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

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.

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: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: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: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.