Slashdot Mirror


Oklahoma 'Games As Porn' Bill Now Law

simoniker writes "Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry has signed into law the State-specific Bill HB30004. The bill redefines a list of items, such as hardcore pornography, deemed harmful to minors to include videogames which use 'inappropriate violence'. The new Oklahoma law is due to come into effect from November 1st. The story notes: 'Despite being one of the more draconian anti-games bills put before a State senate, HB30004 has faced limited opposition, with apparently little concern being given to the consistent problems other similar bills have faced from legal challenges.'"

200 comments

  1. Meh. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder if this is just another impress-the-voters measure passed to make the old white men in suits look good, which will get quietly struck down as unconstitutional when it ever actually comes into play in court.

    1. Re:Meh. by yincrash · · Score: 1

      unconstitutional by the US Constitution or their state constitution? I'm not sure what constitutional clause it violates and since it's a state law, I don't think it has any real opposition when it comes to the US Constitution.

    2. Re:Meh. by thebdj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, yeah it does. No state constitution can abridge a freedom guaranteed under the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

      That more or less reads, if we do not specifically say something here, then it is up to the states or the people to make up their own laws/rights in regard to the issue. Now, what constitutional clause does it violate? Freedom of speech. This is the argument that has been used to help relieve other states of these horribly vague bills. You see, most state Supreme Courts have ruled them unconstitutional because they use language that is non-determinate and that requires an individuals (or small group of individuals) to make a judgement call on what is deemed "inappropriate violence."

      The problem with these vague terminology is that you run into cases that parallel problems you see in movies as well. There are parents who in a million years refuse to let their kids see R-rated movies, but how many of those same parents do you think may have dragged their kids to see "The Passion of the Christ"? Is that movie "inappropriately violent"? In the minds of Christians, it might not be. While a viewer who does not share their beliefs might find some of the depictions grotesque and violent.

      Would we run into this same problem if someone created a "violent" video game that was based on the bible? I mean there are parts of that book that are pretty grotesque. I can only hope that this sort of thing gets knocked down by a court with enough common sense to see it for what it is...

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    3. Re:Meh. by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Well, this one actually sounds like it might have some merrit, IF (and that's a huge if!) they improve the definition of 'inappropriate violence'. For example, so far as I can remember, there is no nudity in Trent Reznor's tripple-X Video rell. But I would definately consider it worthy of a XXX rating. If a state can make laws relating to the distribution of pornographic materials to minors, and pornography includes extreme violence, mutilation, etc... then this law is just "same stuff, new format"

      IMO, the ESRB does a good enough job. But IF someone makes a game/movie/[insert prefered medium here] that include elements of torture, rape, mutilation, extreme graphic representations of those acts, and the like, AND the state has existing laws against the distribution of that material, then I say leave this matter to the states.

      My question is: Are there laws preventing the sale of X-rated material to minors?

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:Meh. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Are you totally ignorant or just trying to troll? The US Constitution overrides any federal and state laws.

    5. Re:Meh. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      If a state can make laws relating to the distribution of pornographic materials to minors, and pornography includes extreme violence, mutilation, etc... then this law is just "same stuff, new format"

      I have a big problem with "extreme violence, mutilation, etc" being classified as pornography. Should kids be able to see either the violence or the sexual depictions? No. But to classify all of it as pornography suggests that a simple regular porn video is of the same substance as a mutilation video. That's definately far from a sane viewpoint.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Meh. by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Pornography is a huge range. For example, there is "pornography" in 'R' rated movies. Violence, death, sex, nudity, etc... but (for the most part) it isn't extreme, and usually has some other (entertainment) value. So far as I know, there are no laws preventing the sale of 'R' rated materials to minors. The industry is self regulating.

      But if it is illegal to distribute an X-rated snuff re-enactment film to a minor, why should it be legal to distribute a game where players re-enact snuff films to minors? I have no problem with the genre of snuff film games, and I think that such games should be producible and distributable to adults (not that it's truly my taste), but if there is a law in place regarding the material already then why would adding games to the list be unconstitutional?

      The problem as I see it is making sure that the same level of rating is used for both movies and games. While GTA is violent, it is less graphic then 'American History-X', so the two in my mind should be rated as a very strong 'R'. As for hot coffee, how can you show consumers movie after movie with crappy 30 second sex scenes and then say that a rough rendition of sex in a similarly rated video game is over the limit?

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    7. Re:Meh. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1
      "Are you totally ignorant or just trying to troll?"
      I would give him the benefit of the doubt, simply because....

      The US Constitution overrides any federal and state laws.
      Very few American citizens are actually aware of that fact, which is part of why most Americans are so willing to lay down and just accept any abridgement of their rights and freedoms. They believe that if the government says it, it must be true, and while that statement seems silly to us Slashdotters, we are in a very, very small minority.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    8. Re:Meh. by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now, what constitutional clause does it violate? Freedom of speech.

      Who's speaking in these games?

      Yes, I know what you meant, you meant, of course, the interpretation of the constitution that defines freedom of speech and the press to simply mean "expression." So while the SCOTUS might shoot down this law under that interpretation, it does so because it is (and has been, setting too much precedent) legislating from the bench.

      While I might disagree with the law, I don't see any fundamental rights spelled out in the constitution being abused. That being the case, the tenth ammendment moves the law into the hands of the state.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You know, I'm not a lawyer, but I've never bought that argument. The first amendment doesn't say "every citizen shall have the right to free speech" or "the government shall not abridge the freedom of speech." It says: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Now let's look at this as it is affected by the 10th amendment. The united states (at least the legislative branch) does not have the power to abridge free speech delegated to it by the Constitution. That right is not explicitly prohibited by the constitution to the states. Therefore, the right to abridge the freedom of speech is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      Thus, the states totally are within their rights to abridge speech and religion and the press all they like, and the Constitution's got nothing to say on the subject. Or it wouldn't've, if it weren't for those darn liberal activist courts.

    10. Re:Meh. by thedogcow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am so tired of hearing "liberal activists". This is bullshit. The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are moderates. This is stupid labeling ploy activated by the right.

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    11. Re:Meh. by computechnica · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm stationed in Oklahoma and the adult video stores can only sell the "Cable Version"(X-rated) versions of XXX movies. When I was stationed in New Jersey and Mississippi the local video stores had backrooms for the XXX rentals.

      Oklahoma also outlaws Tattos, that is why the first few exits after the state line in Texas has Tatto and XXX Adult video stores.

    12. Re:Meh. by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      But this isn't just banning 'snuff film games'. The article indicates the bill would also ban a game that "depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely." Almost without fail, when Lara Croft encounters a moving target (animal or human), she pulls out a pistol (or two) and blows it away. Sounds like a lead character who resorts to violence freely. Yet, Tomb Raider is one of my six-year-old daughter's favorite games. (And she hasn't yet tried to shoot anyone IRL.) Nope, this bill is poorly written, and I trust will not pass constitutional muster.

    13. Re:Meh. by JDevers · · Score: 1

      Oklahoma actually removed the tattoo restriction a month or so ago.

    14. Re:Meh. by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I always thought it was the ultraconservatives who always said "government cannot give rights, it can only take them away". To claim that it is a "right" of the state to abridge free speech is horrifyingly authoritarian, and in direct opposition to the freedom of the country. But then again, we have that 14th ammendment which clearly states that, no, states (and local governments) don't have the right to trample over the rights of the people for free speech, religion, press, what have you. So... you must be confusing "activist courts" with Congress and the states (who ratified the 14th ammendment).

