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."

Comments

What do they mean by violent?

[XxtraLarGe]

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.

Not much of a solution.

[Funkcikle]

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.

Re:Not much of a solution.

[Tim C]

Speaking as a parent, I'd rather my daughter did it virtually (in moderation, of course), than in reality.

One of my earliest childhood memories is of being at school during play time, at the age of 5 or 6, running around with a bunch of other kids playing war. We divided into two teams, and ran around miming shooting, stabbing and otherwise killing each other, long before you could do the same on a computer. Great fun.

Violent video games don't make kids violent; being human makes kids violent. Some are worse than others, and need special care and attention; despite my favouring violent games, films, etc I've never actually been in a fight in my life.

Re:How many times do we have to go through this?

[doesitmakeitsick]

Correct me if I am wrong, but this law simply restricts minors from purchasing/renting "violent" games without their parents' knowledge. This simply forces the parents to get involved. If a parent doesn't think that the game is too violent, then that parent can simply authorize the purchase (ie: purchase it for the child). This law seems to really be made for parents who don't care to get involved with their child; it simply governs the child when the parents fail to.

Re:Loop hole?

[Randolpho]

And others would say the exact opposite -- that no video game holds *any* artistic value. Then your loophole would work in the other direction.... banning the sale of all video games to anyone under 18.

Honestly, I think this may not be a bad idea. I'm a life-long gamer, but I'm also a parent, and I firmly believe that parents should rigidly control what games their children play. Banning the sale of of all video games to minors would help parents in that regard, and may just force the issue with lazy parents, making them go to the store to buy a game for their kid. Maybe even getting them to go together, actually talk to each other for five minutes... yeah, a bill like that might even eventually bring about world peace!

Heh, who am I kidding?

Re:Text of the Bill.

[Bwerf]

Hmm.. I'm a bit confused, but what does any of the above examples have to do with violence?

Re:Text of the Bill.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

No, they are indeed singling out homosexuals, because all of the other standards for sexual conduct described apply equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. It would be entirely possible to read this law to say that two men or two women holding hands is illegal, but a man and a woman is not.

Re:Then the buyer should just get older

[Perseid]

Bzzt. Wrong. There is no law against a 10 year old going to see an R-Rated movie. There is no law against a 10 year old buying said movie on DVD - unrated version even. There is no law against a 10 year old buying an Emimen album.

If this law is accepted, it will also be accepted that video games are for some reason a less protected form of speech than other media. I that OK with you? It's not OK with me.

Homosexuality is not a form of sexual conduct

[Colonel Angus]

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.

You don't know what a democracy is

[LKM]

In the name of political correctness, values and morality have eroded to appease a few in the minority.

How in the world is homosexuality immoral?

Necause the Federal Republic that is the U.S. has been twisted so much, the minority now gets to dictate to the majority. If the U.S. was a true Democracy, then the rule of the majority would speak for itself.

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.