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.
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.
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?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
>Movies and Books/Magazines, on the other hand, have already been restricted
No, there is no law restricting the sales of movies, books or magazines. It would be unconstitutional, just like this one. Not that this ever stopped a law from being passed or enforced...
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.
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).
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.
"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.
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"
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.
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!