      Besides, I'm sure you won't complain when equally activist conservative court judges overturn 50 years of precident as far as abortion goes, unless you can point out to me where the Constitution says "Oh, and no abortions." Although I can specificly spell out how the Constitution only grants the federal government certain powers, and how conservatives have gone far past the reach of those (and yes, liberals have too, and I don't like that either). For example, look up Nixon, Richard, the entire presidency of. Or for that matter, find where the NSA is given the power of warrentless wiretapping (hint: it's not!).

    15. Re:Meh. by Sage+of+Lightning · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that, in your opinion, games should NOT enjoy the same 'freedom of the press' as news papers, telivision and 'art' do? Or are you saying that the 'freedom of exspression' should not have been exended to these new art forms that weren't around at the time of the framers?

    16. Re:Meh. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Very few American citizens are actually aware of that fact

      I dunno, I find that extremely hard to believe. Even your basic criminal knows it gives him the right to silence, to an attorney, etc.

      I'd love to see a study which tests this, but there are just so many times that federal law (not even the Constitution) tramples over state law. People are aware of that, so they must be aware that Federal level overrules state.

    17. Re:Meh. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      In the English/US tradition, it is the JOB of judges to "legislate from the bench".

      Get over it already.

      Fascist tool.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re:Meh. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 1
      Even your basic criminal knows it gives him the right to silence, to an attorney, etc.
      Your basic criminal knows this because it's been popularized on TV and in popular culture over the past 30 years. The reason Miranda Rights originally started being read to people being arrested is because some people DIDN'T know they had them.

      I would like to see a scientific study on the issue too, but what I do know just from watching people talk about rights and laws is that they're horribly, unendingly confused. Part of the reason for this confusion is that both the states and the Federal government want powers neither should have; and they fight over it all the time, and just because a law gets ignored for awhile (either state or federal) doesn't mean that government entity actually has the power to enact that law; it just means it hasn't been properly challenged yet.

      And even if your own statement (and I don't know if you were just being blithe or if you really didn't know this) but this statement is incorrect:

      so they must be aware that Federal level overrules state.
      That is not always true, and actually, is false far more often than it is true. The government as it is laid out in the Constitution has a very small set of powers, and all others are given to the states. The Federal government is only supposed to overrule the states in very limited instances. These days, with the consequences of activist Supreme Court judges over the past 200 years, the Federal government holds alot more power than it was originally designed to, but even still many decisions are still in state hands, not Federal hands. And the thing is, because of the endless list of laws designed to assert Federal power in the past 50 years, it has gotten so confusing to determine where the Federal government ends and the states begin, that no common layperson could really make sense of it.

      And this is exactly how the states and the Federals like it. It means that your common citizen is ill equipped to challenge the authority of any government entity, because they don't have a clear view of their own rights and the powers of the government. And governments love it when you weaken a citizen's ability to defend themselves. Makes their job so much easier.
      --

      We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
    19. Re:Meh. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well, in a way, that's exactly what I'm saying, except that, for example, TV news and online content are the modern day replacements for "the press", so there are compelling reasons to grant them the same status.

      And the medium does matter! I cannot walk around naked in public with "Bush Sucks!" written on my penis (pun intended), but I can walk around handing out pamphlets that say "Bush Sucks!" on them, and yelling out loud "Bush Sucks, take a pamphlet!" while I do it (in appropriate public places).

      So the point is that free speech is not being infringed upon, it's just that the medium, in this case, is not deemed appropriate. Being that it's not enumerated in the constitution that games are a protected form of speech, it's up to the state to decide.

      I don't agree with the decision, but then that's why states should have more power - so you can go live in a state with laws you can agree with, and it's also why we have elections, and a process (albeit a slow one) to change things for the better. And ultimately, not being an expert on consitutional law, this is mainly just my opinion, but I find it difficult, after reading the ammendments, to come to any other logical conclusion but to let the state decide on the morals and ethics behind the laws they pass. Only if the people agree with their representatives do things like this stand. Otherwise, they eventually get changed for the better.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    20. Re:Meh. by tddoog · · Score: 1

      Won't anyone think of the ... bordertowns.

    21. Re:Meh. by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Being that it's not enumerated in the constitution that games are a protected form of speech, it's up to the state to decide.

      Ninth Amendment

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    22. Re:Meh. by NemoX · · Score: 1

      No, Oklahomans are just plan ignorant. I have been doing work here for 5 years, and can't wait to get out of this state. These people would be completely content with a theological dictatorship in this country. They have little concern with the freedoms our founding fathers fought for in the past. It is mind boggling how much they want the government to parent their children. One of the highest divorce rates, and highest teen pregnancy rate in the country due to hypocritical religious zealots contribute to this 'parent my children' mentality.

      You can mod this down all you want, but until you've lived in a few places, including here...

    23. Re:Meh. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      The ninth ammendment is nearly pointless... it doesn't say you explicitly have any rights not mentioned in the constitution, it merely says that just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean you don't have them. It merely mentions that there are "others." It doesn't say using any medium to spread any message you want is one of them.

      Please read what I wrote again and tell me that just because it's NOT mentioned in the constitution, that you can run around naked with "Bush Sucks" tattooed on your arse. And then when you argue your way to the supreme court, try explaining to the judges that since it's not mentioned in the constitution, that the ninth ammendment clearly says it's your "right" to run around in public naked with political messages tattooed on your various parts.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    24. Re:Meh. by Sunburnt · · Score: 1

      "Would we run into this same problem if someone created a "violent" video game that was based on the bible? "

      You mean like this?

      http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060606-113418- 4179r.htm

      --
      Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
    25. Re:Meh. by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      IMHO, The ninth amendment is what lets you apply the first amendment to games. Just because the first amendment doesn't say 'video games' doesn't mean they are not protected as a form of speech. It's not listed because they weren't invented yet, but we do know what the intentions were when the first amendment was written.

      Running around naked in public isn't really a human right, so that's a poor example.

    26. Re:Meh. by bhiestand · · Score: 1
      Would we run into this same problem if someone created a "violent" video game that was based on the bible?

      We'll find out when Left Behind: Eternal Forces is released next Christmas. They promise to allow players to "Conduct physical & spiritual warfare : using the power of prayer to strengthen your troops in combat and wield modern military weaponry throughout the game world."

      Their site also boasts that they'll likely receive an "E" or "T" rating. Of course the game will allow them to brutally murder or force the conversion of non-believers and heretics. Basically they're getting their own GTA, only it's a lot scarier because they actually believe and look forward to it.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    27. Re:Meh. by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Well, we'll have to disagree... the medium IS the issue, and I gave an example of one medium that wouldn't pass muster, yet shown that it does NOT violate anyone's right to free speech/press. As I mentioned, there's a reason to consider television and the internet protected mediums because they are the modern day equivalent of the press. Your ass isn't, and neither are video games.

      And the "intentions" of the first ammendment were to protect political speech, not to protect "pornography."

      Video games are more of an art form, and local morality laws have held up in court in such matters.

      So again, while I don't have a problem with pornography and violent video games, local laws are allowed to restrict their sale, and it's NOT a violation of free speech.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    28. Re:Meh. by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      First, the intentions of the first amendment were to protect speech, or else it would have said '...abridging the freedom of political speech...'

      It doesn't say that, and I think it was intended to be an absolute freedom, including running naked in the streets like a fool. There are other penalties for being a fool in public, such as people not dealing with you. Granted, being shunned doesn't have much of an effect in today's society, but that's really another discussion.

      Second, this law isn't about pornography, this is about putting some vague restrictions on the sale of games. Lets face facts, the law outlaws the sale of loony tunes games, it's poorly written.

      Third, art is protected.

