are people so afraid of stopping sales of violent video games for kids under 18? It is like those who complain about it are under 18 years old.
I'd say you are the one who needs to "grow up."
Homosexuality isn't a form of sexual conduct. It's a sexual preference. Anal sex is sexual conduct. Oral sex is sexual conduct. A Dirty Sanchez is sexual (mis)conduct.
Homosexuality is no more a form of sexual conduct than heterosexuality is, the latter of which appears to be missing.
That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please.
...around here, video games carry a stigma with them. I'm a resident of Oklahoma and for the most part video games have this negative aura around them. My in-laws all use the word "video game" and "computer" in a negative fashion, and they are pretty typical Okies.
So, if this came up as a vote for the Oklahoma people to decide... well, I'm sure it would pass by an overwhelming majority, a majority who wouldn't have even bothered to read the law. They would see "no violent video games" and check "Yes!"
Did Tipper Gore move to Oklahoma?!
Does this mean you can't have two guys holding hands in a game? *shakes head*
." More at 11."
Tomorrows news:
"Ohio makes it illegal to sell Kingdom Hearts II to Minors. Lawmakers point out that the male characters "totally hold hands, and that creeps us out" though they are quick to add that this "doesn't make us homophobic or anything. We just, y'know, yeah. .
...instead, it's the parents' job to make sure their kids don't play violent video games. Just as it's their job to make sure their children don't buy cigarettes, booze, crack, etc. We need to stop these opressive laws which are preventing our children from buying whatever they want to with their allowance behind their parents' backs and instead make sure that a sixteen year old child is under constant supervision not by big brother, but by big parent.
I think the only people who get mad at this sort of legislation are the people who are buying games their parents do not approve of behind their backs. I know, I used to be one of them.
Since when did it become a crime to become a man? I remember when I was younger running around with cap guns, bb guns, bow & arrows, etc. ... Video games are the modern day equivalent ... I haven't blown anybody's head off yet!
Last time I picked up a game a mother in fron of me was there with her two sons who looked to be about 15 and 12. They wanted a M rated game, the clerk pointed out to her that it was a M rated game and all she gave him was a completely blank look... no comprehension whatsoever of what it meant. Needless to say the kids got the game and I'm sure this mother never even watched them play it a little. Parents need to be involved with their children's hobbies, not just toss some cash at them to shut them up.
Frankly I hope more of this sort of thing happens, so that videogame companies will be forced to start marketing games for MATURE AUDIENCES, not just a demographic aimed at 13 year olds with extra language violence or sex thrown in to get more sales. I mean so, so many games have the plotline and writing equivalent of a Saturday morning cartoon, but simply have enough gore thrown in to make it mature.
How in the world is homosexuality immoral?
Unfortunately, you have no clue about what a democracy is. Here's a hint: Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority.
Accepting homosexuality as something normal is not the minority dictating the majority, it's simply the majority showing a bit of respect for the minorty.
I worked at a Choices (a video/game rental store in the UK) while at uni. They made it very clear that the BBFC ratings on films and games were very much a legal requirement, and individual employees could be fined £1000 (by the courts, not Choices) for ignoring them. As my store's manager pointed out, they would _love_ to supply 15 & 18 rated items to minors if they could as their sales would likely triple.
We have relations in Oklahoma. Decent folks, live and work on their family farm... and as susceptible to idiocy like this demagogue's "anti-violence" bill as anyone could be.
This is the state that elected Tom Coburn "Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom" as a senator. It's a fricking demonstration case for Dick Nixon's "Southern Strategy" social issues being used to scare and dupe people.
In these folks' minds, promoting "anti-violence" legislation that addresses sexuality as if it's "violent" and preventing churches from controlling who brings concealed weapons to Sunday service are not fundamentally incompatible actions. We're talking my relatives -- whose response to my idea of putting numbers (10 cents, 25 cents) on our coinage was that it smacked of world government.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
It's not based on the ESRB rating system, nor does it create its own similar system. It's based on "contemporary community standards" as understood by the "average person over 18 years of age". This means that the stores CAN NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN which games are illegal to sell to a minor.
This is a STUPID law.
Is this just me, or is this legislation absolutely redundant and unnecessary?
:P
It is not going to change a damn thing either, because 90% of time these games are bought by parents/guardians of with their explicit permission.
If little billy gets carded in the video store, he will come the next day with his older brother, or his Dad and get the game anyway.
Eh, legislation for sake of legislating. This is nothing else but some blatant political maneuvering. Because "protecting children" looks good on the record
I'm teminally incoherent
SO in other words, folks in OK get more rights after age 21 than before 18. Wow! What a concept.
