Jack Thompson's Game Bill Moves Forward

Gamespot reports that the Jack Thompson-penned anti-games bill currently being considered by the Louisiana Senate Judiciary Committee has been approved, and will now go to the full Senate for debate. From the article: "According to the text of the bill, it would be illegal to sell, rent, or lease a game to a minor if it met the following three conditions: (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence. (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors. (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

Comments

Legislation, meet morality

[linvir]

Legislatin morality is one thing, but it should at least have some form of stability. This bill seems to be nothing more than an include() for a dynamically changeable external form of morality. If law were an operating system, the hackers would be pissing themselves out of excitement waiting for all the exploits they could write using this.

And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain? It sounds to me like he's deliberately avoiding this because he wants to create a situation in which he can sit back and pick targets at his leisure.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Vengeance]

An insight I've had myself in the past: The law is indeed an operating system for the nation.

Software developers like myself can see the mass of spaghetti which has been the direct result of a bunch of rank amateurs writing the code ad-hoc. Additionally, we can see their failings when it comes to poorly-understand complexity and unintended results of actions.

See Genetic Engineering for some similar concerns.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Tackhead]

> Legislatin morality [midwestoutreach.org] is one thing, but it should at least have some form of stability. This bill seems to be nothing more than an include() for a dynamically changeable external form of morality. If law were an operating system, the hackers would be pissing themselves out of excitement waiting for all the exploits they could write using this.

Law is an operating system, and those who hack it are called politicians. From their point of view, these exploits are features, not bugs.

And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain? It sounds to me like he's deliberately avoiding this because he wants to create a situation in which he can sit back and pick targets at his leisure.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

...is why.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[cptgrudge]

The law is indeed an operating system for the nation.

Reminds me of that /. sig that someone has around;

"Want the root password to the US Constitution? Try Child Pornography."

or something like that...

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[wiggles]

The problem with enforcing the rating system is that legislating enforcement of this rating system runs afoul of the first amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Thompson's law will most likely run afoul of it as well.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Surt]

Enforcing a rating system in the US is very hard due to issues with our first amendment rights to free speech. And the person in question actually has worked to try to write rating system enforcement legislation, and has had no luck there (gets overturned in our courts every time due to aforementioned first amendment issues).

What we need is a voluntary agreement by the 3 major retailers of games to abide by the ratings system voluntarily, but no one wants to be the first mover on that issue because of the sales loss they'll take. The only thing that will change this, frankly, is if enough parents get up in arms about this to coordinate a serious boycott of walmart to force them to make the first move on enforcement.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[pete6677]

I think he knows it will eventually be struck down, but it will get a lot of publicity for him as it winds its way through the courts. This is of course his main objective, self-promotion.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[swv3752]

How many kids under 15 are able to get to the store alone or have money to buy a $50 game? I mean it is possible, but not really likely. Invariably the parents just don't care what the kid does, not that the kids are sneaking behind thier parents back. I have seen store clerks in Gamestop tell parents before that a title was rated mature and parents just say give it to me, with Lil' Johnnie standing there, not having hit puberty yet. As far as I see it, it is a non-issue.

Unfortunately the real effect is that independenat and small shops like Gamestop will close up in LA. Bigger chains like BB and Target and Walmart will only carry G rated titles. And heaven help the poor clerk that sells Spyro to a minor after Jack gets a bug up his butt about fire breathing dragons.

As I see it that is the real thing they are going for. Between all the poor that could care less about video games, Baptists that are against all games, and Politicos that will do anything to secure thier positions, it is a bad time to be a gamer in LA.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[firl]

So lets say I made a porno game with no viable value If I sold it to a minor - bad if I rented it to a minor - bad lease - bad But what If I gave it away free?

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[gad_zuki!]

The "oh noes the gubmint is to get us" ayn rand crap is just that: crap. Look at Thompson and his supporters and you'll find the same conservative Christians who have been fighting the culture war for control of expression and action in the US for decades now. If you want to take them on you have millions of ordinary Janes and Joe who think all the arts are obscene, not some government conspiracy theory. If anything, the set and established body of rulings (government) when it comes to free expression and the arts will save us from conservative Christians (citizens). Essentially, you have it backwards. Thompson and his ilk are the people . Theyre the voters. Welcome to an uninformed, bigoted, but working mob rule form of democracy.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Surt]

I think minors goes up to 17 (in most states) but LA could be different.
Still, I think most 13+ year olds are frequently allowed by parents to spend time alone with their friends in the mall. Getting $50 for a game isn't very hard if you have an allowance or a job (tutoring, lawn mowing, paperboy, etc). A lot of kids have access to considerably more money than that. Buy the game, ditch the box and cd-case, carry the game disk home in your pants.
So I would say that even being a reasonably cautious parent, there is a pretty reasonable chance that your child could buy a game without your knowing.

Whether or not they could manage to play it without your knowing would be another matter, but unless you have them under pretty sever lockdown they can probably play it at a friend's house without your finding out. Kids are smart. As smart or smarter than you were at that age. My parents were both Masters+ educated, and did their utmost to completely lockdown my experience. They were stricter than anyone else's parents I have ever met (now at age 33), and still I had plenty of ways around their monitoring.

Parents shouldn't believe that they can control their children's experiences. They can't. There's not a shred of hope (consider: the best trained experts in experience control, jail wardens, can't keep drugs out of any prison in the world). What parents can do is influence their children, educate them, help to reduce their interest in whatever they want their kids not to get involved in.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Adrian Lopez]

And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain?

It's a form of censorship and would violate the US constitution's first amendment.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Chowderbags]

Except that those same people will pay $50 for 10 year old Johnny to get a game that's clearly marked as being for 17 year olds. But the average person isn't really driving it. Jack Thompson attempts to drive it. The moral right does drive it. But what is it? A mere 10% of the population (true, it's still a large number in absolute terms)? Just because some people yell and scream about things doesn't mean that the majority agrees with it, it just means that the majority doesn't seem to care enough to give a shit.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[x1n933k]

Perhaps your gutters need to be cleaned.

One thing that continues to strike me with people who consider themselves left is that there is a lot who are no better than some of those, "conservative Christians who have been fighting the culture war for control of expression and action in the US for decades now."

The harsh truth is that there's a constant battle, and the quote in the previous point actually talks about in it's monologe. The only thing you've done here is pulled out a High school student rant that talks about how other have lack of fact, yet never really has any kind of form or point besides saying that the ruling body isn't anything the general populus is looking for.

True, look at Thompson and h is supporter. What about them? They're appearently Conservative and Christian. What does that mean? What does that prove? They're just like you and me pal. They've got a few ideas, some of which may seem extreme but in the end they're looking for good.

"What about freedom of speech?" I want you to give me an example where everyone is so completely eger to comprimise and agree what is 'morally' right. Where people's tendancies to cause harm or manipulate are processed in a way to benefit everyone (including a wrong doer). You won't find it outside a Starhawk book or other utopian novel.

You do however live in a place were process can be fought. You think you have no power to make a difference then you're right, you don't. They've finally done a good job and forced you onto Slashdot to talk about the woes. However, that's not entirely true.

You keep yourself informed about what's being done about the laws etc that you care about and you can make some difference. May not change the world but that's because the world has billions of others who have ideas outside of you. Bitching about the 'uninfored bigoted but working mob rule' doesn't help--shows how apart of it you actually are.

On a more on topic note. Sure it is moving 'forward' but it is one state and its a place where something like this may need to be applied for people to wake up somewhat. However, I'm not sure nor care because different country, and it's affects are too small to worry about on my end.

[J]

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[UnRDJ]

> Law is an operating system, and those who hack it are called politicians. Politicians are the OS designers and maintainers. Lawyers are the ones who try to hack it. That's how I see the analogy anyway.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Just Some Guy]

Look at Thompson and his supporters and you'll find the same conservative Christians who have been fighting the culture war for control of expression and action in the US for decades now.

On behalf of conservative Christians throughout America: you have no idea what you're talking about. I am far more interested in regulating my own household than asking the government to do so. Jack Thompson is a nutcase who has much in common with your average Christian as he does the average man, the average 50-something, the average white person, or the average person who doesn't wear glasses.

And don't forget that liberals have been advocating censorship for decades as well. I say that not as an excuse, but as a reminder: don't think that every last person in your political demographic is as anti-censorship as you'd like to believe. Pointing at the other guys and yelling doesn't help anyone, least of all you.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[Foobar of Borg]

This bill seems to be nothing more than an include() for a dynamically changeable external form of morality. If law were an operating system, the hackers would be pissing themselves out of excitement waiting for all the exploits they could write using this.

So, what you're saying is that our government is pwnd? Sounds about right to me.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[swv3752]

I consider someone who is 13 to be quite a bit different from someone who is 17. In many states, a 17 year old can engage in consensual sex, sometimes with certain restrictions on the age fo thier partner. At 17, you usually can get a driver's license, sometimes a bit younger, but I am not aware of any state that requires you to be older. At 16 or 17, you can usually get an actual job, as opposed to odd jobs like mowing the neighbor's lawn.

So at 14, scraping together the money to buy a game that you are not allowed, is going to take some time and palnning. They are going to run the risk that they will get caught. The more likely scenario is they will go over to a friend's house with an older sibling that is allowed to paly the game.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[hex0016]

And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain? It sounds to me like he's deliberately avoiding this because he wants to create a situation in which he can sit back and pick targets at his leisure.

Because in the US, the rating system (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Softwar e_Rating_Board)in place is not government-mandated. It's run by the video game industry itself. It's not an enforcement tool; it's a guide for parents and consumers to pick material they feel is appropriate for their family and/or themselves. That being the case, the government couldn't make the existing rating system the basis for enforcement of "community standards" because that would be tantamount to a group of corporate interests rendering the law rather fluid.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[mOdQuArK!]

Setting aside the fact that Ayn Rand is a flaming nutcase, there's no denying that at least some "public" figures look at the law like that (as a means of controlling the populace).

I've always thought that it would've been a good idea for the Constitution to explicitly prevent the disenfranchisement of criminals. While most folks seem to be horrified at the idea of letting felons vote, I think it would be a good form of negative feedback against legislators - if legislators do things that cause a lot of people to become criminals, then they have created a large bloc of people who will vote against them.

As far as "problems" with allowing criminals to vote, if your laws are sane & generally accomodates the "common sense" of the public, then there shouldn't be enough criminals to have any significant effect. If you _do_ start seeing the "criminal" voting bloc having significant effects, then that's a strong indication that the laws that are being passed are not reflective of the desires of the overall populace.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[jamstar7]

Jack's just pissed that nobody gives him any Hot Coffee(tm) anymore.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[KDR_11k]

So were the ratings systems in Germany before the govt declared them as legally binding.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[flogic42]

If I was a ninja I'd throw one dagger to castrate Jack Thompson and Ayn Rand.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[MeanderingMind]

Somewhere in the archives of /. lies an article pointing out how the vast majority of games sales are done in the presence of a parent or guardian. While I failed to find the article and study, I'm sure there are more skilled people than I who can.

However, for the cases when a parent isn't present there is this article that shows while progress is being made, more work must be done.

In any case, I have to agree with you on the influence parents have. Every kid and child ultimately decides for themselves what their actions will be, but parents can influence those decisions greatly. My parents set up strict rules about the use of video games in the house, severely limiting the amount of time we could play. We their children certainly sidestepped that by often visiting a friend's house. But, because my parents didn't simply say, "Because" when asked "Why?" and instead explained that it was a nice day and we have those Super Soakers for a reason, or because we'd played to much and had homework we should do, or in any case bothered to show us respect and explain rather than just exert totalitarian control, we their children grew up respecting them and what they stood for.

Because of that upbringing, my choices were influenced out of the deep respect I have for my parents. There's little greater control a parent can have than when your gentle words and deeds are recalled to a child's mind as they stare at the highly desirable violent video game and remember how their beloved parents would feel about that game.

This is doubly important because parents themselves aren't be informed as to what video games are and are not violent beforehand. My mother once looked at the cover for Doom and tried to recommend it to me when I was 12. I immediately told her it wasn't appropriate. Thus, parents don't have to worry about occaisionally being confused or uninformed as their own children can act as a failsafe for such circumstances.

All in all it boils down to proper parenting.

Re:Legislation, meet morality

[deficite]

It's like people have never heard of birthday money. I usually got like $40-60 from all the birthday cards I'd get. Combine that with loose change and extra-curricular activities, and you can get away with a lot. I remember getting Resident Evil: Nemesis and GTA3 on my own using my own money. My parents still don't know I have those games. Not that it'd matter much though, as they've been letting me buy Mature games for the past couple of years (after explaining to them how Wolfenstein 3D, the first computer game I ever played, was rated PC-13 when it came out and then got bumped up to Mature when ESRB got a hold of it. They knew that Wolf3D wasn't that bad so didn't have a problem ever since. I'm about to be 18 anyway, so it doesn't matter)

Fine with me IF...

[drinkypoo]

...rental places and retail outlets can have a flag (or note or whatever) saying that kids are allowed to rent games if their parents give permission. It's reasonable (IMO) to help parents with parenting. It's not reasonable to make parenting choices FOR parents.

I kind of doubt this bill has such a provision, though, and as such it should be used to choke jack thompson to death.

Re:Fine with me IF...

