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

[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

[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

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?

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.

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.

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: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).

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