      And finally, would you consider a cooking recipe to be protected? (For example, you want to bake up a batch of 'I hate Bush cupcakes').

    29. Re:Meh. by Croaker-bg · · Score: 1

      In oklahoma there are laws preventing the sale of X-rated material to adults. In order to see porn w/ penetration in Oklahoma you have to go to Texas or Arkansa. There is quite the porn shop presence on the border of oklahoma and states that touch.

    30. Re:Meh. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Your basic criminal knows this because it's been popularized on TV and in popular culture over the past 30 years. The reason Miranda Rights originally started being read to people being arrested is because some people DIDN'T know they had them.

      Ok, fair enough.

      so they must be aware that Federal level overrules state.
      That is not always true, and actually, is false far more often than it is true. The Federal government is only supposed to overrule the states in very limited instances.

      I think we've hit the 'how things are' vs. 'how things should' be line. I'm aware the Feds are supposed to have limited authority, but unfortunatly that's now how it is. It seems that if there is a conflict between state and federal laws, the federal level ends up trumping the state. Believe me I wish that were not the case, but it does seem to be.

      These days, with the consequences of activist Supreme Court judges over the past 200 years, the Federal government holds alot more power than it was originally designed to, but even still many decisions are still in state hands, not Federal hands.

      I don't think I agree here; I think that the state vs. federal goverment power shift occurred with the amendment to directly elect senators by the people, not the state level legilstator. Which means that no one in the Federal congress represents the interests of the state; they pander instead to the people (who already have representation via the House). I think the purpose of the Senate was supposed to be that they were to keep power in the states because the framers understood everyone involved would be vying for more power. The Senate was the check against the federal goverments power.

      And the thing is, because of the endless list of laws designed to assert Federal power in the past 50 years, it has gotten so confusing to determine where the Federal government ends and the states begin, that no common layperson could really make sense of it.

      While the layperson may not understand it, lawyers do know to look in the state codes or federal codes. So hopefully all is not lost. I would think that most people are aware if something is a state or federal law, since at least some live on the border to other states (for example, everyone knows sales tax is a state by state thing; hence the people in PA going into DE to buy expensive items).

      And this is exactly how the states and the Federals like it. It means that your common citizen is ill equipped to challenge the authority of any government entity, because they don't have a clear view of their own rights and the powers of the government. And governments love it when you weaken a citizen's ability to defend themselves. Makes their job so much easier.

      Unfortunatly I have to agree with you here. But I think they key to getting power back into the hands of the State (where each individual has a much greater influence) would be to give state governments direct representation, as they were supposed to have.

    31. Re:Meh. by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 1

      >The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court are moderates.

      I would say that the majority of the Justices are conservatives. The "left wing" of the court consists of two or three moderates. There are no liberals on the court. Other than that, I agree with you completely. :-)

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
  2. 'inappropriate violence' by Megaweapon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Better keep the kids away from the evening news then. It's a violent world out there, so we'd better keep them as far away from reality as possible.

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
    1. Re:'inappropriate violence' by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      "Better keep the kids away from the evening news then. It's a violent world out there, so we'd better keep them as far away from reality as possible."

      Mmmm, so Carlin-esque! I wonder what he'd think about all this...

    2. Re:'inappropriate violence' by OctoberSky · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I have a problems with the definition of Inappropriate Violence... mainly that it is a subjective term.

      But my problem is not that we cannot clearly define what is and isn't inappropriatley violent, my problem is that we can't even decided if it is violent in the first place.

      Hear me out. For all of you in college dorm rooms or who have friends that play games all gatherd in one room, fire up a game of Grand Theft Auto. Go to the shady parts of town, get yourself a New Jersey Prom Queen (aka a Hooker) and drive around with her. Then bring the hooker to an side street, talk with her a bit (to hear that wonderful AI) and then kill her. Look around the room. Are your friends mouths open in horror or are they laughing thier asses off. And just to make sure it is an inappropriate amount of violence, throw 3 grenades at her feet, before they go off shoot her in the knees. Then back over her a few times in your car. I find it funnier to be run over by a Caddy then by a Econo Box, but YMMV.

      The problem is that these men and women in fine linen suits can't comprehend that killing hookers is funny as hell. I can't say for certain the exact age it occurs, but somewhere after 30 our sense of humor does a 180 and killing hookers becomes sad.

    3. Re:'inappropriate violence' by Cheapy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Guess Oklahoma will be pushing the Military out of their borders now too.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    4. Re:'inappropriate violence' by gid13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I disagree with that kind of censorship of both news and videogames, I find the phrasing "we'd better keep them as far away from reality as possible" ironic, since escapism is kinda the point of video games.

    5. Re:'inappropriate violence' by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      That's not what irony means.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    6. Re:'inappropriate violence' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, I just thought they were supposed to be fun...

    7. Re:'inappropriate violence' by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Inappropriate violence? What you mean like Iraq?

      No, the kids can't play Silent Hill. But there seems to be little reservation in training them to kill and then shipping them off to other countries where vibrant young minds get to witness their friends innards splayed across a road from a local improvised explosive device.

      But better they see that, than something like XXX porn. God, that stuff will ruin you for life.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    8. Re:'inappropriate violence' by Igmuth · · Score: 1

      Heck, just keep them away from life. They are going and saying that the two of oldest activities of all life (sex and killing) are bad. The only other staple I can think of is eating. (Of which the excretion part is already taboo)

  3. GamaSutra by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm pretty sure linking to a report on this on a site called GamaSutra doesn't exactly help the cause any...

    --
    This guy's the limit!
    1. Re:GamaSutra by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

      What, you have a problem with Sanskrit?

      Sutra: a short mnemonic rule in grammar, law, or philosophy, requiring expansion by means of a commentary

    2. Re:GamaSutra by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      We must have some Gore family members lurking here...

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    3. Re:GamaSutra by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure linking to a report on this on a site called GamaSutra doesn't exactly help the cause any...

      You're right, that leaves us slashdotters in a very uncomfortable position!

  4. This is not surprising by thedogcow · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is Oklahoma we are talking about. As someone that lived there, I can attest to the true backwardness of the state. The state is run by clueless demagogues who fall to the pressure of the Baptist church. Take a look at these frightening statistics

    Ultimately this will lead to Oklahoman flocking to Texas to buy video games as well as their porn (since that is illegal too).

    I lived in Oklahoma for 5 years. Now I live in urban Houston, Texas. Oklahoma makes Texas look like a liberal oasis. At least people here have more of a "let live" policy than "God hates you".

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    1. Re:This is not surprising by Churla · · Score: 1

      Don't forget beer. Oklahomans also flock into Texas to buy beer which is not held to the 3.2% content by volume law Oklahome has, IIRC.

      --
      I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    2. Re:This is not surprising by quantum+bit · · Score: 2, Funny

      3.2%?! No wonder so many Oklahoma students have suicide plans.

    3. Re:This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow. A four year old page that sites seven year old statistics. I wonder if it's at all possible things have changed in seven years?

    4. Re:This is not surprising by thedogcow · · Score: 1

      No. I can guarantee that the statistics haven't changed in Oklahoma. Hell, its still the 1950s there for fucks sake.

      --
      Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
    5. Re:This is not surprising by Allison+Geode · · Score: 1

      actually, the "let live" policy is because you now live in urban houston, texas, as opposed to.. how large was the town in Oklahoma that you lived in? people in large urban areas are too busy with their own crap to worry about what other people are doing: folks in smaller towns have less going on for them, so they fill their attention "gap" with what other people around them are doing.

      and many Texas communities *do* have pockets of awesomeness, but step too far outside those, and you'll get your face smashed in by a well-flung bible. I've lived in texas all my life, but most of that was in a smaller city (corpus christi). now i'm in Houston, and it is a great place to live in contrast. Austin is even more liberal than Houston, especially if you can get in near where the college kids are at.