Our games aren't even required by law to be rated at all - as far as I know, the ESRB rating system was created voluntarily by the industry in response to political pressure. Some places probably won't sell adult rated games to minors, but violence is pretty much never enough reason to rate games at the highest level here (AO - Adult Only).
None of this matters, however - the bill as written never mentions the ESRB rating system at all. They are not using that as a standard for determining whether the content is appropriate for minors - they wrote their own (extremely vague) standards instead.
is that it's still not illegal to sell rated "R" movies to people under 18.
Maybe not, but around here, it is illegal to sell cigarettes, alcohol, guns, fireworks, or porn to people under 18. So this is not completely without precedent.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Please read the bill and tell me how the store owner determines which games he should or should not sell to a minor. Do we assume he has played ALL of them and knows which ones contain too much violence? Should he hold a meeting with the community in order to determine their contemporary standard?
You have a distorted world view.
I live in the UK - teen drinking (actually a cocktail of drink and drugs depending on area) is a huge problem, you can't go out at night without bumping into teens drunk out of their minds, hanging around local shops harassing people for no reason. Sometimes they beat them up instead of just harassing, guy across the office from me was smashed in the head with a glass bottle after asking some to not ride their (probably stolen) motorbike up and down the footpath. They only seem to stop when one of them gets pregnant, while still in school. Go to any post office in the UK on benefits day - it's quite an eye opener, nothing but very young and even underaged mothers, who will bring the kids up to be just like them, or worse.
and ask yourself if you really want people from Oklahoma being exposed to anything violent, sexual or otherwise part of this or the last centuries culture.
it's just too much for them
let toss a blanky over the state and let them nap a bit longer
So a seller will face legal penalties if they sell Mature (Teen?) rated video game to a minor? I fail to see how this is a big deal. If this makes Wal-Mart check IDs for these games, so be it. You can't get into many movies, clubs, vote, buy weapons, etc. if you are under age. Now an argument can certainly be made on what is considered violent, or even harmful for that matter. I would absolutely agree with this as another intrusion by government into things that should be squarely in the domain of responsible parenting.
The GP poster also implied that the law allowing those with proper gun permits to actually carry their weapons somehow promotes the use of guns. In that case the friggin US Constitution "promotes the use of guns" by making it a right for all citizens to bear arms. So laws that help clarify and regulate that right are somehow promoting gun use? Technically such laws are inhibiting that right by putting more restrictions on it. Mod down GP post, they were close, but no cigar.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Here we go again with the "games are concentrated evil" type mentality. And yet again Hollywood with its far worse movies gets ignored.
Please, I grew up with violent video games from back when they didn't mind selling a M rated game to a kid. I have never even been in a fight that I didn't start, and you can bet I don't go around shooting people. It never occurs to people that violent games actually can even have the opposite effect as they allow you to vent anger on a nonexistant game character rather than on the people who annoy you to no end in real life. (Not to mention just plain relieving stress.) Actually, when you think about it, just what defines a "violent" game anyway? I mean, Mario ran around smashing and burning things. Yet, I'm willing to bet they consider it non-violent while a game like Mortal Kombat with all the blood gets called violent. Thing is, where does it end? What's to stop them from defining anything with violence as violent and basically not allowing sales of 99% of the games out there to minors? I'm not a minor, but, I also don't want to see the videogame industry suddenly take a nosedive because it lost half of it's consumers due to stupid "protect the children from reality" mentalities.
For some reason sex has always been seen as worse than violence by the authorities. It strikes me as a bizarre double standard. You could always show someone being murdered in TV and movies but show a woman's breast and it had better be attached to a tribes-woman cooking dinner in a National Geographic special. I don't recall the FCC ever freaking out over a bloody scene on TV but they sure did when Janet Jackson flashed a boob. I guess your kids are better off seeing people killing, without seeing the consequences of course, than having them see genitals, which they see every time they take a bath anyway. If I had to choose I'd rather they see "turgitity" or breasts than see some guy getting beaten senseless on "Cops". I'm not advocating showing explicit sex of course.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
The problem with all of this pontificating about supposed "desensitizing" effects of violence in games and other media is that violent crime has been dropping steadily as both games and movies have become more violent and more realistic. And it has been dropping most sharply in the demographic group--young males--that are the most avid consumers of such legislation.
So any possible pro-violence effect of such entertainments must necessarily be negligible in comparison to other social and demographic factors that influence violent behavior.
This is likely to be a problem when it comes to justifying the law in court. After all, this is necessarily going to harm the business of game dealers, if only because it introduces red tape--people must bring ID or parents to the store to purchase a game. The courts are likely to demand evidence that such games really are harmful--evidence that simply does not exist.
