Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oklahoma Senate OKs Violent-Games Bill

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the where-is-their-judge-to-vote-it-down dept.

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."

10 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. What do they mean by violent? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Not much of a solution. by Funkcikle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Not much of a solution. by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    2. Re:Not much of a solution. by LordKronos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This makes it easier to be a responsible parent

      I'm quite concerned about the [growing epidemic of obese children/declining faith in God of the children] in America today. I really would like to be a responsible parent and make sure my kid [maintains a healthy diet/grows up with a belief in God]. The problem is, my kid can run into any [corner/book] store and buy [a box of twinkies/books about evolution, atheism, and non-christian religions]. This really makes it difficult for me to be a responsible parent. I think it would be great if we could pass a law making it a crime to sell [unhealth food/these types of books] to minors. That would make it easier to be a responsible parent.

      Have fun substituting your own terms for the ones in brackets. Nobody said raising children was easy, but it's not the government's responsibility to do it for you.

  3. Re:How many times do we have to go through this? by doesitmakeitsick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Text of the Bill. by Bwerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    If noone rtfa, then what's the slashdot effect?
  5. Re:Text of the Bill. by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Informative
    5. "Sexual conduct" means acts of ..., homosexuality, ...
    wtf? Does this mean you can't have two guys holding hands in a game? *shakes head*

    Perhaps if you had included the ENTIRE text of definition 5, it would make a bit more sense and seem a bit less biased.

    "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, homosexuality, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person be a female, breast;
    I don't think they are trying to single out homosexuals. I think they are just trying to completely spell everything out for the corporations that act like children and try to find all the loopholes in the law. However, I'd like to echo somebody elses sentiment: What does all of this have to do with violence?
    --

    GreyPoopon
    --
    Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

  6. Let me guess.... by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Violent games fund terrorism and child pornography, don't they.

  7. Homosexuality is not a form of sexual conduct by Colonel+Angus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:You don't know what a democracy is by Reverend528 · · Score: 5, Funny
    How in the world is homosexuality immoral?

    Because so many homosexuals engage in pre-marital sex.

    --
    Badass Resumes