    6. Re:This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Oklahoma, "God hates you", but in Kansas "God hates fags [and unspecified others]". Now the question is which is more liberal (or more like hell if you prefer) - Oklahoma or Kansas?

    7. Re:This is not surprising by Facekhan · · Score: 1

      I once watched a debate for the election of US Senator from Oklahoma. The Republican got up and said that doctors who perform abortions should get the death penalty. The Democrat got up and said doctors who perform abortions should just go to prison. OK is worse than Utah.

    8. Re:This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it was partial birth abortions, actually..

      So yeah.. I guess I'll just go drink my koolaid and not really care if you agree with my conservative extreme right wing beliefs that if a child is ready to be born, in the birthing passage, and you collapse it's skull, it's murder.

    9. Re:This is not surprising by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      This is Oklahoma we are talking about.

      At least being next to Kansas makes Oklahoma look *relatively* good.

    10. Re:This is not surprising by ArsonPerBuilding · · Score: 1

      To attest to this, I've shadowed a variety of state legistlators, senators and lobbyists in the Oklahoma Capitol building for various civics programs. Once, I was with a legislator from a very rural part of the state, and we went to lunch with him and his cronies. Among the questions he had asked me were about the conditions of my highschool, if there were black boys on the basketball and football team, if whites and blacks were allowed to date, if people were doing 'the heroin' and 'the acid' ... some of the most backwater questions to be asking in 2003. It is a very backwater place run by some backwater people.

      --
      1 tequila 2 tequila 3 tequila floor
    11. Re:This is not surprising by tddoog · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget about the laws against hardcore pornography and tattoos. I don't think the bordertowns in KS, TX and AR mind having the laws in place because they capitalize on it.

    12. Re:This is not surprising by raider_red · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I spent a year doing contract work in Oklahoma, and the two constituencies that seemed to have the most pull are the Christ Right, and the Native American Tribes. This let to some interesting businesses along the Texas-Oklahoma State line. At the first exit in Texas, there is the biggest adult video store I've ever seen, with a liquor store next door. I guess they'll be opening a GameSpot store next.

      On the Oklahoma side, there is a huge Indian Casino. Gambling is illegal in Texas, so you find this monster of a casino to draw business from the Dallas area.

      Also, the Christian Right in Oklahoma seems to be a couple of steps to the right when compared to the Christian Right in Texas.

      --
      It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
    13. Re:This is not surprising by Bent+Mind · · Score: 1

      Replace Oklahoma with Utah, Baptist with Mormon, and you end up with the same situation. I've read down in the replies to this message and found a lot of similarities. Utah also has 3.2 beer, blue laws (in certain counties), illegal porn, and illegal gambling. It's common for the government leaders to ask the Mormon church for advice on how to vote. It's uncommon for them to vote against that advice. I have found that they generally wait until some other state makes a stupid law before they try to here. That way they can point at the other state and say "See, we are just following what other states are doing". I wonder how long it will be before this law shows up here.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
    14. Re:This is not surprising by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Why should Hell have to be restricted to a single state? Kansas and Oklahoma are equally hell like to different groups of people. Dante had nine rings of Hell, we have 50 States of Hell.

    15. Re:This is not surprising by fwwr5007 · · Score: 1

      At the first exit in Texas, there is the biggest adult video store I've ever seen, with a liquor store next door. I guess they'll be opening a GameSpot store next.

      If you're talking about the one on I-35 north of Gainesville, the last time I drove by there they had a big "Welcome to TeXXXas" sign out front.

      I guess before long it'll say "WelcoM+e to TeXXXas" to attract all the Okie gamers driving by.

    16. Re:This is not surprising by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      s. Oklahoma makes Texas look like a liberal oasis.

      Isn't Texas the place where possession of dildos with intent to sell is a felony?

      A coupla years ago, some woman who was in the sex-toy-party business got nabbed for drunk driving. In the impound yard, they found a large quantity of sex toys in the car, so the police also charged her with a felony (iirc punishable by 10 or so years in prison).

      -b.

    17. Re:This is not surprising by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Oklahomans also flock into Texas to buy beer which is not held to the 3.2% content by volume law Oklahome has, IIRC.

      You. Fucking. WHAAAAAAAAT?

      Is this some twisted remnant of Prohibition or something? Because I could handle the idea of banning alcoholic drinks entirely; you do the same with many other recreational drugs, after all, and the principle is at least consistently adhered to.

      But permitting drink, but banning just about all the beer that's actually worth drinking... ugh. Don't you guys have something in the constitution about Cruel And Unusual?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    18. Re:This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But permitting drink, but banning just about all the beer that's actually worth drinking... ugh. Don't you guys have something in the constitution about Cruel And Unusual?


      Not exactly true. Beer sold in the "normal" places.. grocery stores, convience stores, etc has to be 3.2 beer and all the American
      industrial brews are avaliable. If you want an import or domestic with > 3.2% alcohol by weight, you have to go the state licensed
      liquor stores (not nearly as convient). At the state licensed stores you can by just about any variety of liquor, beer, wine or
      hard.
    19. Re:This is not surprising by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Don't forget beer. Oklahomans also flock into Texas to buy beer which is not held to the 3.2% content by volume law Oklahome has, IIRC."

      Well, if I had to live there, at least I could do Homebrew. I guarantee THAT stuff is much higher than 3.2% alcohol.

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    20. Re:This is not surprising by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Clueless rube.

      A baby isn't ready to be born until your wife is screaming, cursing your name.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:This is not surprising by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Pity they don't border Nevada; we'd get more jokes out of a place where you have to walk in a five foot circle to get Grand Thefo Auto, guns, go gambling and whoring than pretty much any other meme on the internet.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    22. Re:This is not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From that page:
      56 percent of all Oklahoma students surveyed admitted having had sexual intercourse.
      49.9 percent of students nationwide admitted same. (5)

      45.9 percent of Oklahoma ninth graders admitted to having sexual intercourse.
      38.6 percent of ninth graders nation wide admitted same. (5)


      I thought fucking without restraint was the liberal thing to do. Now you're telling me these stats are bad? I'm getting mixed signals here.
    23. Re:This is not surprising by BodhiCat · · Score: 1

      "56 percent of all Oklahoma students surveyed admitted having had sexual intercourse."

      It looks like Oklahoma teens are doing a lot better in one respect than the average slashdotter. Maybe if the Oklahoma legislature encouraged computer use and video games they would lower this percentage.

  5. Semantics by quantum+bit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Interesting that by wording the bill that way, that means that they're recognizing a class of "appropriate violence". I wonder how that's defined...

    1. Re:Semantics by Minwee · · Score: 1

      "Appropriate" means that white people are shooting brown people. Anything else is just sick and wrong.

    2. Re:Semantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. You can kill red and yellow people too. Actually it's a requirement I believe.

    3. Re:Semantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the non-Christians!

    4. Re:Semantics by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Actually, that sort of phrasing is highly desirable, and found throughout our legal system. The reason is that it's therefore easy to update the definition to reflect changing social mores or newly available variations on a theme, without actually changing the law. This means that the law itself can be interpreted in a uniform fashion without attempting to refer to specifics of definitions and without any risk of these references tainting or damaging the law based on one individual judge's beliefs (this used to be a runaway problem in the United States, during its first 50 years.)

      In an odd way, I feel programmers will best understand it in terms of object orientation. Don't bother with the flames; I know that it's at best a shaky metaphor and at worst patently silly. Still, I like it, and I think it gets the point across.