Well?
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Say you've moved into Tuttle from somewhere else (I know, I know...but accept it for argument's sake for a moment...) and you're selling off some of your old videogame titles. They're rated "T" and you're selling to a minor, so it's okay. Problem is, the game falls under the definitions of a violent game, and the Police Chief doesn't like you- he arrests you for violating the law, where it'd probably never get enforced that way in, nearby Moore or Norman.
It's a stupid, poorly written, and dangerous law. It's just a bunch of legislators grandstanding for votes when they should be removed and replaced (They did say they'd uphold the State and US Constitution in their oaths of office- they're in violation of their oath for having voted for this...). Parents should be protecting the kids, not the government- the only time they should step in is when the parents are derilict in that responsibility and this isn't one of those times.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please."
Where does it say that? I didn't read that, so you apparently made it up.
Second, you've made the assumption that one would be able to identify a "homosexual character" somehow. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly would you be able to do that?
There's no prejudice here, just a rampant need to find some to bitch about.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Fair enough, I've only personally dealt with the US, Germany, and Italy. And in Germany, I was prob. hanging out with the wrong crowd.
By around here you must mean in your personal circle. I also live in Oklahoma and there is no stigma surrounding video games. This bill is basically a result of our legislature doing what it pleases, with very poor press coverage of the event in the state and the average American political apathy. This is really more of a generational and religious issue. If this law were a referendum it is true that it surely would pass here, but similar bills would pass in many states if put to a vote.
And hypocracy aside this is really no big deal in principal. So you can't sell sexually explicit or overtly violent content to kids. So what? Sure the details might be laughable but so are most bills if you take time to read them. All I have to say to the underagers is go get someone to buy it for you like you do your beer and cigarettes. *shrugs*
The inclusion of prohibitions on sexual depictions in a bill banning violent video games really makes you wonder what kind of freaky sex these politicians are into that they can't distinguish between sex and violence.
Next question, please. Maybe this time you can come up with something that actually adds to the discussion. Good luck.
I'd rate you up if I could. Funniest comment today :-D
When will Oklahoma be passing the law making it a crime for ignorant parents to let their children (under the age of 18, of course) play these violent games?
They were more precise for showing : So showing a nude female breast (even if it belongs to a non-female person) is outlawed. Unless it has no nipple
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
The members of the community this is affecting need to call or write their legislative critters and politely request the following:
* There is no reason that violent games should be singled out. Violent books, movies, tv shows, plays, and actions should also be outlawed for access to children.
* Then, list out specific examples of violent items you think should be limited. Cartoons, chess, checkers, Parcheesi, football, basketball, rough playing by other children, and temper tantrums. Be sure to make an exhaustive list of everything that might potentially be considered violent and/or entertainment. If you can, sneak in "state congressional meetings" to the list.
The more of these that can be added to the law, the bigger the article in the newspapers that will result about the stupidity of the lawmakers in the area, and the more likely that:
a) the law will be immediately struck down or simply fail on the amendments, and
b) the morons responsible for passing it will be ejected in the next election.
If the law eventually passes anyway, get together with your local retailers and have them grab a single copy of every single game, every single movie, and every single book they sell, and drive the truck up to the capitol steps. Ask them in person if they could just go ahead and suss out which ones can and can't be sold to children, and then every time they pick one that's "OK for the kids", list out specific instances of violence present in the media. Be sure to act like they're the devil for suggesting that children be allowed to view such filth. The more ridiculous, the better.
Oh, and invite the press. They love showboating like this. The more embarassment you can heap on the lawmakers, the better.
Enjoy!
That green slime had it coming.
You talk a lot about Europe, but in my humble party experiences... the Europeans are just as happy to get trashed, thrashed and hammered as any American.
And that is in addition to their 'normal' drinking habits.
I really wonder where the "Europe is teh bett3r" meme got started. Just cause the under-21 crowd over there can drink in public doesn't mean they don't throw wild parties and wake up hungover beyond all belief.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This is rediculous. Kids share games just like they share music. The parents that say they need this will still not pay much attention to what their kids are playing let alone doing online. Kids don't need to ask their parents permission to get a game any more than they need theor permission to get mp3's of any given band. They will go ahead and download whatever they want. Parents are the only ones that can control what their kids do at home on their own PC's. Government can't do much. Parents need to take their jobs as parents seriously and not try to push the job off on to local or federal gov.
My guess 52. One for each state, one for DC, and one for the Feds.
OK Senate Ok's ok games bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
This has been hashed out for years. I'm surprised someone who is so concerned about the first amendment doesn't know about it.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...