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

"It's not reasonable to make parenting choices FOR parents."

Oh that's exactly what I want - my name on a list that anyone, including the government, would have access to. No, there's no need for lists or government involvement at all. There's a ratings system. Retailers generally observe it just as movie theatres generally observe the MPAA ratings system. There's no need for government involvement anywhere here. My kids know what games they can and can't purchase without Big Brother stepping in.

Re:Fine with me IF...

[Thing 1]

...and it would be fine with me, if Mr. Thompson penned a law about "media" rather than "games".

Of course, holding his Bible to the same standards would get it banned, so we can't do that.

this is crap

[sepharious]

there is no standard, no definition, of what is offensive or objectionable. it leaves open wide interpretation and would open businesses to frivolous lawsuits based on someone's ill-informed position on a game. "oh well, I find that Mario portrays violent acts of an offensive nature"

Re:this is crap

[MrSquirrel]

Mario is a BAD influence. Jumping on turtles? Eating mushrooms? Playing with fire? I don't want my kid around that. When I drop my 12 year old off and give him $60 (~price of a new game) at the mall to do whatever he wants for 12 hours while I go spend the day at my crackhouse, I don't want him buying garbage like that Mario character! Honestly... there is already a rating system in place - enforcing that is easy and it is actually based on real criteria (rather than saying "any game that we think at any place and time is bad"). Last time I checked, no one under 16 could drive a car -- so how the heck are kids getting to these game stores to buy violent video games? And how are they paying for it (I don't know many places that load up on little kids as employees)? Oh, that's right... parents. But why actually be a good parent when you can have laws do your work for you? Go-go-gadget-government!

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

there is no standard, no definition, of what is offensive or objectionable.

So? I think Jack Thompson is a real dickhead, but the definition there is similar to obscenity laws in many countries, including the USA. It's true that there's no rigid definition of what is offensive to society - because that changes over time and with context. It's the court's job to determine what is offensive in each particular case.

I hate vague laws as much as anybody, but in some cases, you simply can't come up with a rigid definition.

Here's an exercise for the knee-jerkers: when do you think it's acceptable to sell a game to a minor that appeals to a morbid interest in violence AND is patently offensive to adult standards AND has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value? Do you also support selling scat porn and other obscenities to children too?

I can't think of a single game which would be illegal to sell to minors under this law, because apart from anything else, you can consider virtually all of them have artistic value.

Re:this is crap

[Marnhinn]

(Gamespot is blocked from where I am ATM - so I'm going off the summary)

I don't think it will be as bad as it seems. The bill (if the text in the summary is right) uses "contemporary community standards" to make judgement. While you might have people sue over junk for a little while, it should be pretty easy for a defense attonery to produce evidence that shows the "community" at large is a big consumer of the games, and therefore - shouldn't object.

Reminds me of the defense used to keep that adult store open in Provo, Utah. (The defense was able to show that the community was a large consumer of porn - irregardless of what the people said).

Re:this is crap

[gorbachev]

Of course there's a definition.

The definition is "whatever Jack Thompson finds offensive or objectionable". Today it's video game violence, yesterday it was rap music, tomorrow it is?

Re:this is crap

[pthor1231]

Irregardless is not a word. Regardless is a word, and probably means what you are trying to say.

Re:this is crap

[Macthorpe]

From the site you linked to:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Well done. You proved that irregardless isn't a word by linking to an article that specifically says it's a word. What's the fun in shooting people down if they hand you the gun fully loaded?

Re:this is crap

[Mister Whirly]

"there is no standard, no definition, of what is offensive or objectionable. it leaves open wide interpretation and would open businesses to frivolous lawsuits based on someone's ill-informed position on a game. "oh well, I find that Mario portrays violent acts of an offensive nature"

Exactly. So the 19 year old kid working at EBGames can now add "interpret the law" into his job description??? Maybe a set of defined "offenses" and some sort of rating system would be more appropriate...Oh wait, we already have that...

Re:this is crap

[sepharious]

they threw out the child porn stuff a few years ago because it was vague.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Sp eech_Coalition
the need to address an issue does not outweigh the responsiblity of those addressing it to do so in a lawful, proper, and meaningful way. fighting the supposed dangers is no excuse for laziness in crafting legislation. no one is forced to purchase violent video games, and those kids dont get money out of thin air. Down with the Nanny State! we need more laws making parents responsible for what they children consume and do. perhaps we would see a decline in the number of frivolous and costly lawsuits.

and your straw man argument to the knee-jerkers is amaturish and demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the larger issues. no one is advocating selling hardcore porn to minors (hot coffee mod notwithstanding). and obscentity laws are mostly crap anyway, the outdated legacy of by-gone eras and regressive thinking for the most part.

Re:this is crap

[doublem]

And to make matters worse, he's a racist stereotype!!!

We should ban this whole "Nintendo" company. I mean, they've named their most recent game machine machine after a male phallus!

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

when do you think it's acceptable to sell a game to a minor that appeals to a morbid interest in violence AND is patently offensive to adult standards AND has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value?

1) It's fairly easy to find material meeting these requirements (although maybe not violent AND sexual) on the Internet for free, so it's kind of moot trying to keep minors from actively seeking it.

2) If the kids are capable of buying the game without their parents' knowledge, then that means they're maybe 15 years old. In three years they will be adults, and be allowed to buy as much filth as they desire (as long as it doesn't have children in it). If you're so keen on keeping their minds unpolluted, you should be teaching them "adult standards", so that they avoid "patently offensive" material. If your kids are actively seeking out this kind of thing, then you've already failed, and any restrictions you try to place on them are futile.

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

they threw out the child porn stuff a few years ago because it was vague.

Huh? That case has absolutely no bearing on what I said. That's about outlawing fictional child porn, not about selling pornography to kids.

fighting the supposed dangers is no excuse for laziness in crafting legislation.

This isn't about laziness, this is about making something illegal that cannot be meaningfully defined in a generic manner. How do you define what is obscene without deferring to public consensus?

no one is forced to purchase violent video games,

Straw man, I never said they were.

and those kids dont get money out of thin air.

So parents should have the choice between giving their kids the ability to buy violent games and forbidding them from having any money of their own?

Down with the Nanny State! we need more laws making parents responsible for what they children consume and do.

And legislation like this is a tool to enable that. With this legislation, parents have the choice as to whether their kids play violent games or not. Without this legislation, they do not have the choice.

and your straw man argument to the knee-jerkers is amaturish and demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the larger issues. no one is advocating selling hardcore porn to minors

If anything is amateurish, it's your reading comprehension. The fact that nobody is advocating selling hardcore porn to minors is precisely my point. Everything this bill does to control what people sell to kids is already being done in the case of pornography. This just applies the same logic to violent games.

Why don't you oppose laws against selling scat porn to kids? After all, according to you, it's the parents' responsibility to make sure their kids don't buy it. They don't get money from nowhere, right? Why do you have this double standard? Why is forbidding the sale of violent games to kids a symptom of a nanny state, but forbidding the sale of scat porn to kids right and proper?

You are right, nobody is advocating the legalisation of selling hardcore porn to kids. That was my point - if you genuinely believe what you are saying regarding this game legislation, you should.

Re:this is crap

[biglig2]

"Gamecube"? You must know some stange men... have you got their phone numbers? I just wanted a few contacts. Just a few addresses, please... I can turn the microphone off if you...

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I agree on Mario. I mean those italians always jumping on peoples heads! I mean have you ever been to Italy as seen all the short people?!? Ask them what happened. 9 out of 10 will tell you that some plumber just ran up destroyed all the bricks in their house and then jumped on their head when they tried to stop him! I think they need to rate that as Mature as it could influence children to think it was ok to jump on people and squish them flat!!! Not to mention all the depravity. I mean look at Mario 3 and his fetish with dressing up as a Raccoon!! Are these the things we want out children to play!!

This law will never make it not because its unconstitutional but because it to vague. They keep talking about the "average" person. Well I have news for ya there are going to be different averages everywhere you go.

Re:this is crap

[Durandal64]

Linguistically, "irregardless" would mean "not regardless". Hence it would mean the exact opposite of what people using it are trying to say. So regardless of what Merriam-Webster says, "irregardless" is a stupid word and a mark of unintelligence if you use it. Just like "nukular".

Re:this is crap

[sepharious]

Huh? That case has absolutely no bearing on what I said. That's about outlawing fictional child porn, not about selling pornography to kids.

I was refering to the fact that it was vague and *that* was the reason it was struck down.

This isn't about laziness, this is about making something illegal that cannot be meaningfully defined in a generic manner. How do you define what is obscene without deferring to public consensus?

Do you defer to public consensus when you decide what to think or value?

no one is forced to purchase violent video games,
Straw man, I never said they were.
and those kids dont get money out of thin air.
So parents should have the choice between giving their kids the ability to buy violent games and forbidding them from having any money of their own?

First of all, I never accused you of saying that. Your strawman argument implied that the "knee-jerkers" supported the sale of hardcore porn to minors because they took issue with a crackpot pushing a vague, useless and dangerous piece of legislation. I countered that parents buy the games, the game systems, and the TVs. If they have a problem with a game, they shouldn't allow their children to purchase/rent it. Also, you never specified a game that "appeals to a morbid interest in violence AND is patently offensive to adult standards AND has no literary, artistic, political or scientific value". Let's talk vague, shall we? And the choice is NOT between giving them the game or not giving them money. It's between being responsible for what their children consume or having a laissez-faire attitude towards the little buggers. If you care enough to be concerned, then be concerned with them, not with the choices they have available. You can't control every choice they will be presented with in life and if you could then they would never have free-will or any choice whatsoever.

And legislation like this is a tool to enable that. With this legislation, parents have the choice as to whether their kids play violent games or not. Without this legislation, they do not have the choice.

No, no, NO! How do they not have the choice now? If they don't have control over their children's viewing/gaming habits then legislation will not fix that. The problem is parents not paying attention to what their children are doing.

If anything is amateurish, it's your reading comprehension. The fact that nobody is advocating selling hardcore porn to minors is precisely my point. Everything this bill does to control what people sell to kids is already being done in the case of pornography. This just applies the same logic to violent games.
Why don't you oppose laws against selling scat porn to kids? After all, according to you, it's the parents' responsibility to make sure their kids don't buy it. They don't get money from nowhere, right? Why do you have this double standard? Why is forbidding the sale of violent games to kids a symptom of a nanny state, but forbidding the sale of scat porn to kids right and proper?
You are right, nobody is advocating the legalisation of selling hardcore porn to kids. That was my point - if you genuinely believe what you are saying regarding this game legislation, you should.

and finally, I'll strawman back at you for that last section. So you think sex and violence are the same thing? Maybe you like a little strangulation with your girlfriend(or boyfriend, since you posted anonymously I can't tell, but maybe you can't either)? Get out of your black and white world view and accept the fact that shooting pixels with pixels is very different from graphic depictions of sexual content. Violence is inherent in society. Deal with it. It is impossible to watch the news and not see violence. It is also difficult to watch television today (including shows marketed to teens) and not see depictions of sexuality. So either pay attention to what your kids are doing or get rid of anything that could tempt them.

oh, and yes, I absolutely support the right of kids to get massive amounts of donkey porn. Good Day, sir.

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I find Jack Thompson offensive and objectionable. Can we abolish him now?

Re:this is crap

[Macthorpe]

Just like inflammable is the opposite of flammable! Oh, and you totally missed the point I was actually making. Nice.

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

But condition #3 makes it a moot point.

All you have to do is include a math lesson in the main menu to not be uneducational when taken as a whole. Just build a slideshow proving Pythagoras' theorem or the hydratic equation that unlocks some trivial game content if watched. Put it under a creative commons license and everybody can use the same one to save time.

Suddenly you aren't without educational merit and the first two conditions don't matter.

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he confused "wii" with "wang"

Wang closed it's door a long time ago folks.

Re:this is crap

[DerWulf]

yeah I do. Seriously. What the hell say has the "community" in what my child can and can not see? The parents, it's where it's at.

Re:this is crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Making it illegal to sell porn to a child is not the same as making it illegal for a child to view porn. It just means that their parents need to buy it for them. Basically, it does exactly what you want - gives parents the choice.

Re:this is crap

[Durandal64]

In that case, "inflammable" is a direct derivative of the word "inflame", not of the word "flame". "Inflammable" and "flammable" just happent o be two words that mean the same thing but came from slightly different roots.

There is no such word as "irregard", so there is no linguistic basis for the word "irregardless" outside of morons who mix the words "irrespective" and "regardless" into some weird concoction that they think sounds correct. Your argument that there is such a word because some people of low intelligence have mistakenly created it is the same bullshit people use to justify the use of the word "nukular". Specifically, pronouncing the "clear" part of "nuclear" as "clee-ar" seems unnatural to some people when preceded by a "yoo" sound. So they take cues from words like "spectacular" instead of pronouncing the word correctly.

That's the explanation behind the idiocy. But it doesn't change the fundamental issue that people who consistently use such pronunciations are incorrect and sound like blithering idiots.

Re:this is crap

[Macthorpe]

I don't think people who use the word irregardless sound like blithering idiots. At this moment in time, I would define a blithering idiot as someone who argues etymology with someone when their original point was nothing to do with etymology at all, continuing on the same blind path of reasoning despite being told that they'd got the wrong end of the stick.