      Think of these definitions as Alexandrescu-style policy classes. This means that we can spend time shaking down the law (the host class,) debugging it, extending it, profiling (huhu) it, gold-plating it and so on. We can link that law to other laws. Whatever. When the implementation details change, we don't want to have to go back and re-debug the law; therefore we isolate fungible details like specific definitions of terms as policies, and snap them in as needed.

      See, definitions change /a/ /lot/. Ob Simpsons reference, "between Moneybags and Scrooge McDuck, all the best ankle is taken." There was a point in this country where showing bare ankle in public was considered indecent. Now we have sideboob on NBC, as well as asses. Once upon a time, a TV exec would get fired if they didn't fire a writer who wrote nigger; now, it's virtually a staple not only of crime dramas and documentaries, but of comedies and even cartoons ("Now that's what I'm talking about. We do not say the N-word in this house!" "Grandpa, you said nigger 47 times yesterday. I counted." "Nigga hush.") Once upon a time, the head executive at paramount was almost fired for showing a couple's bedroom with a single bed, instead of two beds as was the self-deception of the day (think I'm kidding? Go watch Turner Classic Movies.) Now, soap operas are essentially soft-porn, showing sex onscreen and making it legal by leaving the covers over the actors.

      Once upon a time, we actually had laws to take children away from single mothers who weren't widowers, because they were immoral and would ruin the children.

      The point is, though, the above law is essentially good. If a mother is unfit to the point where she is a risk to her children, the children do need to be taken away. In fact, the above law is still in effect; however, since the definitions can be updated seperately of the law, we've been able to remove the nonsense about single mothers, and to add stuff to cover (for example) cocaine and drunk driving, neither of which existed in primordeal Boston.

      Because the definitions have been able to be changed to keep up with our social mores, the laws don't need to be reimplemented, re-tested, loopholes don't get opened, legitimate convictions don't get overturned, et cetera. Yes, you're right to point out that the definition isn't well had; however, it shouldn't be in the law either way. And, actually, this is the norm for this kind of law: first you generate the law, then when people might be breaking it, you take their asses to court and let juries decide. That sets precedent, which essentially anneals a definition of the term.

      The reason this is important? Let's pretend that there wasn't a bunch of precedent that made this law a paper tiger. Let's pretend that this was the first time these issues had ever come up. If that were the case, then suddenly this law would be a real threat. The people railing on and on about the first amendment don't know what the hell they're talking about; the constitution is specifically structured to allow the states to set rules governing decency

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    5. Re:Semantics by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Well, you know, like you can't beat your wife until the bitch doesn't bring you another beer. That sort of thing.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    6. Re:Semantics by shish · · Score: 1
      "appropriate violence". I wonder how that's defined...

      To stop terrorists, of course :-P Everything's justified when someone mentions the word "terrorists"...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    7. Re:Semantics by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      That means they've removed "rape" from the archaic "burn, rape and pillage" meme.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    8. Re:Semantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "appropriate violence" is killing people who are not the same race/religion/sex/etc...

    9. Re:Semantics by chunkylimey · · Score: 1

      Remember if you just claim convincingly that Jesus told you to commit the violence it's OK. That's why when I allow my country to kill unarmed women and children I make sure Jesus told them to do it. "Appropriate" is what some wife beating 60 year old pastor says you can do in the name of Jesus.

  6. "Limited opposition" by Delusion_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The limited opposition stems largely from the fact that there are no "hot spots" of game development anywhere in Oklahoma, and the fact that videogames aren't the point of a law like this. It's all about pandering to voters, and there are plenty of older voters who aren't exactly well-informed about videogame violence up for grabs in Oklahoma. This isn't about surviving a court challenge, which it probably won't. It's about "Protecting the Children" to seem more connected to the interests of average voters against the Evil Media Industry of the decadent east and west coasts than to the corporations which fund the legislators' campaigns, which clearly aren't the videogame companies.

  7. Parenting by JaJa_UK · · Score: 0, Redundant

    My problem is with the parents. Nearly all video games are ESRB rated in the UK, with a 'suggested' age. The games that contain violence, nudity, sex and language are normally rated 15+ or higher Why are parents buying their youngsters games rated like this? A while back, during all the GTA noise an old woman complained becuase she thought the game was innapropriate for her grandson. Well duh, it's rated 18+.

    1. Re:Parenting by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The suggested age is crap though. It's tailored to religious nutcases.

      Show a naked breast -- instant 16. Chop the head of people -- 12, unless lots of blood gushes, in which case 16.

      Blowjob ? 18 for sure ! Beating random people up with a baseball-bat and getting points for style ? 16.

      Unless you're a religious nutcase completely locked up about sex, the rating-system is no substitute for making up your own damn opinion. But I guess that's too much work for some parents.

    2. Re:Parenting by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, someone needs to put test the bible against this law and see what it rates... killings, mutilations, rape, slavery, incest, all the fun stuff.

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    3. Re:Parenting by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Show a naked breast -- instant 16.

      Surely, according to the religious nutcases, the min. age for seeing nekkid bewbage should be 0 ... since G-d meant for breastfeeding to happen and all that... :-P

      -b.

    4. Re:Parenting by Eivind · · Score: 1
      It doesn't work like that. And frankly, I agree with them. Breastfeeding has no relation to what goes on in an adult males head.

      I just don't agree that the adult variant is all that "harmful", infact I have a hard time saying where the supposed "harm" in seeing a naked breast resides.

    5. Re:Parenting by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      It doesn't work like that. And frankly, I agree with them. Breastfeeding has no relation to what goes on in an adult males head.

      No kidding? Couldn't you tell that my tongue was firmly in cheek on that one?

      Cheers,
      -b.

  8. "inappropriate violence" by The+Real+Toad+King · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say that a lot of R rated movies contain "inappropriate violence", yet I don't see them categoriezed with pornography.

  9. Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by unity100 · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is what midwest is leading to.

    With increasing conservatism and decreasing intellectualism, education and 'care' for rest of the world, theyll be plowing their fields with oxen in a dozen years.

    1. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

      I heard an article on NPR this morning, about Afghan Culture Gap Widens. In it, they mentioned that people in the City want nice shirts, Television, and a modern lifestyle. They said that the people in the rural areas want things to revert to the old ways, and make their decisions based on religeous teachings. This got me thinking -- that is what we have here in the US, and I am sure it is a common argument throughout time: the old vs. the new.

      Also, coming from Pennsylvania, I know the Amish are a peaceful lot. I understand that they keep to their own, and don't meddle with other people's affairs. I thought I read that they generally vote Republican, but I didn't see it in the Wikipedia article about the Amish.

      --
      Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
    2. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by east+coast · · Score: 1

      With increasing conservatism

      Yeah, because long standing "liberal" figureheads such as the Clintons, Diane Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer would never ask that legislation concerning media and public decency standards be considered. [cough] [cough]

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      theyll be plowing their fields with oxen in a dozen years.

      considering the lower then average income in the midwest and the price of gas i agree. also, keeping people poor and stupid is easy when they are already poor.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    4. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Well, actually the reason hillary is blurting out such 'regulation' crap is increasing conservatism too.

      As the public seemed to be increasingly conservative in the last elections, they are trying to capitalize on those.

      Because, to they games & internet is something new, and the democrats do not have a definite stance, it seems like they can exhibit conservativism there and noone would notice - it wouldnt be a let go of liberal stances similar to abortion etc.

      But, ignorance is bliss, they say. Had Hillary known that the gamer crowd is not comprised of 12 year olds but hordes of 20-45 adults that have lived by the IT revolution, and they are almost all liberal, she wouldnt be sleeping easy.