Unfortunately, you have no clue about what a democracy is. Here's a hint: Democracy does not mean dictatorship of the majority
Actually, a straight-up pure democracy is just that.
That's why we live in a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy (or constitutional democratic republic if you want to get technical). The democratic part means "majority rule". The constitutional part means "minority rights". Without such constitutional protection, the minority's differences are suffered only at the pleasure of the majority.
Then again, since a constitution only has any real effect when it's supported and enforced by a majority of the populace (which also means keeping a few individuals in purportedly official positions from violating it), a constitution doesn't seem to be much more than a nice sentiment of how things ought to be.
Which seems to be the real source of all social and political failure: no matter what your ostensible form of government, things only work out well when a sufficient bulk of the populace are decent, respectful folk, AND have the balls to keep those who aren't so respectful from trampling all over everyone. Maybe certain documents are capable of inspiring people to be more respectful, either sentimentally or by convincing them that to do so is in their interest, but in the end it's really all a matter of public opinion. Even a utopian form of government, if nobody supports it, isn't going to make a lick of difference in the world.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Now that we've come out and said it, it's time to act. We at the eXile are here to solve problems. Middle America is the problem, and the eXile has the solution. It's a little extreme, and you folks will have to briefly suspend your little liberal-humanist consciences in order to get on board with us, but we think it's the only solution that'll work.
Gas them. Gas every red state that voted for Bush. Gas them all, and gas them now. And if that sounds a little too 1940s for you, then fine, nuke the fuckers. Nukes have come a long way since 1945, so much so that they're not even 1940s anymore. It's just that gassing them sounds so much more appropriate.
The awful reality is that George W. Bush won by 4 million votes. No, the awful reality is that he got any votes at all -- but he did. It doesn't matter if Bush stole 10,000 votes in this shitty Ohio county and 4,000 votes in that incest-ridden Deliverance county there -- he won the popular vote. He won a mandate. He won -- get it? Bush won! They voted for him, the stupid fucking suckers, after he gave them four years of the most shocking warp-speed national decline since Franz Josef abdicated. There is nothing normal or sane about what these Americans did. There is no way to spin that. It's just nauseating, sphincter-twisting, horrifyingly stupid and evil. So the coastal elite -- and we are an elite, thank god (what moron wouldn't want to be part of the elite? "Hey, I'm not elite, I'm akshully jus' a fuckin' stupid piece of shit chump who gits used by the elite, 'n by gum that's how's I likes it!") -- and the Democrats and everyone with a brain should stop flogging themselves or falsely localizing blame on a clique of evil Republican operatives who manipulated Middle America, and put the blame where the blame lies -- on the 59,000,000 fucks who voted to destroy America. And don't just blame those 59,000,000 fucks, but blame their families, their friends, their dogs and cats, their furniture, and everything they ever touched, smelled, peed on, or otherwise left DNA samples in. They all have to go. Every last one of 'em. We don't like the thought of all that collateral damage that nuking or gassing Middle America would bring, but...aw shit, who are we foolin' here? We LOVE the thought of all that collateral damage, we DREAM about it! We're sorry for the 30-40 percent who voted blue in the red states -- just like we're sorry about Dresden and Hamburg, and lose sleep over it every night. That is to say, if you stay there, you're no longer innocent. Collateral damage in Fallujah is depressing-- but collateral damage in Alabama, a giant welfare queen state sucking from the liberal pro-Kerry states' tax dollars? A few Trident II's oughtta turn 'Bama into a Crimson Tide of Manhattan Chowder. M'm-m'm tasty!
The Left knows that this is the only way to rectify the electoral problem and save America, but cannot come to g
Who's going to do it? You're going to ask the police chief to pull officers off the streets to f*ing cite stores for selling GTA to preteens? We pass so many laws in this country and none are enforced. This will be another one of these laws, even if it does get passed it will never be properly enforced. What about the internet? Tommy can grab mom's credit card and order GTA off amazon.com and mom will be none the wiser. I'm against these bills because it's a waste of time, our country is in a state of rapid decay and we have lawmakers passing bills restricting video game sales and gay marriage. What gives? How about fixing the national debt? It's 8 trillion dollars!
" We don't need to find the weapons of mass destruction we just need to want to find them, that's the way it works!
We need to worry about getting electricity and water to these backward and underdeveloped regions before we worry about getting "safe video games" to them.
> So even if the original texts properly translate directly to fornicate, which of those three definitions do we use?
All of them. (C.F. 1 Cor)
> then Christians should condemn the influence of societal morals on the Bibles interpretation.
We do. Frequently.