My original point was, when trying to prove a point, don't post things that explicity say that you're wrong. It's just silly. Silly like having to explain yourself twice to some prat on the internet because they want to have the argument they want to have, not the argument they should have been having.

Sounds pretty sensible

[StonyUK]

It's a shame that a new law needs to be written to compensate for parent's poor parenting skills, but would you want your child to be watching / playing anything that falls into categories (1) or (2)? I certainly don't, and anything that helps prevent it is OK by me.

Re:Sounds pretty sensible

[qeveren]

You could... oh, I don't know, maybe try being a parent, instead?

Re:Sounds pretty sensible

[Kamots]

I dunno, my dad got me copies of wolfenstien and doom back when those were new... and I hadn't even asked for them! (Mainly because I didn't even know they existed... hey... I was young! :P)

Interestingly enough, I was being provided these games yet wasn't allowed to watch R rated movies at a friends place. (At home with parents involved though I was.)

Now, I think I've turned out all right. I mean I only indulge in the occasional slaughter of innocent civilians, it's not like it's something I do every night!

Seriously, different parents have different standards, and trying to apply your standards to everyone just doens't work.

Re:Sounds pretty sensible

[Surt]

Technically, putting all parents in jail and raising the children in state run orphanages would help prevent your child from playing something falling into 1 or 2.

I mean, as long as you're willing to go along with anything that will help prevent it.

Uh..

[MImeKillEr]

Is this even a problem?

From TFA:

"According to the text of the bill, it would be illegal to sell, rent, or lease a game to a minor" .. if they meet three specific criterias.

As a parent, I ask how many of you parents want your 9 year old purchasing GTA?

Granted, Thompson is a tool, but how is this really an issue? As soon as they tell the adults that they can't do the same, we'll have an issue.

Re:Uh..

[falcon8080]

How is this an issue?

Its an issue because 1) The definitions are intentionally vague 2) It is defining what is morally acceptable and enforcing it by law and 3) It is a good beginning.

The first 2 points should be fairly clear, let me explain the third.
If someone were to introduce a law to ban all violent video games, it would get shot down. If someone were to introduce a bill that once passed into law would allow others through lawsuits to build the definitions of what is morally 'correct', then it would not take much to slowly adjust the bill until it had strangled adult games into a 'near criminal obsession by a few lonely gun carrying nut jobs'.
I hate the term, but its near classic 'slippery slope'.

Besides, do you really want to be told how to raise your child by someone else?

Re:Uh..

[Chris Burke]

As a parent, I ask how many of you parents want your 9 year old purchasing GTA?

Okay, you're a parent with a 9 year old (or at least was/will be 9 years old)...

1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA?
2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA?
3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing?
4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?

I see a lot of potential for parenting in there that the state is supposedly going to do for you now. So the question is: why does this need to be a crime? What if you gave your child permission to buy a game that met the three vague criteria but you didn't consider harmful?

We can talk about GTA which I'd think most people would agree is not suitable for young children, but you know there are going to be ridiculous cases where this applies -- assuming anyone knows in advance what games are affected, meaning it could be the game stores themselves which apply the rules to ridiculous cases just to cover their own asses. This is the problem with legistlating moral standards, and it isn't going to work this time.

We've gotten along fine without making it a crime to let someone under 18 into an R-rated movie. I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths, and while they would rather their own kids not do the same, they probably wouldn't think criminal prosecution of the theatre is necessary if they did. Yet video games, which so many of that generation simply don't understand and thus are deathly afraid of, suddenly require a whole new set of laws to protect the children (so the parents don't have to).

Re:Uh..

[karil]

As a parent I ask you, how would your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA? As a parent I ask you, how would your 9 year old get away with playing GTA without your knowledge? Whats wrong with this bill is it holds retail stores liable for your responsibilities as a parent. This bill is designed to scare stores into not carrying M rated games. effectivly telling me, an adult, I cannot buy this game...now we have an issue.

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA?
2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA?
3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing?
4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?

1) Grandma loves to give out money to grandchild
2) Grandma has no clue about video games and can't say no to grandchild
3) See (2)
4) Parents are at work becoz it cost too damn much money to live a good life and Grandma is sleeping in the corner chair.

Yes I agree parents need to take more care of their children but with todays busy life style it doesn't hurt to make it illegal to sell a Rated M to a minor. If you do take care of your own children then what do you have to worry about?

Re:Uh..

[wolenczak]

Money to buy it? If you have a 9yr older playing GTA bet he got it from a friend/peernetwork, not from your pocket.

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are fundamental reasons laws like this are detrimental to responsible people:

- As a practical matter, any age-limit law requires age verification. This means ID. Under such a law, all adults will have to show an officially recognized ID to the retailer just to buy a game. This is a significant reduction in anonymity and privacy.

- This law applies to "minors." That means it applies to 17-year-olds, not just the 9-year-old in your example (whom you're too irresponsible to parent yourself). Does the government really have the right to impose its own twisted pseudo-morality upon the harmless leisure activity of an intelligent 17-year-old person?

Re:Uh..

[irablum]

does Grandma take the kids to R rated movies? no. why? because she knows that if she wants access to the kids that taking them to R rated movies is a no-no.

Is it that hard to see the big letter "M" on the side of the box and know that you shouldn't let the kids play it? its even usually larger than the big "R" on the video boxes.

If I'm letting my parents or in-laws watch my children for any length of time I provide the games. and if my parents (or in-laws) want to buy a game for my kids they clear it with me first.

so :P

Ira

Re:Uh..

[clarkcox3]

The problem is with the vague language used: "The average person, applying contemporary community standards..." "offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community"

Who gets to decide whose views represent those of the "average person"?

Who gets to decide what the "contemporary community standards" or the "prevailing standards in the adult community" are?

Re:Uh..

[firl]

1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA? When I was 8 I had my own income, I raked leaves, mowed lawns, shoveled driveways. I used to make 40$ a week when I was 8. A rental store was about .8 miles away 2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA? Its called a bike, walk, public transportation. I used those methods to get to shopping centers 3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing? Backpack, pocket, etc. Downlaod it illegally? 4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware? Since I was 8 I had a computer, television, and a phone jack in my room. I bought the television, and helped with the computer, and phone. I remember playing the first GTA on my computer. (for 5 minutes) Its like saying, sure, kids won't be able to get porn if we make it illegal, smokes, pot or alcohol. Thats working well for us in America. I mean c'mon, do you really think you know everything that goes on with your child?

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like Grandma is kind of a tool...

Re:Uh..

[Pollardito]

1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA?

he got it from his 40 year-old boyfriend

2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA?

his 40 year-old boyfriend dropped him off

3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing?

he didn't bring it home, he plays it at his 40 year-old boyfriend's house

4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?

see #3

hah, now who's feeling all smart and assured of their genius!

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. "Grandma" could be anyone that do not know better. And yes, "Grandma" would know better in relation to movies becoz they normally watch them together with the child. They don't look at the description nor the big M on a video game box. They just look in the puppy-dog eyes of the kid when he/she asks for it.

A law to make it illegal does not hurt the ones that know what they are doing. So why be so afraid? You still have the right to say no if the kid asks you to buy it.

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents just need to get informed on the state of some of these video games, and not get whatever little johnny wants. If there isn't a story about it on CNN, they probably don't know about it unless they are gamers themselves. Maybe some water cooler talk. There are too many parents out there not informed of what they are getting their kids, outside of the obvious M+ rating right on the front of the box. The rating means nothing to them, the real person who decides what the suitable age is for something like GTA is up to the person at the counter of the Toys'R'Us or BB. Yep. My younger brother got some extra X-mas cash working at Toys'R'Us last winter. Every single day he would tell me stories of parents uncles aunts etc. asking HIM if GTA was ok to buy for their ## year old son daughter nephew w/e.

whiskey tango foxtrot.

Dear parents,

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

-Greg

Re:Uh..

[esper]

Yes, but do I, as an adult, still have the right to buy it for myself if stores don't carry it (can't risk being prosecuted if a register jockey decides he doesn't care or a 17-year-old comes in with a fake ID), leading to game publishers deciding that it's not worth the expense of creating games that stores won't carry? Oh, wait - it doesn't matter whether I have the right to buy it or not if it doesn't exist.

When's the last time you saw a sexually-themed game with good production values (no cheesy low-grade graphics or barely-interactive movies that claim to be "games") which doesn't just treat sex as a topic for crude attempts at juvenile humor (sorry, Leisure Suit Larry, you don't count either)? They're generally not made. The sort of bill described in the article, if passed into law and not struck down, would consign graphically violent games to the same obscurity as graphically sexual games.

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths

Not likely, as most adults are boomers. They didn't even have ratings when I was a kid (I'm 54) and they changed the ratings system in the late 1970s, adding an "R" and changing "X" to "NC-17". You would have to be under 30 to have snuck into an R rated movie.

This resulted in Fritz the Cat being the only feature length animated film ever to be rated "X" by the MPAA.

It would get an NC17 today, with its drug use and glorification of drug use, porn-level (cartoon) sex, full frontal nudity, gory violence, violence toward women, anti-police bias, racism, and mostly the fact that it was gut splittingly hilarious.

Re:Uh..

[vux984]

ACtually that doesn't undermine the GP at all. In fact it demonstrates just how pointless this law is. If they make it "illegal" for the 9 year old to buy the game, then 9 year olds will just get it illegally or via some other method.

Hell, while shopping I recently had some kids ask me to buy some PG xbox title on their behalf because the staff was being anal retentive. (I mean really anal retentive; sadly I don't remember what game it was - but these kids were like 12 and the game was like Halo or something.)

So go ahead and pass the law, it won't stop kids from getting their game on. Just as it doesnn't stop them from getting drugs, cigarettes, movies, or porn.

Re:Uh..

[fuzzyfozzie]

We've gotten along fine without making it a crime to let someone under 18 into an R-rated movie. I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths, and while they would rather their own kids not do the same, they probably wouldn't think criminal prosecution of the theatre is necessary if they did. Yet video games, which so many of that generation simply don't understand and thus are deathly afraid of, suddenly require a whole new set of laws to protect the children (so the parents don't have to). Actually, where I live--Richmond, Virginia--you have to have an adult over 18 if you are a minor and want to get into a R movie.

Re:Uh..

[Chris Burke]

Actually, where I live--Richmond, Virginia--you have to have an adult over 18 if you are a minor and want to get into a R movie.

Every theatre I've been too in multiple states has had this rule. Yet in none of them was it a criminal act to allow an unsupervised minor in, it was voluntary action by the theatres. Is this truly a law in Virginia with criminal penalties?

Re:Uh..

[Yunzil]

As a parent, I ask how many of you parents want your 9 year old purchasing GTA?

It is not the government's job to make sure your kids don't buy GTA. It's yours.

Re:Uh..

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, a law to stop minors buying m rated game will help a lot here... i mean that helpful grandma, who give the kid the money, and took them too the mall... there's no way she'll buy the game for the kid as well. idiot

Re:Uh..

[C0R1D4N]

Don't you watch the news? The Mexicans stole all those jobs!

Re:Uh..

[firl]

Damn, I forgot.

Re:Uh..

[KDR_11k]

I am categorically against videogame restrictions as long as books can be sold unrestricted. Books have been proven to make people violent and especially the most widely sold books have been cited as the reason for millions of murders. Violent videogames have about ten people claiming they were the reason they committed a crime. Books like the Bible, the Qu'ran and numerous others have entire wars claiming to be inspired by these books. If we can enact laws against videogames because of ten people, we can enact laws against books because of millions of people.

Of course that's just what you get if you apply Jack Thompson's logic to books. But even without sensationalism you can easily see that some books are definitely more damaging to the development of our society than the videogames the "think of the children" politicians are trying to ban. I'm not talking about the Kama Sutra, I'm talking about books like Mein Kampf (or any other propaganda book). Books that consciously try to influence the reader towards hatred and violence. A violent videogame may depict violence but it won't attempt to make the player hate jews (if we ignore Neonazi propaganda games for now). A book can contain an ideology AND give a reasoning that makes the ideology appear as the one truth (propaganda is dangerous).

there's only one word for this - idiocy

[joe 155]

"if it met the following three conditions: (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence. (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors. (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

So what you are saying is that it will become illegal after it has happened and people reflect on this in court... how can a shop assistant tell if this will be "offencive to the majority"; he might not even have played it... This is the worst kind of law; stupid and applicable all over the place. Does America not have game ratings? here in the UK we have like "18" certificates on some games; if you're not 18 you can't buy it. Then it's a matter of fact.

Re:there's only one word for this - idiocy

[Dreamlandlocal]

Does America not have game ratings? here in the UK we have like "18" certificates on some games; if you're not 18 you can't buy it.

I'm basing this comment entirely on my own observations, but I as far as I've ever seen - and I often make a point of watching the behaviour and purchasing habits of other game store patrons - the rating system has NO impact on what minors are and are not allowed to purchase. On more than one occasion I've seen young teens (around age 13 or 14) purchase a used copy of GTA or something similarly violent (God or War / Onimusha, etc) with no comment from the store clerk.

When it come down to chosing between dollars and doing the right thing, the store employees / owners [troll] as is usually the case in the US[/troll] don't have much trouble chosing the dollars!

Re:there's only one word for this - idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

Two questions: how are the ratings assigned, and what happens if someone sells an 18-rated game to someone under 18?