    5. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by unity100 · · Score: 1

      I wouldnt be too opposed to conservatism in terms of 'keeping to themselves', had it not been a resource easy to exploit by power hungry politicians.

    6. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by east+coast · · Score: 1

      But, ignorance is bliss, they say. Had Hillary known that the gamer crowd is not comprised of 12 year olds but hordes of 20-45 adults that have lived by the IT revolution, and they are almost all liberal, she wouldnt be sleeping easy.

      Can you be so sure of that (gamers being liberals)? Do you have any source to quote on this? Not to question your facts but the gamers I know of voting age seem fairly conservative. I guess it is a good polling question to get an idea of the demographics on this issue.

      Frankly I think the gaming industry needs a structure similar to the movie industry with some enforcement of age restrictions involving M and AO games. This is their best bet to self regulation in the face of this movement. For now the game rating seems little more than a recomendation.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    7. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by unity100 · · Score: 1

      Take it as like this : the gamers & internet crowd are at least definite to be liberal on the matters related to gaming and internet.

      This is the fact that hillary is investing in the wrong cause, the wrong way.

    8. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Of course she'd still sleep easy. The majority of the 25-40 year old crowd can't find the time to GET OFF THEIR FAT ASSES AND VOTE!!! So why should it concern her in the least? Hey comments pleased a larger body of voters than it pissed off. There is no fear of reprisal from people that don't vote.

    9. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      ... And stupid. Being a moderate in an area that has enclaves of extremist Liberalism in a quagmire of Neocon hate and loathing is very disheartining.

    10. Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country by bunions · · Score: 1

      Sadly, no. Both sides of the coin are increasingly happy to regulate speech, they just use different justifications for doing so.

      I always swore I'd start voting libertarian if they'd stop being so crazy. But last year I came to the realization that Democrats and Republicans are just as crazy, it's just a brand of craziness I'm used to. So, you know, go libertarians, rah rah rah.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  10. "Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Look, all they're saying is that minors should have adult supervision when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds.

    Whether you like it or not, and whether or not you agree with the specific cutoffs or punnishments present in this bill, young minds are impressionable.

    I'm not saying that every kid who plays Grand Theft Auto is going to go out and relive those experiences on the street, but I assert there are some kids who have not yet developed a sense of right and wrong, and for whom, exposure to this sort of material may establish certain Antisocial (in the psychological sense, follow the link before disagreeing with me) patterns in the developing mind.

    I don't agree that this should be a felony offense (as this law seems to make it? This article says so, but I can't cooberate since the article doesn't include any text from the bill, nor a link to the bill). But there are kids for whom this stuff would be damaging until they have a better sense of the world established. I know; my wife works with them, and she also works with the kids who got access to violent and/or highly pornographic content at the wrong stage of their psychological development.

    All this law is saying (and those proposed which are like it), is that kids need adult oversight to get access to this material.

    1. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that this is FUD, it bears pointing out that most kids who get their hands on such things get them from their parents or another family member.

      That said, I do sympathize with the parents who are begginb for bills like this because they can't get retailers to cooperate. They're trying to raise their kids without the rest of the world making it easy for those kids to get their hands on things they may not be mature enough to see.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    2. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Look, all they're saying is that minors should have adult supervision when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds.

      Could be damaging? There are lots of other things that could be harmful to a minor (real, phyical things). Do we get rid of those too? A child could hurt themselves with a shovel or hammer. Should OK pass a law requiring ID to buy those things too?

      Whether you like it or not, and whether or not you agree with the specific cutoffs or punnishments present in this bill, young minds are impressionable.

      And studies show that playing a violent video game doesn't make you violent. They also show that parents are THE most infulential thing in a childs life, and that influence is much greater than the rest.

      I'm not saying that every kid who plays Grand Theft Auto is going to go out and relive those experiences on the street, but I assert there are some kids who have not yet developed a sense of right and wrong, and for whom, exposure to this sort of material may establish certain Antisocial (in the psychological sense, follow the link before disagreeing with me) patterns in the developing mind.

      If the child doesn't know right from wrong, a video game isn't going to be the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that the child was never taught right from wrong; more likely though, all children learn "right and wrong" although their views of right and wrong may conflict with society. A boy that sees him dad beat his mom may think nothing is wrong with beating a woman if she defies you. In the boy's mind, it may be that his mom was "wrong" for standing up to her husband. But to claim that a video game will teach something is absurd. From day one every child that plays a video game knows its entertainment, not real life. After all, its called a game.

      But there are kids for whom this stuff would be damaging until they have a better sense of the world established. I know; my wife works with them, and she also works with the kids who got access to violent and/or highly pornographic content at the wrong stage of their psychological development.

      Bad parenting is what is causing the damage. Do you really think that a child who finds porn will suddenly have his mind blown and that nothing the parents taught him have a sway any longer? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. How about posting the other problems in these kids lives. And what exactly is wrong with these kids. Until you post more specifics, I'm going to assume you're full of shit. And FWIW, I saw 'highly pornographic' stuff in 4th grade, yet I never turned into some twisted sexual sadist, as you seem to imply I should have.

      All this law is saying (and those proposed which are like it), is that kids need adult oversight to get access to this material.

      Kids need oversight, yes. Does everyone else not involved in raising kids need this law? Nope. How about passing a bad parenting law, to get these morons to raise their kids properly, and leave the rest of us alone.

      Its is the PARENTS job to give oversight to their children; no one elses.

    3. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by RsG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the thousands upon thousands of other things that can make them antisocial? What about them? Where are books, TV, radio, movies, the net, comics and /. in all this? Hell, what about the public school system - nothing makes a child antisocial better than throwing them into an environment with a free for all pecking order and forced conformity.

      And what about the other things that can impress upon a young mind, like, say, religion? Shall we begin letting the state supervise everything that *might* be a detrimental infulence upon children? I'd say the preachers of the world do far more damage to young minds than the entertainers - shall we start keeping them away from children also?

      This bill is crap. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. This was not a poorly worded, but well intentioned attempt at regulating things sensibly for children; this was a vote grabbing measure by sleazy politicians that panders to the puritanical elements.

      Trying to make the world superficially safe and clean for kids does them no favours. Trying to pretend we live in a kinder world, one that doesn't have as much violence, is about as sensible as telling them babies come from storks as a way to shield them from the truth about sex. They'll find out just fine for themselves, and better it be from a parent a than either the state or the schoolyard. Parents who support crap like this are trying to shirk their responsibilities - because they'd rather have a nanny state shield their children from reality than equip their children to deal with the real world.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      That said, I do sympathize with the parents who are begginb for bills like this because they can't get retailers to cooperate. They're trying to raise their kids without the rest of the world making it easy for those kids to get their hands on things they may not be mature enough to see.

      If its tough to raise kids, well, too bad. Who ever said that it should (or must) be easy? How many kids have the $50 to buy a game, plus the $129+ to buy the console to begin with. If parents have a problem with video games, take away the stupid consoles.

    5. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      You're probably right, since we can't protect kids from everything that might be harmful, we might as well not protect them from anything.

      While we're at it, we might as well not have any laws since people are only going to break them. Might as well not put airbags or seatbelts in our cars either since some people will die in car accidents anyhow.

      Trying to pretend we live in a kinder world, one that doesn't have as much violence, is about as sensible as...

      There's a difference between letting children know violence exists in the world (the news), and letting children roleplay that violence (GTA).

    6. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by RsG · · Score: 1

      "Kids need oversight, yes. Does everyone else not involved in raising kids need this law? Nope. How about passing a bad parenting law, to get these morons to raise their kids properly, and leave the rest of us alone."

