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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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 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.
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...)
I wasn't aware that there were any children in the US over 18.
Are you new to Slashdot?
Violent games fund terrorism and child pornography, don't they.
"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.
Movie ratings are voluntary. There is no criminal penalty for allowing a 15 year old into an R-rated movie without someone of age accompanying them.
Which is basically where the on-box game ratings are today. Voluntary, done by the industry, but if the store clerk or parent doesn't stop the sale to a minor, there's no criminal penalty.
This law makes it illegal to sell GTA to a minor, but it'll still be legal to let them into the theater to see Showgirls (and allowing anyone, whether they're 16 or 60,to watch that movie should be a crime).
Yep, just another case of the government trying to step in and raise our children. Well, someone has to - sure as heck isn't the parents doing it in today's world.
Down with the career politician! SUPPORT TERM LIMITS
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.
I don't believe it is the government's responsibility to regulate the sale of games in this way. Nor do I agree with their assessment of what is or is not appropriate for 17 year olds. That decision rests with the parents and is not to be usurped by the government.
/ age 31
"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).
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.
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
So - you would be in favor of ratings on books?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old.
This sounds an awful lot like "If you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to hide"
To me this is not obvious, sure there are content that you, or me, would not want your kids or mine. But your censored content are surely different from mine. Some people will have strong objections with things like boobs, penises or even a kiss, others will think that children should be shielded from all kinds of violence.
In the end no one agrees, and this is good, each person has their own sets of morals and beliefs and no one should be shamed for that. But people should not force their morals and beliefs to others, and that is the hard part.
So my point is, every one has an idea what they think is inappropriated for children, but I can bet that those things vary from person to person. I wouldn't mind if a movie shows a boob or two or even a penis or a vagina, it all depends on how those things are showed. A scene with people talking nude while showering, is natural in my opinion, while a scene where a girl is fully clothed but it is treaded as a piece of meat by a machist football player is less apropriated (again in my point of view).
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
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.
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
Seriously, what's the problem here? Here in NZ games are rated by the office of film and literature classification in exactly the same way as movies. This seems perfectly sensible to me.
In America we have something called the First Amendment that prohibits the government from regulating speech. I don't know why you think its ok for the government to decide what's appropriate for the people.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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?
Sorry, I don't believe we need more games filled with whore bashing and cop killing.
Sorry, I think we do. Why are your desires more important than mine?
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.
You really think the government should step in to stop a fad? Just because you find it distasteful? Do you have any concept of liberty?
Games can be fun and exciting without being derogatory, racists, sexist, or promoting behaviour that many minors in fact mimicking in real life.
Yes they can. They can also be fun and exciting WITH being derogatory, racist AND sexist. I'm glad that we have enough room in this society for both.
If your against this bill, then you are probably 12 years old.
No, you just have to care about freedom of speech for all.
Nobody over the age of majority should have to worry or complain about this bill.
Just because you're not directly affected by an injustice doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it. Remember, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. When you are the victim of injustice, you will be glad that others care.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I see it as more of the government giving concerned parents a tool to help them to manage their child's access to such content.
Let me cover the traditional major objections that Slashdotters have raised to this sort of legislation:
1) It impinges on the rights of the minor.
Minors have significantly fewer rights than adults; playing video games is not a right that minors possess. It should rightly be up to the parents to decide whether or not their child is mature enough to handle explicit content. Further the law does not say minors are not permitted access to this material period (like states say regarding alcohol), just that they need an adult to make the purchase on their behalf.
2) Involved parents should be able to control their kids' access to this soft of material without such legislation
Too true, though not every parent has enough time to set up a police state within their house; some are too busy making sure their child is able to eat. And not every parent believes that a police state is a healthy environment. These same parents are not hypocritical to also think their child is not mature enough for some sorts of content, and this provides the means for them to establish certain perimeters at the same time the parent expands other perimeters.
3) Kids will get access to the material anyway
Although this is certainly true for some kids, erecting a barrier of this nature means that there is no question on the kid's part as to whether or not this is something their parents want them doing. This sort of specious reasoning is on different from saying that you might as well not establish limits for your child since they will just exceed those limits anyhow. Believe it or not, psychological barriers of this nature do influence behavior. A parent is able to remove the barrier for their child if they feel it is inappropriate in the case of their own child.
It is another tool for parents to help control access to materials. It is not a slippery slope in the direction of censorship; in fact it's an attempt to avoid a slippery slope where our children are exposed to more and more content before they are ready for it.
4) It violates free speech on the part of game manufacturers
No one is saying that game manufacturers aren't allowed to make explicit content, they're just saying a certain group of individuals, who have a high incidence of emotional immaturity, should first get consent from a parent, guardian, or other adult who knows more about their psyche and its ability to distinguish reality from fantasy. Your right to perform free speech is not greater than my right to not hear your free speech, nor is it greater than my right as a parent to not permit my children to hear it.
5) This is just a conservatist attempt at stifling modern forms of art that they personally find objectionable
Maybe this is a factor in such a law, I don't know, I'm not the people who passed it. But that doesn't change the fact that it is a useful tool for me to permit my child to begin exploring the world outside of my supervision, without having to worry as much about what sort of smut they're getting into. I've known 8-year-olds who were more emotionally ready for explicit content than some 21-year-olds. The point is that if I can control access, then I can do a better job of managing access to material that my child might not be mentally ready to accept without it distorting his or her perception of reality.
It's my personal belief that very very few kids are half so mature as they think they are, and that games like the GTA series will have a more significant impact on their world view than they would be willing to believe. I can remember as a kid wondering why I was treated like a kid so much when I always acted so mature. I now look back and see the behaviors I was engaging in, and lo and behold, I was a kid, and it turns out I was more impressionable than I would believe.
Really, if you think you're at a certain leve
Slay a dragon... over lunch!