Re:there's only one word for this - idiocy

[Anonymous Coward]

We have two ways: The standard games way, which used to use ELSPA ratings but now uses PEGI; and the second way, which is usually only for stuff like GTA and Metal Gear Solid, where the BBFC sticks a red circle with 18/15 on the box. ELPSA/PEGI ratings might not be legally binding but BBFC ones sure as hell are.

Re:there's only one word for this - idiocy

[Surt]

The US has a frequently used rating system, the ESRB system. However, getting a rating is volutary (to the extent that it is up to you, but if you're not rated, you'll lose 90% of your sales because walmart won't carry unrated titles). But on the sales side, there is no enforcement legislation (which actually was Thompson's previous strategy, but which was overturned in the courts). Basically, due to free speech and commerce requirements in the US constitution, it's very difficult to restrict what retailers are allowed to sell, and so none of the major retailers enforces any rules about selling mature rated titles to minors.

Re:there's only one word for this - idiocy

[Mister Whirly]

"walmart won't carry unrated titles"

Wait, wait, wait - backup for a minute. You mean that some Walmart shoppers actually know how to operate computers??? I think you just blew my mind a little...

So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[HanClinto]

The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

So wait, so under these rules, it sounds like Tetris, Chess and Checkers are all illegal to sell directly to minors? Unless you count the gameplay logic involved in Checkers to be "scientific", which is a bit of a stretch of the bill's apparent wording.

Is stuff like this being taken into account I wonder?

--clint

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Skreems]

I think it has to meet all 3 criteria to be inelligable. Which means it's time for someone to release a game that teaches you about politics, science, and art, while at the same time being mind-numbingly gory.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[HanClinto]

Aaaah, that makes more sense -- thanks!

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Surt]

There have been plenty of scientific papers published about all 3 of those games, so I think they'd pass the scientific merit test.

And to be clear, the bill ands the 3 conditions, not ors them. So in addition to lacking scientific or artistic merit, it must also have violence beyond community standards, and that part would be pretty hard to argue for any of those 3 games.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Enry]

So GTA:Washington, DC would be okay so long as you learn how a bill is passed while beating up hookers with a golf club?

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm ... I imagine a Civilization 4 mod where combat between units is displayed as a full-screen image, complete with spearmen impaling their foes, axemen and swordsmen decapitating anyone they fight, blood, gore and guts.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Surt]

For clarification purposes (follow up to my other post), here is the text of interest from the bill (with emphasis added by me for the key point):

91.14. Prohibited sales of video or computer games to minors
9 A. An interactive video or computer game shall not be sold, leased, or rented
10 to a minor if the trier of fact determines all of the following :
11 (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would
12 find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's
13 morbid interest in violence.
14 (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing
15 standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
16 (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
17 scientific value for minors.

Here is the link if you want to verify it (pdf text of the bill from shreveport times):
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/assets/pdf/D9295955 30.PDF

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Red Flayer]

AND() not OR().

Unless chess appeals to ther violent character of kids -- you know, horsies trampling on bishops. Which brings out the fact that chess is part of an attack on Christianity[1]!!one! Ban it!

[1] You do know chess came from Arabia, right? Chess is conclusively a terrorist game, expect to hear all about it on O'Reilly Factor soon.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[forringer]

Please pay attention when you RTFA. The bill would require ALL THREE conditions to be met to make a product illigal to sell to minors - i.e. if it is violent but has scientifiic merrit, it would be OK to sell. If it is violent and has NO other merit (artistic, scientific etc.) then it would be illigal to sell. Get it? By this criteria chess and checkers are in good shape.

Please mod parent - not insightful. :)

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Chowderbags]

Just so you know, Chess may have passed through Arabia during it's history, but is derived from an earlier game from India, which in turn may have been based loosely on a game from China.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Red Flayer]

Sorry, I was pulling a 'Colbert' -- satire of right-wing extremists usually inludes making up 'facts'.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Chowderbags]

My bad. :\ I must've just been influenced too much by those Chessnistas, who insist that they're not really Arabic. We all know that we can't be sure about anyone from that general part of the world, as in everywhere east of Europe, no, wait, everywhere east of Great Briton (I'm looking at you, France). We all know that America doesn't need chess, besides, it was dominated by a Russian for years, and we don't need to support anything or anyone related to communists, because we all know that terrorists are really communists in disguise.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[AuMatar]

I have the perfect game- First Ammendment Avenger! You play the hero, a Louisiana citizen who's tired of our rights to free speech being taken away. You go through the state looking for the perpetrators, with levels such as downtown shops, lawyer's offices, and the state capitol. When you find them, you can violently maim, kill, and torture them. The final boss is Jack Thompson. When you kill him, you get a fully rendered cutscene of you slowly torturing him to death over a series of weeks.

Hey, I'd buy it.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Korin43]

Sounds artistic to me.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[boarsai]

Heaven forbid the value called "fun"... the soul reason I play games. Children aren't allowed to have fun anymore? They have to learn something? It's absurd to the core.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase a supreme court justice:

I can't define too much video game violence, but I know it when I see it.

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Chess appeals to the violent nature of kids. It's a war game! There's no real difference between Chess, Risk, turn based war games and Medal of Honour. They all focus on a war, with the intent of completely wiping out the opposing force in whatever way possible. Chess is just a little less graphic (unless you count BattleChess, with its 3d animations of the pieces killing each other).

Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned?

[Thomas Shaddack]

Children aren't allowed to have fun anymore? They have to learn something?

Correct. They are not even allowed to have fun while learning. According to other today's news, chemistry sets are an endangered species as well.

Why is this system still called "freedom"?

How about an Anti Needless Legislation bill

[Megaweapon]

According to MY bill, it would be illegal to pass stupid laws if it met the following three conditions(1) The average person, applying contemporary intelligence standards, would find that the legislation, taken as a whole, appeals to the government's morbid interest in sociatial manipulation. (2) The law depicts intervention in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the liberty-mined community with respect to what is suitable for citizens. (3) The law, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for ANYONE except those in power.

Re:How about an Anti Needless Legislation bill

[Woy]

"The law depicts intervention in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the liberty-mined community (...)"

At first i tought you had mistiped "minded" but then i understood.

Re:How about an Anti Needless Legislation bill

[Megaweapon]

Heh, I mean "minded" but I suppose "mined" works in another sense as well... /excessive coffee typo alert

Re:How about an Anti Needless Legislation bill

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but that would defeat the point of Lobbyists, Special Interest Groups, Political Action Committees, Corporate Funding campaigns, and what is the current state and climate of Democracy and Politics in America.

That might lead to legislation worthwhile, which as we all know, MAKES TOO MUCH DAMN SENSE!!!!!!!!

They should expand this to other media

[TerenceRSN]

The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Now if they could outlaw movies and TV shows for similar reasons we'd get rid of about 90% of the garbage coming out of hollywood these days.

Regarding the law itself, aren't laws required to be unambigious and clear as to what's legal and what isn't? How is a video game store supposed to determine what's acceptable by the adults in the local society?

Re:They should expand this to other media

[geoffspear]

Considering the idea of applying community standards to determine what material is indecent was created by the Supreme Court, the answer to your question is probably "no".

Of course, one could argue that the Supreme Court itself is fundamentally wrong when it issues an opinion that the words "no law" in the 1st Amendment don't really mean "no law", but as far as American law is concerned, the Supreme Court is always right by definition, until it says otherwise.

Re:They should expand this to other media

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there's very few requirements about what a law must be. If the law is not valid, the courts will work it out. Unfortunately, it can only be worked out in court (you can't test the constitutionality of a law unless you're charged with an infraction of it).

Re:They should expand this to other media

[geoffspear]

You should really get hired as the lawyer for Planned Parenthood of South Dakota. You're obviously a lot smarter than their lawyers, who seem to disagree with you. Boy will they be embarrassed when the judge, who had you as a law school professor at Harvard, laughs them out of court.

That Law would affect very few games

[Anonymous Coward]

That Law would affect very few games.
GTA, ManHunt, Postal, yes they would be affected, and minors probably should not be buying those games themselves anyways.Then again, minors should not be buying most books by Stephen King.

Other games that are currently M rated such as Halo, The God Father, Cthulu based games, Oblivion and may other would fall outside that law. It would seem to be far more lenient then ESRB.

Priorities

[neuroPuff]

Its beyond me why people are willing to more intensely legislate against games than any other entertainment medium. Jack Thompson is shitting his pants to the idea of children being brainwashed, but is seemingly missing how that most bad behavior has to be more influenced by the parents themselves, the people they live with, rather than a daily hourly (depending on who you are) diversion.

Jack Thompson's efforts sure did pay off. Now let's hope he doesn't shit his pants when a child turns away from his E-rating saturated game library and turns on Scar Face.

Re:Priorities

[Surt]

Its beyond me why people are willing to more intensely legislate against games than any other entertainment medium.

The reason is straightforward, actually. There are only 2 other serious (widespread) forms of entertainment: audio (RIAA) and video (MPAA). And the reason games get attacked is that there isn't (yet) a GAA. The RIAA and the MPAA have a lot of powerful lawyers on retainer ready to defend themselves against any such attack. Jack Thompson would have no chance against them (and more powerful organizations than Jack Thompson have tried). Bottom line: games are the most defenseless target.

no it doesnt

[sepharious]

The nanny state only serves to further weaken the family unit by taking responsiblity from the parents. It doesnt matter how terrible the games are, it is the parent's sole responsiblity to raise the children, instilling in them the values that the parents see fit, and pay attention to what their children are doing. Each additional law and agency formed to raise people's children for them moves us closer to a McParent World, where corporations and government are the ones dictating the values and morals of the new generation. Grow a pair, step up to the plate and be a parent. If you're going to reproduce, be prepared for the consequences and STFU.

Re:no it doesnt

[StonyUK]

Seems to me that the only people upset by this would be people who want their kids to have access to this stuff. Are you also opposed to the minimum age for sex, booze and theatres throwing kids out when they try and get into R rated movies?

I just don't understand the problem here - if little Johnny is hanging out with friends, tries to rent an M rated game and is refused, then what is the problem? That's all good as far as I can see. If that's a problem for you, then go out and rent little Johnny his copy of GTA. While you're at it, could you pick him up another pack of Camels and some more Trojans?

I suppose another alternative is that you are minor who is stands to be prevented from playing all those fun and gory 'M' rated games too :)

Re:no it doesnt

[Chowderbags]

The problem is that it's just one more avenue that the government is attempting to go down that it should really have the power to. If they say that the material is patently offensive for children, so children shouldn't be able to buy it, what's to stop them from introducing another law that makes it illegal to allow children to just play the game. And then what's to stop them from introducing more and more regulation, to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to make an M rated game, which stifles free speech.

To compare the sale of video games, which no scientific study has shown to cause harm, to cigarretes, booze, or sex, which actually can have negative effects, is a strawman arguement beyond belief. As far as tossing kids out of theaters, that's up to the owners of the theaters, and their ways of handling things, not the government (which just goes to show you that you don't need a government nanny).

Re:no it doesnt

[DerWulf]

just as people are against wiretapping because they want to join the mob or deal drugs? I don't think so. Argument from principle is so 18th century, right? I mean, most won't even recognize it anymore.

Die Fascists!

[balance one]

Viva La Revolution

Is that it?

[Spy der Mann]

This is the controversial, censoring, extreme-right-wing menace that had been haunting us?

Sometimes I wonder who has more irrational fear - Jack Thompson or the gamers themselves.

Implied sex?

[imunfair]

Personally, I think parents need to stand up and do some actual parenting, but aside from that, this sentence stuck out:

"He also engaged in implied sex with a prostitute in a rocking vehicle before chasing her across a parking lot and beating her to recoup his cash." (Emphasis added)

Since when was implied sex ever an issue? We've had that in movies for what, 70 years now at least? I could see graphic sex, or even just sex being an issue... granted I haven't played the game but that's what the article says...

I think once Jack gets done with this he should go after Britney Spears because of implied sex in her songs. ;P

Re:Implied sex?

[Spy der Mann]

... Britney Spears ...

EEW man... careful with what you say, I'm eating!

Re:Implied sex?

[Surt]

I think once Jack gets done with this he should go after Britney Spears because of implied sex in her songs. ;P

You think he wouldn't like to? The problem is that the RIAA is well organized and has a lot of money to spend on lawyers. The game industry doesn't have a representative body with comparable resources, so they make an easier target.

Re:Implied sex?

[Soul-Burn666]

For fuck's sake. In GTA, while the car is rocking you can still move the camera. Move it to the front and you'll no movement, the dude's hands on the wheel and the car spontaneously moving.
If implied sex is that bad, go and ban games like Civ. The population in the cities increases and it's known there was no cloning at that time. Guess what? Those simulated people had sex and multiplied.

THE HORROR!

Re:Implied sex?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think once Jack gets done with this he should go after Britney Spears

I think once Jack gets done with this he should re-introduce his penis to his wife.

Re:Implied sex?

[ClamIAm]

IIRC, there's "implied sex" in The Lion King. And no, I'm not talking about the dust-looks-like-the-word-sex thing.

Re:Implied sex?

