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

[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

[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.

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"

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

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?

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

come on, it's obvious

[ArmenTanzarian]

Clearly, Louisiana has no bigger problem than this.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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!