With how poorly written this bill is, it could damage one of the few game companies in this state. That company is 2015 studios, which is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I encourage slashdotters and the gaming community to email the writer of the bill and provide factual proof that games do not lead to violent acts. I have a letter on my blog, http://mattluria.com/2006/04/26/letter-to-senator- coffee-author-of-the-anti-video-game-bill/
Feel free to copy and use the letter to stick it to him!
Visit http://mattluria.com/!
"Submitting a film is purely a voluntary decision made by the filmmakers. However, the overwhelming majority of the producers creating entertaining, responsible films do in fact submit their films for ratings. All five Classification and Rating Administration rating symbols have been trademarked and may not be self-applied."
Next time when we have one of these articles on Slashdot, can they include this text at the end? It would save us a lot of time.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
While I agree with you - and there are a lot of English that I've met in thier 20's that love to get hammered - I've also met a bunch where it's just not a big deal.
"Underage" drinking is a good thing since the kids probably can't drink and drive. if you can only start drinking when you are 21 (okay, no one does this, but in some wierd parallel universe) you pose more of a risk to yourself and others.
We just put in the lottery, so now the politicans can get their kickbacks from that instead of our transportation department. Man, I tell you what: there's been more road construction the past year than the ten years preceding it. It's amazing the difference that "voluntary" tax has made in our roads.
.3% growth for a score years, but there's still some decent people to be found.
We've even been doing a "study" on interstate traffic, such that there might be a tollroad along I-35 or I-40. I've even seen the weigh stations open these past couple of years, after a little 20 year hiatus from operation. In the past, the rationalization was that if you put in a tollroad, you will keep businesses out.
It's a backwards state, I'll not argue that. It's slow as hell, and the entire state congress is full of Democrat Baptists, which may very well be why it's slow as hell. We lose seats in the House every census, simply because the state has been locked at
They (we) have just got to get our priorities lined out.
How would minors being unable to purchase a game cause an increase in robbery at sea?
1. By that standard, heterosexuality is immoral. Many heterosexuals engage in premarital sex. 2. If we'd let homosexuals marry, they'd have a few more options in that area. Most homosexuals don't have the option of homosexual sexual activity within the context of marriage.
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
So - you would be in favor of ratings on books?
They've had them on comic books for about 50 years.
Look up the Comics Code Authority sometime. In the mid-1950s, comics were in the same position that video games are today: blamed for all manner of juvenile delinquency. A moral crusade was launched, congressional hearings were held, and in order to protect their business, the comic book industry put together the code. Newsstands wouldn't stock any comics without the Code seal on them, and to get that seal, the book had to be the equivalent of a PG rating. Maybe a G by today's standards.
The end result was that only G-rated comic books survived outside the underground publishing circuit. Crime and horror genres disappeared entirely. EC comics, known for titles like Tales from the Crypt and True Crime, had to drop their entire line, leaving behind only Mad Magazine (now owned by Time Warner).
Keep in mind that this all happened without actual government legislation. Just hearings and hysteria.
In the late 1970s, after some rewrites of the Comics Code, the major publishers started to experiment with non-approved books. There was a Spider-Man story that involved drug use -- portrayed negatively, of course, but just portraying it would have violated the code -- which went out without the seal and still managed to get onto the stands and into the hands of readers. By the mid-1980s, even DC started selling some comics labeled "For mature readers only," later collecting those series into the launch of the Vertigo label. The Code has been relaxed again and again, and Marvel even dropped it in the late 1990s in favor of its own rating system, which featured movie-style PG labels and a music-style "parental advisory" for their 18+ comics.
It took 30 years to for the comic book industry to start climbing out of the PG-only ghetto, end even now, 50 years later, you still find people who will challenge an obviously-not-for-kids comic book because it has material inappropriate for kids. Check out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund for more info on that fight.
Oklahoma does not allow the sale of books showing sexual penetration. Same for movies. Same for magazines. There may be some educational exceptions but pornography, in the traditional fellatio and intercourse sense, is not legal in Oklahoma. I don't think it's even technically legal to possess it - but I can't recall anyone ever being arrested for possessing porn.
... except carrying guns. :-D
It's been that way for a loooooong time. I know because I've lived here 30+ years.
And don't get me wrong. It's available. It's just not legal. So your post is incorrect. All kinds of things are banned. Well
Mod with your minds, not with your impulses.
Really, do I have to explain to you how studies and control groups work? Is this a serious question or are you just baiting me?
I received this email only hours ago. Senator Coffee asked me to relate to you that HB3004 has already passed out of the Senate and has returned to the House. This bill passed out of the house and senate unanimously.
Visit http://mattluria.com/!