[booyabazooka]

In other news, the children's movie Bambi is being re-rated to R. When questioned about the decision, officials have stated it is because "Bambi has parents, and the only way parents can have children is through sex. The implication that parents at one point engaged in sexual relations is unacceptable for our youth."

Re:Implied sex?

[Anonymous Coward]

How are people thinking???

Shooting a person to the head with a handgun, sending blod flying to the wall: IS OKEY
Showing sex: IS NOT OKEY

How can sex be worse then the violence???

come on, it's obvious

[ArmenTanzarian]

Clearly, Louisiana has no bigger problem than this.

Legal Madlibs!

[Xaositecte]

Anyone else realize he's just madlibbing violence (and violence-related adjectives) to existing legislation defining pornography and restricting its sale to minors?

I think the goal here for this guy is to get violent Video games cordoned off to an "Adults only" section of gaming stores. It makes a certain amount of sense - I mean, how many people here have pointed out the hypocrisy of allowing graphic decapitation in Games, but absolutely no nudity?

Most people probably wanted to mean that to get rid of censoring nudity, but good Ole' Jack has taken that thinking to his own logical conclusion.

Re:Legal Madlibs!

[Sylver Dragon]

I had noticed tha Madlib too. While Jack Thompson may be a nanny state tool, he's not really dumb. He's realized two truths in US lawmaking.
1. If at first you don't succeed try, try, try, try, try and try again. Then try some more. Eventually, something will stick.
2. If you're having trouble getting something passed, just parrot existing, accepted legislation.
The only thing we can hope for is that Jack will die of a massive heart attack or some such, before he gets something to stick.

Or...

[jizziknight]

We could just start enforcing the ESRB ratings. If the rating is high enough, require the cashier to verify a state issued ID. Possibly even input the ID number into register, and print it on the reciept, and not proceed with the transaction until one has been entered. Hell, if you wanted to get really crazy, hook it up to the BMV database, and verify that it's a valid ID, and that the age on it is high enough to purchase the game. Do we really need a such a generalized, at-the-mercy-of-the-general(stupid)-public, do-your-parenting-for-you, target-any-specific-game, idiotic law?

Re:Or...

[HumanisticJones]

You mean like we had to do when I worked at Circuit City? Every game that came across that counter that was rated M required me seeing some ID. What would have happened if I didn't get that ID and let the game slide back across to a 12 year old? Well it wouldn't be jail time, but I'd have been out of a job on a serious offense. This is an issue for the commercial sector, and it always has been. The game companies rate the games, they've covered their butts. The stores need the responsibility to regulate selling the games to minors. This just takes adding warnings into the product databases of retail chains, it doesn't take a government agency eating up tax dolloars.

Re:Or...

[Surt]

Well, in fairness to Jack, he got laws passed to do just that, but they were overturned on free speech grounds. Now he's modelling his legislation on the laws that restrict the sale of pornography to minors, hoping that by that route he will succeed where his other legislative efforts failed.

Re:Or...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

What is needed is a 48h cool-off period before letting anyone buy a game. And strong regulations on how they are stored. Computers and the game should be stored in differend locked closets. And no one should be allowed to carry a PC with a game still in the drive with a special permit.

Solving the problem.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

How about we just throw out all the crap and use the current laws instead?

Add in HUGE fines for not sticking to the age ratings and ta dar! All problems solved.

Kids don't get content they shouldn't have, parents become responsible. Everyones happy except people with an axe to grind (Jack), but who gives a fuck about dip shits like that any way?

Re:Solving the problem.

[Red Flayer]

"How about we just throw out all the crap and use the current laws instead?"

What current laws? Public decency laws? Pornography laws? The ESRB is not law, it's voluntary.

Re:Solving the problem.

[Surt]

There aren't any current laws in Louisiana / the U.S. due to first amendment issues. Such laws have been passed in several states, but all have been struck down as unconstitutional. It is fully expected that even if this law is passed, it will be immediately struck down in court.

The ESRB rating system is just that, a rating system. It describes the content of the games it is applied to, but has no legal or actual bearing on who a given store can or will sell the game to (none of the 3 largest retail game sales stores restricts purchase of any game regardless of rating).

Ummm...

[jmhewitt]

So if this passes, a kid can't play a game simulating a cock fight, but he can go to one?

Re:Ummm...

[Surt]

This law would make it illegal for the store to sell him a game simulating a cockfight, it would remain perfectly legal for him to play such a game (if, for example a parent bought it for him).

However, in neither case could he legally go to a cockfight, as they are illegal throughout the US, for both attendees (slap on the wrist .. probably a small fine) and organizers (jail time).

Re:Ummm...

[jmhewitt]

They are legal in Louisiana. Every attempt to pass a ban on them has failed so far.

I never got Jack...

[DeeDob]

"(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence."

- funny, as Jack keeps on going that the ESRB is broken and not working while it's rating system is based solely on the opinions of the general population, or in other words: community standards. It seems he only wants to enforce a system that is his own.

More seriously though,

"(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

- The problem is: define "lack of literary, artistic, political or scientific value". It seems he only wants educational games for minors because going with that reasoning, we should ban the sale of Tetris to minors since it doesn't have any literary, political or scientific value. The artistic values of "tetris" can also be debated...

As always, Jack is painting with a brush as wide as his ego.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Jack Thompson is proud of you

[SmallFurryCreature]

You see a problem with the sex NOT with the violence in beating her up to get the money back?

America, where a titty is taboo but violence is A okay!

Re:Jack Thompson is proud of you

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you not notice the bill ONLY refers to violence?

So I have this idea for a game...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

You get to be one of Jesus' disciples, and you follow him around, and listen to him preach, and then the Romans grab him and nail him to a cross and...

Oh. Never mind.

Re:So I have this idea for a game...

[Surt]

In Louisiana, that qualifies as scientific merit, I believe.

Re:So I have this idea for a game...

[Howzer]

Oh, cool, we're doing game ideas! Ok, here's mine.

You play this third-rate lawyer. Points are accrued by:

* Chasing ambulances
* Finding extremely disturbed people who did something terrible, and blaming their actions on something that millions of people do every day for fun. (The murderers played Frisbee, which gave them the hand-eye co-ordination required to commit the crime, your honor. I rest my case.)
* Pretending you are associated with large, responsible, lobby groups
* Takin' the fight to the web, setting up lots of different "message" websites
* Preying on grieving families to drum up unwinnable, but really high profile, cases

Points are lost by:

* Attacking the wrong online cartoonists
* Ripping off Swift's "A Modest Proposal" but not actually understanding the satire of the original
* Getting disavowed by the lobby groups you're trying to shelter under

And you "win" when you gain enough "noteriety points" to:

* Convince a backwards state to pass broken legislation that keeps you in gravy essentially forever, by making things illegal when you say they are.

Re:So I have this idea for a game...

[Temsi]

How about Mel Gibson doing a video game version of The Passion of the Christ?
You could choose what character to control...

You could play various Romans, including the ones lashing him. You get points for each lashing, plus bonus points for the artistic value of the lacerations on his torso. If you can draw a perfect Z for Zorro, you get a cheat code. You keep track of his health, and if you lash him too often or too fast, he dies and you lose the game. Remember, this is just torture, not murder. If you want murder, you have to play one of the guys nailing him to the cross... or better yet, the guy with the spear. Maybe you could change characters as the story progresses, a la Indigo Prophecy.

You could play his mother or even Mary Magdalene. Your goal is to get to the site of the cross without getting in trouble with the Romans. Keep in mind that the gospels don't agree on the site, so you have to follow the leads in the game.

You could also play one of the Jewish leaders and just sit back, seeing as they somehow got the Romans to do their dirtywork for them. If they'd actually wanted him dead, they would have stoned him to death like they did everyone else, and they certainly would have waited until after Passover. You can ponder all that as you watch the game from the sidelines.

Or you could play Jesus himself. Then your goal would be to stay alive, carry the cross and of course, pick phrases from the gospels and have him mutter them at the appropriate time. Bonus points for doing it in sync with the movie.

There would be a lot of educational and artistic value in this game. It would make a lot of money, as the religious fanbase is huge and they would all buy this for their children, because they have to know that Jesus suffered and died for our sins... right?

PS. if you're not smart enough to ralize that this is sarcasm, then by all means, give me your best flames.

What'd you expect

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Jack Thompson and the State of Louisiana - two wrongs don't make a right.

Cowboys and Indians

[Spazmania]

In Thompson's youth, kids didn't play violent games. They just ran around with toy pistols playing cowboys and indians where they pretended to shoot and kill each other. Well, mostly the pretended to exterminate the Indians because everybody rooted for the cowboys to win.

Of course, they were fully clothed and didn't desecrate any all-american baseball bats along the way, so it was all good clean fun.

Re:Cowboys and Indians

[Hinhule]

Speaking of his youth.
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20050 808

Intersting wording!

[MobyDisk]

The wording on this bill is very interesting:

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.

The author of this bill thinks that minors have an intrinsic morbid interest in violence. But non-morbid violence would be okay. Wow.

(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.

I thought the word "patently" was only used by Slashdot trolls who didn't feel like backing up their point. I'm amazed to see it in a law. Eg: "That is patently absurd!" Meaning "that is so absurd I don't even care to justify why it is absurd"

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

I didn't know that minors had different standards for literary, artistic, political, and scientific value. I guess that means that only a minor could judge it!

Re:Intersting wording!

[Kesch]

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence

I don't think this bill will change anything since I, along with most minors, don't have a morbid interest in violence.

I would rather like to think that my interest in violence is more of a primal adrenaline fueled one.

Clearly, this bill is not anti-video game. It's anti-emo.

Re:Intersting wording!

[Anonymous Coward]

...appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.

I agree with your assesment. One must ask why do minors have a morbid interest in violence? I would think that would be the problem that should be addressed.

Perhaps its because they realise that government and law enforcement is a total sham and that violence is all they can understand, thus the interest in violence.

I support a law to protect children, BUT

[Alzheimers]

...but these "conditions" are the most vague, debatable, and questionable set of standards I've ever seen codified in law.

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.

"Average" compared to what? Don't forget that 50% of the population is below average.
"contemporary community standards" in whose community? Do we apply the same community standards of a small town, bible belt parish to a neighboorhood in San Francisco?
"Minor" by age standard, where you can vote or serve in the military but can't buy a beer?
"violence" by whose standard? Is jumping on mushrooms with faces considered a violent act? How about sending 300lb collinding into each other at full speed in an attempt to steal a oblong pigskin?

(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors

See: Above

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

"Literary, artistic" the cutscenes in GTA are no less well written and directed than scenes from Goodfellas or Boys N Da Hood or Taxi Driver. And yet those films are considered by many to be amongst the pinnacle of modern american cinema. I saw Taxi Driver in a psychology class in High School.

Whose artistic vision are we judging these standards to? One of DaVinci's most famous drawings is of a nude man. It's prominently displayed on the best selling book of the past few years. If a game features the Venus Di Milo, is that inappropriate for children?

"Political" for whose politics? Are we worried about offending children now with images of war, that would make CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for mature adults only? What about the nightly news? What about images of the 9/11 planes? What about games that question authority? Should the Federalist Papers be considered too mature for school grade reading, for advocating social unrest and revolt against government?

"Scientific" is also questioned when talking about a government that tried to apply that title to Intelligent Design. If the Big Bang is a promient plot element, does that insult to fundamentalism constitute a mature rating?

Re:I support a law to protect children, BUT

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that 50% of the population is below average.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. For example, take these numbers:

1 1 1 1 1 1 100

The average value here is 53; therefore, 6/7 (roughly 86%) of these numbers are below average.

If we assume that every person is unique, it is safe to say that half of the population is below the median, but it is nonetheless not necessarily true that half of them are below average.

Re:I support a law to protect children, BUT

[kthejoker]

All three of these criteria have a long-standing judicial precedent (see Miller v. California, 1973, and the many cases that led up to it through the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.)

They are extremely well-crafted, in that it is hard to prove something is obscene/overly violent/unacceptable, but if something can be proven to be just that, there is very little wiggle room for appeal.

Your arguments (witless and trollish as they come across) are exactly the same debates that go on when judges try to determine whether something is obscene, offensive, or objectionable in this country already. Within the minutiae of any given subject, arguments can be made that this is of an "artistic value", is not "patently offensive", etc. That's why we have the judicial process.

And PS "community standards" means the community surrounding the point of sale, usually defined as the city, township, or sometimes county depending on the level of incorporation. So, yes, Penthouse can be banned in Knoxville, Tennessee but still be legal in Hartford, Connecticut. But banning it in Knoxville doe snot also ban it in Hartford.

Seriously, could you bother to read even the slightest bit of jurisprudential history before commenting so dumbly on well-written legislative texts?

Re:I support a law to protect children, BUT

[Half a dent]

It is just so damn vague. Reminds me of when I was trying to pad out essays to meet the word count when I was back in college (that didn't get me many good reviews either!).

Assuming he could structure a sentence, his first point could be valid - but doesn't a rating system already do that?!

His second point is too subjective but if well written could be valid - but yet again ratings cover this!

His third point is just stupid, if you applied that to any and every subject in society (tody video games, tomorrow the world!) then kids would just be "seen and not heard" (actually after suffering a noisey brat in the cinema last week that ain't so bad!).

What is needed is common sense rather than this troll shouting "look at me" "look at me" "I'm saving America's youth". I'm sure that America's youth don't want to be saved by the likes of him and would rather have fun instead!