      An arguement I saw once against regulating (videogames/rockNroll/TV/boogieman-of-the-week) for the children's sake, in the vein of "A modest proposal", was as follows:

      If a child grows up wrong, the single greatest culprits are usually the parents. Other people who can severly screw up a child include relatives, educators, and people in a position of trust (most cases of child molestation involve either a relative or authority figure as the culprit).

      Therefor, the single best way to limit the number of damaged children who grow up into horrible people is to control or limit those individuals who would be in a position to harm a child psychlogically. Force people to get a parenting license, force preists/teachers/cops/etc to undergo psych testing to eliminate the pedos and individuals with abusing tendancies, force relatives to likewise undergo testing before they're allowed to be named guardian, etc.

      Now, obviously, this would violate the rights of those people extensively. But if we're willing to curtail free speech in the name of the childre, then we ought to be willing to curtail other rights as well.

      Would we rather limit free speech of the majority, in the cause of providing some nebulous sense of security for the children? Or would it be better just to bite the bullet, limit the rights of parents and others, and do some actual good for the children? The former probably only offers a false sense of security, the latter actually does some good, albeit at a far higher cost.

      When viewed in that light, most people would balk. Who would want to sacrifice their freedom in the name of children? But that is exactly what laws like this do, they just do it in a smaller way, without any real advantage for the children who are "protected". Laws prohibiting videogames might concievably do some tiny good; laws that forced preists/teachers/parents/etc to undergo testing would definately do some good.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    7. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      [quoteblock]You're probably right, since we can't protect kids from everything that might be harmful, we might as well not protect them from anything. While we're at it, we might as well not have any laws since people are only going to break them. Might as well not put airbags or seatbelts in our cars either since some people will die in car accidents anyhow.[/quoteblock] The parent poster wasn't suggesting anything like your little slipper slope-ish comment. His point, which many others have also made, is this. Games do not cause violence, games do not tell you it's ok to be violent, games do not suggest that you go out and be violent in real life. Games offer you an imaginary place to do violent things that you wouldn't do in real life because it's not necessarily right to do to real people. If a child cannot tell the difference and goes and does something violent because he saw it in a game, that kid most certainly has a problem, but it is not that he played a video game. The problem is that their parents did not teach them properly or that they have an actual medical/mental condition, which should have been known about by their parents and their gaming choices highly monitored by their parents (along with any other form of media and their peers they are hanging out with), rather than putting the blame on the video game and then indirectly punishing millions of others who have done nothing wrong by making it harder for us to get the games we want and imposing on freedom of speech. Also, as to your other comment, I think seatbelt laws are stupid, too. While cars should be required to come with them, if I don't want to wear my seatbelt and die because of it, that was my choice and affected only myself and my family.

    8. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by RsG · · Score: 1

      That, my friend, is a strawman. And a pretty poor one at that.

      My arguement was not "lets protect them from nothing". My arguement was "X and Y have the same effect on children. If we regulate X, shouldn't we also regulate Y?" Unless you can show me that X and Y (games and any of the other things I listed) do not have the same impact upon children, then your entire rebuttal is baseless.

      Do games, and for example movies, have the same impact upon children? Probably. Are we regulating movies as tightly as games? Nope, at least not in Oklahoma. So where's the rational behind this law?

      As for the second part, GTA is fundamentally no different from any other form of fiction that focuses on the evils of the world. There are plenty of movies/shows/stories that feature the villain, often doing things just as evil as the nameless GTA goon. The fact that kids play the game doesn't matter; imagination is a powerful force when you're young, and passive entertainment does a fine job of giving kids ideas about the world already. The arguement that interactivity somehow elevates games above the rest is ludecrous to anyone young enough to remember their childhood - we ALL "roleplayed" heros and monsters at some age, whether with games, or with stuff as simple as legos and toy soldiers.

      It is better for the kid to be taught right from wrong, and what reality is like, and that people do wrong to each other. If a kid can distinguish fantasy from reality and can tell what's right and what isn't, then GTA won't be a problem (though I'd still leave the choice as to whether to let a child play that up to the parent). If the kid can't tell right from wrong, or real from imaginary, then whose fault is that?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    9. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      This is true only for an emotionally/developmentally mature mind.

      Kids who have abusive fathers (even adopted kids, eliminating genetics as a factor) have a significantly higher than average incidence of continuing this abusive behavior when they become fathers. (See here, though there's plenty of other sources on this)

      There is no reason to suspect that this same characteristic will not manifest in children who are exposed to, and permitted to roleplay violence at a young age.

    10. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Immagination is internal stimulus, while video games are external stimulus. From a developmental perspective the latter has a much more pronounced affect on the end psyche. Adolsecent Psychology 101.

      There is reason, and in fact significant evidence, to suggest that imagining a violent act, seeing a violent act, roleplaying a violent act, and finally performing a violent act each have a more significant impact than their predecessor in that list on long term behavioral patterns.

      Government regulations like this are so far unnecessary for movies, since the MPAA already voluntarily enforces limiting minor access to violent or sexually explicit material. At 25, I was carded trying to see a rated R movie. At 17, I was denied access to a rated R movie.

    11. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      This is true only for an emotionally/developmentally mature mind. Kids who have abusive fathers (even adopted kids, eliminating genetics as a factor) have a significantly higher than average incidence of continuing this abusive behavior when they become fathers. (See here [wikipedia.org], though there's plenty of other sources on this) There is no reason to suspect that this same characteristic will not manifest in children who are exposed to, and permitted to roleplay violence at a young age.I quoted properly this time ;) But is it up to the government to determine this? Should that decision on how to raise their children not be left up to the parents and ONLY the parents? Yes, it is still up to the parents in that they can go and purchase the game for their child, of course, but what gives the government the right to say "These games are so dangerous that we have to make it law that the parents must purchase them"? Beyond that, do you not think it sets a dangerous precident? It is in effect saying that games are more dangerous than books, movies, etc and potentially gives a stronger argument to the old "but the games made me do it" argument if we go about creating a law that in fact does says "the games make them do it so often that we need to protect the children from them".

    12. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by RsG · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you call kids playing with toys? Or playing outdoor games (sports or otherwise)? I'd call those role playing, of a sort. Imagination and roleplaying don't seem that different to me, except that the former only requires thought, not action. Children do plenty of both with or without any complicated equiptment.

      In an RTS game, you might be cast as a medieval ruler. How is that different from children building snow forts and declaring themselvs king? Or commanding mock battles with toy soldiers?

      In a FPS game you might play capture the flag. In RL, children... well, play capture the flag. The only difference is virtual vs. real environments. And the RL ping is better, though finding enough people without a server is harder.

      In sports, there are rigidly defined rules, objectives, teamwork, coordination. Sounds an awful lot like computer game rules/logic to me. And there is certainly teamwork, as well as other social elements, in almost every multiplayer RPG and coop type game.

      Nowdays you can't even argue that the RL stuff is social and the games solitary - every new game now seems to either include multiplayer or even require other players, and come to that, there are plenty of RL childrens games that don't require a group. The only signifigant difference is that games aren't physical activity, and that's a exercise/health issue, not a psychological one.

      There is nothing special about games to set them apart. For children, games are merely an extension of what they do already - roleplay and imagination. You could argue that violent visuals are inappropriate for children - but if that is the case, then the same regulations should apply to all visual media. If you must ban one from minors, then fine, ban all visual violence and be done with it. Anything less is hypocritical.