Re:I support a law to protect children, BUT

[Some_Llama]

"I've ever seen codified in law."

I think it is still just a bill,

only a bill, and it's going there to Capitol Hill, it's a long, long journey to the Capitol City, it's a long, long wait while it's sitting in committee, but I think it'll be a law someday, at least I hope and pray that it (won't), but today it's still just a bill.

Easy challenge if it passes

[9mm Censor]

The third critieria is _easy_ to challenge. Games offer excellent artistic merit, just ask the script writers and artists.

Re:Easy challenge if it passes

[Isthisagametou]

Or just ask me. I seriously find many video games to be the greatest works of art ever created by man. Resident Evil 4 is a greater work of art to me than the Mona Lisa, eg. I am nearly brought to tears just thinking of the beauty of it right now.

Blah

[stlhawkeye]

The first two provisions are fine. The third is a carte blanche to criminalize the sale of any game they want to kids.

Like most other laws...

[thebdj]

this will be defeated quickly in the courts. The problem they have consistently had from state-to-state is that the terms used are vague and do not make it clear what is and is not acceptable. It relies heavily on individual perception of certain games and quite possibly misuses the term "game as a whole", since they are probably saying, if one piece is bad the whole thing is bad and not that if the whole game is okay minus one little piece it is okay.

I love the addition of the artistic value portion though. Isn't this the phrase SCOTUS created or at least used to determine what falls under free speech? Not that it matters, since Bill of Rights says nothing about artistic value being a necessity for free speech. This in itself is also vague as what is deemed to have artistic value changes over time. I guarantee you many of our grandparents and some of our parents probably would not have called rock and roll artistic 50 years or more ago. Why won't anyone create one based on the ESRB and keep it simple? Oh, that is right, they think the ESRB cannot police itself. Newsflash, most the people buying these games for the kids are the parents...

Re:Like most other laws...

[geoffspear]

"Most laws" are quickly defeated by the courts? Are you delusional, or posting from an alternate universe?

Re:Like most other laws...

[thebdj]

check out the other game laws passed in other states, most have been defeated in state supreme courts or are currently heading there as we speak...no i think i read the news...

Yeah, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Minors should just get older. It just takes time.

err

[BitterAndDrunk]

cockfights are illegal.

Re:err

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in LA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cock_fight#United_Sta tes

In the United States cockfighting is illegal in Washington, D.C. and all states but: New Mexico and Louisiana.

Re:err

[An ominous Cow art]

And for good reason - cock sprains are painful...

Re:err

[brouski]

Not in LA. Welcome to God's country!

Artistic Value?

[g0bshiTe]

The 3rd would be met on most games, who can judge the artistic nature of a video game? What defines art? Does art inspire? If a requirement for art the it inspire thought or inspires one to be creative, than video games would certainly fall into that category. How many people are working in gaming to due to that one defining moment in some game they were playing that inspired them to learn and become a developer?

The problem in games today, to use cliche is not life imitating art but art imitating life.

How about this?

[MikeRT]

"Be it resolved that the legislature of the state of INSERT_STATE shall impose a fine on any vendor equal to twice the sale price of any game rated to be mature or adults only by a recognized authority within the video gaming industry for the offense of selling a game of this rating to a minor not accompanied by his or her legal guardian. In the event that the rating system should change, the rating authority shall be obliged to inform the attorney general whereby the attorney general shall take all necessary means to amend public policy to reflect the rating change. Legal guardians shall waive all right of litigation regarding the content of a game that is purchased in their presence except where the rating may have been issued due to fraudulent information delivered to the rating authority. Community decency standards shall not apply to the sale or rental of any video game, however such standards may be applied to any game rated mature (or equivalent) or higher when a public demonstration is performed."

Run for the hills! We might have to take responsibility!

How to get around this

[Skevin]

> (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors

We can make GTA an educational game... like "Grand Theft Auto: Reader Rabbit".

Literary Value
Da Brute: "Lo, like two fucking ships passing in the night. Who the hell are you?"
Stranger: "Call me Ishmael."
Da Brute: "You sent me to hell and back, mofo. What a tangled fucking web you weave."
Stranger: "Sammy paid me to screw you over, man! It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times!"
Da Brute: "Fine, then I shall strike you down with great vengeance!"
Stranger: "Et tu, Brute?"
*blam* *blam*

Artistic Value
Unscrupulous Collector: "Dude, here's the dig. You hijack the shipment and kill every motherfucker who gets in your way. Take all the Renoirs and the Monets, but burn all the Warhols - we don't need dat shit pollutin' our 'hood."
Mission: Steal all Renoir and Monet paintings from the convoy. Destroy any Andy Warhol artwork with your weapons. Use your real-life art sense to determine which painting is which.

Scientific Value
Big Don: "Alright, gangsta, heads up. We got a perfectly spherical mortar shell 12 centimeters in diameter that weigh 2500 grams, but our freaking mortar only delivers exactly 8000 square foot pounds of force-... No, I don't have a fucking conversion table between metric and english, you look that up yourself! Anyway, the rat we gotta nail is parked in between those two buildings 30 furlongs away, where the air pressure is 13.2 PSI instead of usual atmospheric constant 14.7, you got that? Anyway, he'll be there for only ten minutes, which gives you enough time to come up with a Second Order Linear Partial Differential Equation accounting for air resistance. Hey, mofo, if you miss this shot, we gonna shoot yo homies, cut up yo family, and rape yo gerbil."
Mission: Hit the car with the perfectly spherical mortar shell. You have one shot.

Solomon

Re:How to get around this

[Wes Janson]

Post that to Bash, because that's the best shit I've seen on slashdot in years. Bravo

what did kids do before games/tv?

[192939495969798999]

My dad got his first rifle at age 10. Had his first smoke then, too. This was typical for kids in his neighborhood, which was a suburb, not the ghetto. That's what kids were up to before tv and video games, so obviously stopping games so we can get back to owning real rifles and smoking is a priority!

Re:what did kids do before games/tv?

[CannedTurkey]

Most kids, I believe, LARP'd. Cowboys and Indians, Cops and Robbers, War with plastic guns. Live action role-play all.

The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill

[Crash Culligan]

And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain? It sounds to me like he's deliberately avoiding this because he wants to create a situation in which he can sit back and pick targets at his leisure.

While that would be a big win for him, look at the bigger picture: he keeps introducing legislation which says basically that OMFG TEH GAMEZ ARE TURNING UR KIDS INTO KILLAHS!!!1!!ONE!ELEVENTY. It gets reported on. And those who don't know better buy the subtext and become that much more worried.

It's said that if something gets repeated enough times, people will believe it. (As long as that phrase has been bouncing around, it must be true.) If he tells people enough people that video games are dangerous, then it doesn't matter if they strike down his dumbass laws now so long as they come to believe it eventually and outlaw them then.

It's meme warfare, pure and simple. And amazingly, it's so pure and simple that he probably doesn't even recognize it.

Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill

[linvir]

It's meme warfare, pure and simple. And amazingly, it's so pure and simple that he probably doesn't even recognize it.

He's a devoutly religious too, so if you even explained to him what a meme was, his defensive systems would block you out completely.

Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill

[corbettw]

It's said that if something gets repeated enough times, people will believe it. (As long as that phrase has been bouncing around, it must be true.)

Don't you mean, "As often as that phrase has been repeated, it must be true"?

Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill

[linvir]

I think the correct expression in these circumstances is something along the lines of...

Whoooooooooooosh

Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill

[Anonymous Coward]

"The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." - line from Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest

And then the lawyers argued

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Eh, this bill seems so vague that the only good it will do is give lawyers jobs for years debating what constitutes "morbid interest in violence" or what is "literary, political, artistic or scientific value" which is probably the point altogether.

Anyway, if this bill passes, will it force developers to get creative with games? Eh, probably not, they'll just hire more lawyers to oppose it while making the same stuff. It's kind of a shame. I think some of the best art is created when artists are pressured with social or political censorship, and games might need that in order to get out of their sequel slump.

Re:And then the lawyers argued

[mmalove]

Exactly. Jack Thompson is a lawyer. Thus the exceptionally vague law will provide him years of work in his favorite subject area. Fucking Brilliant.

On another note, how's that GTA clone coming along featuring Jack Thompson as the main character? We need to add some literary, scientific, and artistic fluff a la Da Vinci Code, so we can sell it to the kids.

Just makes me want to

[mobby_6kl]

repeatedly hit the asshole in the head with a huge purple dildo.

This is ridiculous, why use language like "average person" "contemporary community standards" "morbid interest in violence" to define what is against the law? Oh wait, I know, so that they can ban as many games (and fine as many people) as possible, without setting any standards beforehand. A "good" law would just enforce the official ratings. And by "good" I mean "also unacceptable".

The 3rd Clause

[Dr_LHA]

The 3rd clause could basically be used to ban all sales of video games to minors, allowing only purchasing of educational software. After all "New Super Mario Bros" "...lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors...", but its still a fun and harmlessly innocent game that is perfect for all ages, which in no way should be banned.

A question is, can one make a law based on the nebulous idea of what people find moral, rather than defining a moral code in the bill. Personally I think not, and as such the law will either not pass or be swiftly struck down.

Re:The 3rd Clause

[Sigma 7]

The 3rd clause could basically be used to ban all sales of video games to minors, allowing only purchasing of educational software.

IANAL, but that's an incorrect interpretation.

In these games-as-porn bills, it must meet all three requirements. Thus, a game that sprays gibs as if they were popcorn could still be sold to minors with whatever marginal plots they currently have.

Ultimatly, this bill does not affect any game available on the market, and violates the first amendment regardless.

After all "New Super Mario Bros" "...lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors...",

Super Mario Bros contains Political content, as I mentioned in one of my previous postings. Even if the current version doesn't have this, it is still

It's considered fan-made, but it is still part of the game. Third-party animations may be another story, but still reinforce the point:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/307402

A better example would be the game of Chess. It is violent without having any forms of gibs - and there's no literary, artistic, political or scientific value from the game itself (before it was treated as the target for basic AI systems.)

Re:The 3rd Clause

[Anonymous Coward]

That's complete rubbish. The law you're describing doesn't ban everything that isn't of merit, it bans certain things (ie extremely violent games) that have no redeeming features.

It's a stupid law alright, but your comments are even more ridiculous and your understanding of English clearly leaves you unqualified to talk about matters of law. If I were you, I'd shut up, and never post again.

It will all pass as soon as...

[nappingcracker]

They target Halo and Microsoft send in the lawyer for some team slayer.

"America's Army" video game

[billstewart]

America's Army is a propaganda tool\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "... an accurate portrayal of Soldier experiences .." video game put out by the US Army. Does it count as encouraging violence, or does it count as permitted "political education"?

Re:"America's Army" video game

[DjLizard]

I guess it must be okay as long as it's the agenda they want you have.

Re:"America's Army" video game

[statusbar]

I wonder if the "America's Army" video game has missions like "Torture Prisoners" and "Kill Innocent Families in this village".

That would be more in line with the real army! And still educational too!

--jeffk++

Re:"America's Army" video game

[russotto]

It does have a "torture prisoners" mission. An Army spokesperson defended its inclusion by pointing out that "While it exists on the game CD, it can only be accessed by means of a third-party tool which the Army does not provide".

Re:"America's Army" video game

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds eerily similar to the sex minigame in the PC version of Grand Theft Auto Vice City, which also required a 3rd party program to unlock. I believe they were still punished for it though.

Re:"America's Army" video game

[e4g4]

It was GTA San Andreas, and he was joking....to quote somebody else in the comments:

Whooooooosh

Re:"America's Army" video game

[KDR_11k]

Army education IS encouraging violence. OMG, the Army is turning our children into killers! Ban the Army!

Re:Vague Legislation==Job Stability for Lawyers

[LewsTherinKinslayer]

i'm considering law school myself for similar reasons.

this kind of legislation is actually very similar to another interesting bit of the history of law in this country: the miller test. This is essentially the "calculus" used to determine whether or not something is obscene, as created by the SCOTUS. It is absolutely subjective.

Subjective standards?

[null etc.]

Seems like many of these criteria are subjective. How is "community" defined? Is it fine to sell 50 Cent shoot-em up video games to minors in the ghettos, but not in upscale suburbia? How is "adult population" defined? A majority of 50% or more? To be determined by an independent poll?

There's lots of room for this to go wrong, as usual.

Give a little, get a little...

[BumpyCarrot]

Alternatively, give an inch, take a mile.

Another medium

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that this means much, but let's apply the criteria to Playboy Magazine:

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.

no violence: (1) is not applicable.

(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.

still no violence: (2) is not applicable.

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

There are decent articles on all these subjects throughout each edition: (3) is not applicable.

Question for Slashdotters

[MobyDisk]

In the 1950s - 1970s was there any attempt to pass laws to make rock music illegal? I'm looking for a parallel with the video game laws.

Every now and then someone posts about how, in each generation, there is some subversive counterculture thing that is supposedly going to brainwash the children. Elvis, Rock and Roll, Dunegons and Dragons, whatever. Today it is video games. But I can't recollect anyone talking about laws to make D&D illegal. It seems like something different is happening this time around. Unless someone has a counter-example for me.

Re:Question for Slashdotters

[NalosLayor]

Read up on the history of the comic book.

This law is Soooo Goood

[Coeurderoy]

It is really doublePlusGood, with this superGood(tm) law, parents will not have to look at what their childrens are doing with their PC/games console etc...
Since the only way they could have a EvilTeroristDrugSexAndALlOtherBadThing Games running on their Electronic toy would be for somebody to loan one to them.
And this cannot of course happen right.

And if parents would actually look at what their teenage childrens are doing they would have less time for TV and other important pursuits.

With this law they can safelly give their kids a couple of 100$ bills and completelly forget about them.

DoublePlusCool.

Postcard From Louisiana

[SomeGuyTyping]

It is illegal to sell alcohol to a minor (21) in any state, but, in Louisiana, I've sat in bars and had a pint or 4 since age 16. Make it illegal - people will still buy it

If the kids can't buy the games in stores...

[Mister Whirly]

..now they'll have to go back to getting them the old way - illegally downloading them using Bittorrent (just not from Pirate Bay!)

last time I downloaded a game rated "M" I don't recall having to show any ID..

What kind of conditions are those?

[tajgenie]

The third condition:

The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors

One game pops into my head that actually meets this ridiculous requirement! Max Payne. There is an incredible artistic value in Max Payne. Unfortunately Max Payne does not meet the violence standards.
Lets take a game that everyone has played. Solitare is not violent, but it doesn't meet the third criteria! There is no literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for anyone in this game. It can be argued either way, but the point is that this is such a ridiculous condition that even a game like solitare is questionable!

I suppose this means that until you are 18, you can't play anything but mathblaster and jumpstart. Oregon Trail - the classic game of my youth... brings out my morbid side because I like to cross the river and see if the oxen die... Guess that game is off the list for minors.

Actually I can think of one game that might make the list... America's Army- It has very limited violence, is supported by the government (so it's no GTA, clearly), and it has gasp! political value!

Just like the liquor laws...

[Cragen]

This oughta work r-e-a-l well. The outlawing of any type of behavior does seem to have much effect in this great land of ours, or anywhere else, I guess. Except to make it very profitable for everyone on both "sides" of the law to make, break, or uphold those laws. Cragen.

well shiver me timbers

[BitterAndDrunk]

No wonder Jesus sent the storms.
(I figured I should follow-up my initial ignorant post with another one)

I have no morbid interest in violence...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this 'requirement' assuming that all minors possess a 'morbid interest in violence'? It paints them as inherintly violent or evil or at least with severe emotional problems. Not that it doesn't exist in some cases, but I find the statement insulting to minors everywhere.

An odd protection...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the bill:
"The laws of Louisiana contain extensive provisions which afford children additional protection by
prohibiting them from voting, entering into marriage, purchasing or publicly possessing
alcoholic beverages, purchasing tobacco products, participating in gaming activities, entering
into contracts, and purchasing harmful materials."
WTF? I didn't know voting was such a dangerous activity, like getting married, or "participating in gaming activities". Someone should proofread this bill.

In General

[nahdude812]

In general, I'm actually in support of limiting the sale of a variety of products (including excessively violent or sexually explicit) products to minors.

However, this law, as apparently written, is absurd. You cannot make it illegal to do something as a judgement call of what the community would think. This is far too open to interpretation, and is more than likely to land some kid behind the counter in a game store in jail when it's discovered he sold Mario Kart to the next columbine kids.

It needs to set a threshold, such as games marked as mature by the ESRB. There needs to be a great big binary value: YES or NO, can you sell this game to kids or not, not "Do you think other people might not like it if you sold this to kids."

Katrina?

[HockeyPuck]

So the LA gov't is spending time/$$$ on this instead of helping Katrina victims?

Paperboy

[leroybrown]

I think Jack Thompson is onto something with this whole "video games cause violence". After playing Paperboy for countless hours when I was 13, I was under the following assumptions about being a paperboy:

• Non-subscribers are to be punished by destroying their property with extra newspapers
• Subscription was not based on how good the paper was but how well I was at delivering the papers
• The proper way to deal with people fighting is to throw newspapers at them
• The newspaper has horrible logistics problems since each day I would be given literally hundreds of papers in the hopes that I'd get to all 10 subscribers
• My fitness as a paperboy was not only judged on how well I delivered the paper, but on how much property I could damage.
• I should never turn my bike around or stop before venturing into traffic

Much like in the game, I was fired after the third day. If only Jack Thompson had been around to save me, I wouldn't have royally been misinformed about my duties as a paperboy.

Why not just...

[belligerent0001]

Why don't we just pass legislation that prohibits 'minors' from earning, having or using currency of any kind? This would make it difficult for kids to buy cigarettes, beer, 'violent' computer/console games, guns, rubbers, cough syrup and everything else that can 'do harm' to the little angels. It would also force parents to, well parent, by having to buy the above things for their darling princes and princess's. The solution is easier than the bumbling id10t's in the statehouses. Just ban the little snot noses from purchasing things. Of course this idea has it's down side....it will add more energy (money) to the black markets. As has been reported numerous times, it is easier for kids to get drugs than it is for them to get beer and/or cigarettes. So making it harder for kids to get Tomb Raider XXVII and sit in from of a TV or computer for hours on end it will actually make it easier for them to get say heroin, which as we know is a much better activity. Now...where'd I put my spike?

I read the bill for you and did the bool algebra

[gd23ka]

In summary: This bill is nothing to worry about (for people who play by the rules :-))

91.14. Prohibited sales of video or computer games to minors

-- whereas we want to protect kids, etc.etc dross omitted --

9 A. An interactive video or computer game shall not be sold, leased, or rented
10 to a minor if the trier of fact determines all of the following:
11 (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would
12 find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's
13 morbid interest in violence.
14 (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing
15 standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
16 (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
17 scientific value for minors.

-- the rest of it is just definitions, like what a computer game is etc. etc. --

Let's parse this thing, shall we?

First of all it says that all three conditions must be met at once:

It says in A: ... IF the trier of fact determines ***ALL*** of the following: [(1) (2) (3)]. That's a logical AND.

Conditions (1)(2) I wont discuss here because they will usually oscillate between true and false depending on ambient conditions such as experience-points of the lawyers involved, bribes and special phone calls.

Condition (3) is the really interesting condition. Since ALL conditions are true so that a game can be banned any game that does not satisfy this banning conditions can be given to kids even in Lousiana.

Condition (3) reads "The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
17 scientific value for minors."

Basically all the game has to have is serious political value and then it can be sold, lent or otherwise given to
a minor. I would posit that the US after all the torture, murder and mayhem it enacts on its own citizens and the
rest of humanity bringing up a fresh generation of young Abu Ghraib guards with educational software such as
Half-life etc. is of sound political value, wouldn't you agree?

After all, it's the Department of Defense itself that makes and distributes such educational software such as America's Army (Get it FREE at http://www.americasarmy.com/) etc.

I think the only games that would really be banned with such a bill would be the games I would like to play like: Point blank: Taxevasion 2006. Ambush Journalist. Question Authority (Lightgun Version). Copkiller I - VII. CFR/Trilateral Commission/IMF Monopoly etc. etc.

Those in office keep Louisiana small & cripple

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's right. I live in good old New Orleans and with all the wonderful ass-backwords bills being passed up in Baton Rouge you'd think Louisiana had all the industry and jobs it could handle and never had anything named Katrina swing by.

Those numbnuts up there also are trying to pass a law that will criminalize doctors who perform abortions, that would go into effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

Then they just voted down a law that, "would have prohibited state agencies from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation."

And might keep us as one of the only states where cockfighting is still legal.

Yeah, our priorities are just f'in fantastic down here.

Somehow I think Nagin will have a hard time attracting video game companies to a state with these dumb laws; something they recently set up tax credits to try to do and he has made some effort in moving forward with. I think they're going to need to bring the culture of Louisiana more in line with modern humanity and compassion before people bring any tech jobs here.

and good christ, until July of 2005 they actually taxed the production and sale of custom software.

Violence Vs Atmosphere

[phorm]

The ability to define the content of the game is somewhat subjective as well here. Sometimes the violence is part of the game (for example, GTA), whereas in others it's part of the atmosphere.

Even games such as diablo had some pretty nasty things such as staked corpses and the like. However, that was atmospheric, designed to induce a feeling of fright or foreboding. You could also happily club at demons or humanoids with various weapons, etc. The overall environment, though, is one of fantasy.

GTA on the other hand is based on the premise that you are an individual who lives by violence in a contemporary environment. Driving a car down the street in a fairly modern-day scenario, with scenarios that reward inflicting violence and terror against fellow humans.

Should the game have a strong rating, heck yes. But now we have games being rated heavily because a mod lets you texture some characters with non-anatomically-correct bits, or because the neckline or one character was too low.

Shoudl we have the ability to make a criminal offense of selling those games to the wrong person? Should you get jailtime or heavy fines and record for selling an 18A game to a rather stable 17-year-old?

Here's a better idea. Persue active crimes more. Punish the 15-year-olds that are going out killing people. Punish the parents who sat idly by and watched their kids obsess in violence, with games and many other factors being part of that mix. Stop making new crimes out of people who aren't part of the problem, and fix the existing system before you make a new problem with an additional one.

strawman alert

[sepharious]

its not about wanting kids to have these things. its about who decides what is right and wrong in the world. and the ratings on video games are already in place and usually enforced by the respective rental agencies and stores. the ratings are voluntary and are used mostly effectivly without governmental intrusion. this is just another attempt by an attention whore to put the spotlight on himself AGAIN. the main problem with this is there is no bottom, nearly any game could be struck down because some nutjob housewife with nothing better to do wants to feel like she means something in the world and she has been "choosen by God" to defend the little whelps.

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. - Thomas B. Reed (1886)
It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious, or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression on the part of others, and the moment governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve. - Henry George
Each and every time someone says "there ought to be a law" they are saying that men with guns should enforce their will on innocent others. - Michael Barnett

Developing Brains

[JTSmith]

Ok... I think giving people fines for selling games to minors is a bit far fetched. When kids are playing these violent games for hours on end with no regulation their little brains begin to think of violencent situations and maybe they can pull off some stunt they saw on game. The kids that play hours on end with video games they basically try to be some character. Think about it! When I was kid I ran around thinking I was a ninja turtle or a GI joe. The only reason I did this was because I learned it from watching the cartoons and reading mass amounts of comic books. The kids today still watch cartoons, however, they also will play video games for hours on end if you let them. Kids love to learn and explore new stuff all the time. If you expose your child to images of nothing but violence he will more than likely will be violent.

Gay man "Sword" fighting

[Anonymous Coward]

You can get them to ban "cock fighting" by convincing them that it is really something done by queers!

Good luck holding on to that idealism

[spun]

No sarcasm intended, I really mean that.

You do know the whole purpose of law school is to kill that idealism of yours, right? I heard a lawyer friend of mine say that 85% of first year law school students say they want to get into some kind of advocacy law. That goes down to less than 15% of graduating law school students. I have no idea if this is true or not, but my gut tells me it is, and as Stephen Colbert says, that's the organ we should all be using to think with. ;-)

I'm sure you can do it, but you have to stick to your guns. Don't let them brainwash you!

Re:Good luck holding on to that idealism

[Seraphim_72]

Same happened with friends who went to Medical School. One friend, over dinner, remarked that he saw it as indoctrination, not education.

Unicorns and Poptarts.

[Geburah]

I can't think of any games that would fall within the guidelines of the proposed bill off the top of my head, but a book very popular with Jack Thompson, along with countless other adults and minors, did come to mind. I would be here for a long time if I listed all the heart warming family tales about incest, rape, and murder, so I picked just a few that delbt with children in particular:

Numbers 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones.
Deuteronomy 2:34 utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones.
Deuteronomy 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters.
I Samuel 15:3 slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.
2 Kings 8:12 dash their children, and rip up their women with child.
2 Kings 15:16 all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
Isaiah 13:18 They shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eyes shall not spare children.
Lamentations 2:20 Shall the women eat their fruit, and children.
Ezekiel 9:6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children.
Hosea 9:14 give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.
Hosea 13:16 their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Whew!

[rivetgeek]

It's a good thing we have good ole JT here to show us the path to enlightenment through morality. I hear after the senate meeting we're all invited over for kool-aid but he says to bring your Nike's.

Re:Whew!

[JTSmith]

Whew!!! It's a good thing I have you rivet to make dumb jokes like that.

Re:Whew!

[rivetgeek]

Oh Noes!11eleven1 Sure hope JT doesn't intarweb sue me!

Re:Whew!

[JTSmith]

haha your funny! Good try on the insult though. OMG wut am I 2 do? I dun know about teh intarweb! Now move on little one.

Re:Whew!

[rivetgeek]

My funny what?

Re:Whew!

[JTSmith]

Your funny for your pompus wit towards people by displaying your not so impressive insults.

This law already exists!

[tapo]

This is essentially the Miller test with "...for minors." added to the end of everything.

And I find both to be unconstitutional pieces of shit. These aren't children playing GTA! These are 14-17 year old teenage males here! And by god, if they want to play it, the government has no right barring them from doing so. What's next, arrest teens for swearing? Speaking out on marajuana legalization?

Violent games do not harm your health or wellbeing, unlike alcohol and drugs. What the hell is the purpose of banning them?

Re:This law already exists!

[JTSmith]

Well actually, wether you like it or not teens really have no rights. Get over it!

Good News!!

[mdielmann]

My historically accurate, photo-quality, anatomically correct Jack the Ripper game will still be available!

I think I'll follow up with "Mad Like Vlad", an FPI (first-person impaler) where you get to do what Vlad does best.

</Joke>

let's apply this to real life....

[pxuongl]

let's apply these rules to real life, i.e. youth sports and the like... (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.
little league, youth football, soccer.... take a look around those

(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
the news, the newspaper, many many books you'll find in n elementary school library... these include the chronicles of narnia, the hobbit, the bible. Hell, you don't see jack thompson protesting and calling the child protection police on the parents who decided it'd be a good idea to take their 6 yr old kid to see Passion of the Christ.

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
basic seseme street exercise here: one of these things does not belong here, one of these things just isn't the same.... one of these things is not like the other ones, which one is it? *hint*political*hint*

what really scares me

[Some_Llama]

Is the next step, allowing a child to play one of these games will then be considered "contributing to the deliquency of a minor".

Also, IF these laws ARE upheld, what would be the legal status of giving away games to minors, or allowing them to come to a LAN party?

As I have kids who play these games (which i allow as a parent knowing full well to what they will be exposed) and host LAN parties every month or so with underage attendees, am I now criminally liable for what some people might consider not appropriate for minors?

Can this law be any more subjective?

Why can't "society" butt out?

[Andy Somnifac]

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.

Great, "contemporary community standards." Do I want my bible thumping neighbors and coworkers deciding what is and is not OK? Answer: No. I can see it now: "Oh no! You can tell that woman has boobies underneath that armor! Boobies are bad!!!1!"

(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.

Again, who is to judge this? I would guess that those people making these decisions wouldn't have let me see movies like Robocop as a child. But, last time I checked, I thought I was a well adjusted member of adult society. Violent movies (since there wasn't a large amount of realistic violent video games as I was growing up) didn't warp my perceptions and make me want to shoot up my office.

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minor

I can see it now:

• Literary or artistic: We live in a society where Britney Spears is a mind bogglingly successful recording "artist." Does anything else really need to be said to point out the fact that society as a whole would be most unlikely to spot something with artistic merit even if it was sitting on their nose?
• Political: It goes against the prevailing political norms, so it must be bad. How dare a video game put forth the idea that corporations are wielding greater and greater influence over the US government. It is teh bad.
• Scientific: And what percentage of Americans actually believe in the creationist theory that the world is only 6000 years old?

Why can parents not just step of and, god forbid, monitor what their children are doing? Why is it the governments decision to decide what is and is not OK for your children?

I fail to see the problem

[hurfy]

" The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

Simply change the zombies,germans,and other assorted baddies into Jack Thompsons and friends and you have political value and the law no longer applies :)

Even easier, after a compnay spends $1,000,000 on graphic artists you don't suppose they may try to argue for artistic merit ;)

Really it sounds like a mess to try and interpet the umm definition used. I vote with the Brit, there might be some value in simply enforcing ratings (if one forces the movie companies to go along also of course)

Re:I fail to see the problem

[tutori]

Simply change the zombies,germans,and other assorted baddies into Jack Thompsons and friends and you have political value and the law no longer applies

That's what I've been thinking. I can't come up with a situation where there isn't any 'political' value to a FPS. Well, maybe if there is no backstory, but pretty much any attempt will garner you at least a meager social commentary, which has political value in my book.

My new hero

[Just Some Guy]

You got "+5: Rand"? Here, on Slashdot? You, sir, are truly worthy of my respect and admiration.

It's an election year...

[Il128]

Our elected officials will be spending the next few months before November appealing to the insipid and baser members of the community. Those of us with functioning gray matter will probably want to vote the bums out but in order to do that we need non-bums to vote for... America is the land of the politically expedient and frivilous

Unenforceable

[WillyPete]

They can't stop kids from getting cigarettes, drugs, porn, and guns, and yet they persist with this nonsense.

An unenforcable law is worse than a joke. It creates a situation where the enforcement of any and all laws is brought into question.

After all, if police and adults can't stop children from circumventing minor laws, what's stops adults from committing more serious offenses?

Incorrect

[brouski]

For a game to run afoul of this statute all three provisions must be met, not just one.

Value for Minors

[lys1123]

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

I guess this means no more Katamari???

Sanitized violence ...

[willtsmith]

I find the depiction of violence without gut-retching gore offensive and de-sensitizing. i.e. I hate professional wrestling. Somehow I do not believe this bill will target a WWE game. But if you explode a body and watch the guts splatter against the walls, somehow that's considered below community standards. Take out the gore ... no problem.

Actually, I think that every kill in a video games should be accompanied by a crying wife and a starving child. That would really bring the violence home.

Ban kids!

[InfiniteWisdom]

I strongly agree with Jack Thompson's desire to ban implied sex. In fact, I think showing a couple with their kids on TV and in games should be banned as well because of the implied sex between the couple.

Won't pass.

[darkhitman]

Mmm... tastes like censorship!

I don't think this bill has any chance of passing. It's clearly censorship at it's blatantest and a lot of bill that pass the House get killed in the Senate; if it does pass my guess is a Supreme Court decision will eventually strike it down. Almost wish that does happen, just to shut Jacko up.

Re:Won't pass.

[JTSmith]

"I don't think this bill has any chance of passing." You are probably right... On average only a whopping 6% of all bills actually get passed.

value for minors

[PMuse]

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Mr. Thompson, would you like to explain how the "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" of anything is different for minors than for other people?

[crickets]

It's not that bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

This is pretty much the exact same way any source of media is scrutinized. The bill looks like a lot of smoke and mirrors, to me.

Passes the test

[quizzicus]

I think you'll notice that good law always includes such unambiguous phrases as "the average person", "prevailing standards", and "artistic value".

What's wrong with the movie ratings system?

[ChrisGilliard]

Is there some reason we can't just apply the same rating system we do for movies and check kids IDs if they want to buy a rated R video game?

Blackjack and hookergate.

[Valdrax]

Only if you do it at the Watergate Hotel while playing poker or blackjack.

In fact, forget about the bills and blackjack.

Unless they murder someone...

[cr0sh]

...and then magically, a 14 year old becomes an adult!

Good Parenting?

[Rallion]

I'm finding that I disagree with how some people seem to define 'good parenting' in this discussion -- or at least the terms in which they discuss it, which is often (as in this case) partially determined by the specific subject of the article.

Good parenting has NOTHING to do with preventing 8-year-olds from playing GTA.

It has EVERYTHING to do with making sure that your kids ultimate response to playing GTA isn't going around and killing people.

The people that say, "Well, it's impossible for the parents to prevent them from playing these games, as long as all the kid's friends' parents aren't doing the same!" and similar are absolutely, positively correct. But it's irrelevant. If parents are doing their job, it doesn't matter what the kids play.

Once we start talking about limiting access, we're assuming a situation in which the parents have already failed.

Granted, there are people who are just crazy, and it's not their parents' fault. Absolutely. But they're crazy with or without Manhunt, anyway.

Pointless

[Stalli0n]

The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I've just received word that the Emporer has dissolved the council permanently.

Same standards as radio....

[SonicSpike]

I work in the music industry and the broadcast industry. The EXACT same wording and phrases are used to determine what you can and can't say over the air of broadcast radio/TV.

It couldn't be more ambiguous, vague, or unclear.

Brought to you by...

[SonicSpike]

...the religious rig....oh... wait... never mind. A liberal democrat introduced this. Wow, I guess BOTH parties want to limit civil liberties and impose useless laws.

Perhaps we should all consider voting libertarian if you disagree with this bill!

Some of you slashdotters are misinformed

[Doom bucket]

Some slashdotters don't seem to know that being a minority has pretty much nothing to do with population. The majority group is the group who holds the power, or rather, the Dominant Group.

Consider: The people pushing this bill forward, hold the power. In population? That's not important. They hold the power, in political power, wealth, and social status. I oppose this bill. I'm in college, I'm living off Top Ramen and paying too much rent. Outside of picketing and handing out pamphlets, politically I mean NOTHING.

Are whites the majority population wise in the USA? Yes. Are christians the majority religion population wise in the USA? Yes. Are white male christian politicians willing to make criminals out of citizens the majority, population wise? No.

Yet it doesn't matter somehow, because they wield the power, wealth, and they're the Old Money. So it doesn't matter does it?

Jack doesn't know, uh, er...

[nutsy]

C'mon, I know he must be feeling embarassed that a group of amateur devs actually called him on his bogus 'proposal', but does he have to throw such a sizeable tantrum about it?

Still no bill to resolve duchebaggedness

[Bushido Hacks]

There are alot of people who need to be tossed out for being total duchebags. Jack Thompson, Hillary Clinton, Lynn Cheney, Tipper Gore, Rick Santorum, Bill Lieberman...

Who the hell decides what is good enough?

[Ginger Unicorn]

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

Who gets to decide if a game has sufficient artistic value? Surely this is entirely subjective? According to this cretinous rule kids arent allowed to buy a game if it isnt artistic enough.

Jack Thompson. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

Jeeze, and I thought he killed himself after losing his son to videogames and went around the US on a killing spree of all the video game software company execs. . .

Look, let's use the same reasoning for bread

[tibike77]

Research on bread indicates that:

1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.

In light of these frightening statistics, it has been proposed that the following bread restrictions be made:

1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.

Rules are too vague

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence. (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors. (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

All of those rules are way too vague. In point 1 what if hte minor's interest in the violence is not "morbid"? In point 2 I think the "prevailing standards in the adult community" needs defined, because I'm willing to bet that MOST adults find MOST video games suitable for minors. In point 3 who is too say what lacks value? I know lots of violent World War II based games that have lots of real history in them that minors can learn from. Also, most video games whether violent or not are infact "artistic".

It just needs a few small tweaks...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we just make a couple simple substitutions then I'm sure everyone can get behind this bill. Just replace "the game" with "Jack Thompson" and "minor" with "the public".

According to the text of the bill, it would be illegal to sell, rent, or lease Jack Thompson to the public if it met the following three conditions: (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that Jack Thompson, taken as a whole, appeals to the public's morbid interest in violence. (2) Jack Thompson depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for the public. (3) Jack Thompson, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the public.

Neither you nor J. Thompson speaks for Christians

[ianscot]

On behalf of conservative Christians throughout America: you have no idea what you're talking about.

My Southern Baptist relations down in Oklahoma are exactly the people referred to by the parent poster. They fit his or her statement, to the letter, and have spoken against both "Huckleberry Finn" and GTA to me personally. My point being that Jack Thompson doesn't speak for all conservative Christians -- and neither do you. Both of you claim to do so on some level, however... or you just said you did, anyway.

And don't forget that liberals have been advocating censorship for decades as well. I say that not as an excuse, but as a reminder: don't think that every last person in your political demographic is as anti-censorship as you'd like to believe.

Personally I find the strange political bedfellows over issues like pRon and violent video games to be instructive. This is a good example of how it's sometimes not what you believe, but the way your belief was arrived at. Authoritarian belief systems vary in which authorities they think have the absolute truth, but they think in the same basic ways about the world. So, you get certain fundies and certain radical feminists arguing together for stuff like censoring pop music lyrics. They both think they've got a grip on absolute morality, yes?

So you're right -- this is one of those areas where the political spectrum reveals that it's really more like a circle. The two ends overlap. Fundamentalists from all the religions of the book think alike, in many ways: John Ashcroft, meet the Taliban.

Re:Neither you nor J. Thompson speaks for Christia

[Just Some Guy]

My point being that Jack Thompson doesn't speak for all conservative Christians -- and neither do you. Both of you claim to do so on some level, however... or you just said you did, anyway.

You're probably right. I seemed to be speaking for all conservative Christians when I'm obviously not. Still, Jackass Thompson belongs to many additional demographics that people aren't collectively blaming. Some Christians agree with him and some don't. Some men agree with him and some don't. Some 50-somethings agree with him and some don't.

It's not fair or accurate to say that his idiotic beliefs stem from his religious and political alignments when many others with those same affiliations completely disagree with him. That's really all I meant.

Wow what fun.

[Anonymous Coward]

"(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

OOOOO! I can't wait for such games as:

World of Wordcraft, Splinter Spell, Grand Theft Algorithm, Hitman Phonics, Bunsen Burnout 3, & Band of Brotherly-Biologists?

What fun... I nearly wet myself from the excitement.

Re:Neither you nor J. Thompson speaks for Christia

[ianscot]

Still, Jackass Thompson belongs to many additional demographics that people aren't collectively blaming. Some Christians agree with him and some don't. Some men agree with him and some don't. Some 50-somethings agree with him and some don't.

Not to mention the coveted jackass demographic. Those people go to movies!

I do think you want to examine the history of U.S. governmental censorship and take a good long look at stuff like the "Hays" code in Hollywood. The Catholic church had a huge influence over "the code," and Joseph Breen who enforced the thing came out of various Catholic advocacy organizations.

I'm having trouble thinking of comparable left-wing examples, at least in the US. The black list didn't ban right wing figures like John Wayne and Ronnie Reagan from the movies, you know? Even at the height of early 1970s counter culture, where were the left-wing laws censoring pro-military/"fascist" films and so on? That would be the equivalent, more or less.