      And no, the MPAA does NOT count as a reason why movies shouldn't be regulated - games have the ESRB, and most major stores already self regulate. Moreover, it is quite easy enough for children to get access to R-rated movies. Your anecdotal evidence means absolutly nothing, since my own equally anecdotal evidence is the exact opposite (I have to assume that means the places that we live are quite different), and because there have been uproars in the past when it was found that the restrictions were easy to bypass.

      Every few years we get another story about how 8 out of 10 kids could get an R movie from blockbuster, or how 16 year olds got into the theater for the latest hollywood gorefest. These stories are alarmist nonsense, but they illustrate the fact that MPAA self-regulation is flimsy at best. Why should games alone bear the burden of censorship in the name of the children?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    13. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      But in your case everyone with kids, or access to kids, would be giving up their rights. As the law is written they are giving away other peoples rights. Who the hell isn't ready to give up someone elses rights to get their own schemes fulfilled? Remember, my rights matter, not yours.

    14. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds.

            like religion, for example?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

      And what about when the console is the family's PC that the kids use for schoolwork on a daily basis?

      The lines aren't as defined as you think.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    16. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Then the parent can block the kids ability to install stuff. Then they get oversight on what games or other software will be installed.

      As an added benefit, the computer will have one less vector for a virus to come in... the computer gets a virus because the parent did somethign stupid, the kid can't though.

    17. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless your child has managed to get themselves emancipated and has moved out of the house, they are not going to be able to play any videogame if you don't want them to. You merely have to stop being self-centered for a minute and actually pay attention. You managed to survive the "completely helpless" and "toddler" stages and s/he did didn't starve or kill him/herself so obviously you've got the time.

              If the kid is subject to active adult supervision, this law is meaningless.

              It's really simple: watch what they watch, read what they read, play what they play, meet their friends and meet their friend's parents.

              All of that is considered SOP by many entire clans (nevermind atomic families).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    18. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      >> You're probably right, since we can't protect kids from everything that might be harmful, we might as well not protect them from anything.

      DAMN RIGHT!

      It is NOT the role of the government to be your unpaid nanny.

      Problems are best left to the entity closest to the problem. The further away the meddler is, the more likely they will royally f*ck everything up.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      "all they're saying is that minors should have adult supervision when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds." (emphasis mine)

      No, that's not what they're saying. They are saying that minors MUST have supervision when acquiring material that some people find objectionable.

      You're missing two key points:

      1. The definition of objectionable material is arbitrary but universally enforced in OK

      2. This is government legislating what material they feel is appropriate for children in a specific media. Blatant censorship -- and will be struck down as such.

      Sorry to get riled up, but please do not spout that apologist BS -- censorship runs counter to every ideal this nation was founded on, and still boils down to the fact that some people want to control what everyone can see.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    20. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by lightspawn · · Score: 1

      Look, all they're saying is that minors should have adult supervision when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds.

      Material... such as books?

    21. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by EvilNecro · · Score: 1
      Could be damaging? There are lots of other things that could be harmful to a minor (real, phyical things). Do we get rid of those too? A child could hurt themselves with a shovel or hammer. Should OK pass a law requiring ID to buy those things too?

      I dunno, I got proofed at Lowe's the other day buying replacement blades for my lawn tractor. Apparently they no longer sell sharp stuff to people under 18. (The clerk actually said anything "that could be dangerous").

      Scary, eh?
    22. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      It's really simple: watch what they watch, read what they read, play what they play, meet their friends and meet their friend's parents.

      So what you're saying is that you don't have kids and that you don't yet understand teenage rebellion? Either that, or you have a really odd definition of simple.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    23. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      And for people who can afford to hire a sitter for their kids, or who can afford to stay at home with them, then your fantasy world works great.

      Not everyone has this luxury; there's such a thing as latch key kids. I was one because my parents were working overtime to keep food on the table, and a roof over our heads.

    24. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Books and movies that portray less violent or sexually explicit material than is found in many modern games are already age limited.

      This is a tool for the parents. The government isn't forbidding children access to this stuff (like they do with alcohol), they are giving parents a tool to help them limit their child's access. No minor is being denied anything that their parents don't consent to.

    25. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      It's not censorship.

      censoring
      n 1: counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy [syn: censorship, security review] 2: deleting parts of publications or correspondence or theatrical performances [syn: censorship]

      Any adult still has access to this material, and any child with adult supervision. If it were censorship, then either noone could get access to this material, or only people with government clearance could get access to the material.

    26. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can cherry-pick a narrow definition. Why don't you instead look at the many, many broader definitions -- censhorship is definitely what this is, though it applies to only a part of the population.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    27. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then we're debating semantics.

      If you wish to use this overly broad definition of censorship, a definition which somehow, contrary to the meaning of the word, doesn't deny access, only requires adult supervision for kids, then yes, it meets your definition. And I believe it is appropriate. Whether the punnishments for noncompliance set forth in the law are appropriate, and whether the law itself is overly vague, I'm not really debating at the moment, only that such laws, if crafted carefully, are a good thing. And since noone can seem to cough up the actual text of the law, it's hard to know beyond the fud being spread by this article how vague the definitions are or how tough the punnishments are.

      It is a tool for parents to help control what content their kids have access to. If you don't believe that developing minds are influenced by their environment, then I sincerely hope that child services takes an interest in how you raise your children should you currently or ever have any.

    28. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, first, it's not an overly broad definition of censorship -- look at the SCOTUS 1st Amendment rulings of the past century -- you'll see that their definition of censorship is very broad as well -- eg, anything that discourages publication is censorship -- whether or not it involves literally expunging content.

      "If you don't believe that developing minds are influenced by their environment, then I sincerely hope that child services takes an interest in how you raise your children should you currently or ever have any."

      Nice combination straw man and ad hominem argument, moron.

      My point is that government has no business telling me what content is appropriate for my children. That decision is mine and my wife's, period -- what resources we choose to use to make those decisions are our choice as well. And I'll take it a step further and say that what my children choose to purchase is their business and our business only -- my responsibilities as a parent include making sure my kids aren't buying things we deem inappropriate.

      You're missing the entire point -- it's not about the vagueness of the definitions or the toughness of the punishments -- it's a simple yes/no question that has been debated many times by the Supreme Court: Does the government have the right to restrict the ability of people to purchase content (NOTE: this is NOT broadcast media) based upon the merits of that content?

      The answer to this question is a resounding no, with the exception of pornography, which is still hotly debated among many legal circles.

      It is NOT acceptable to have legislation telling us how to raise our kids. This is not a tool for parents, it's a tool for fundamentalists.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    29. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      For adults, you're right, for children, you're wrong. The government has frequently filtered products available to children through a lens of adult supervision. Precent here is well established.

      Once again, and I feel I've been very clear on this point, the government is not saying, "Your children cannot have access to this material," (like it does with alcohol) rather it's saying, "An adult needs to decide it's ok for the kid."

      That decision is mine and my wife's, period...

      And now you and your wife (if you live in this jurisdiction) will have a tool to facilitate this more easily.

      Nice ... ad hominem argument, moron.

      Oh the irony is delicious.

    30. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "Oh the irony is delicious."

      That's the point of that line.

      "Once again, and I feel I've been very clear on this point, the government is not saying, "Your children cannot have access to this material," (like it does with alcohol) rather it's saying, "An adult needs to decide it's ok for the kid.""

      I guess you're unfamiliar with pornography laws, then. Adults have been and are charged with crimes relating to providing pornography to a minor... even when that minor is their ward. Sure, some of it is about the intent and how it's approached. But even so, this 'tool' you keep referring to is a load of BS. Ease of parenting is no excuse for erosion of rights. If you want a nanny state, go to the UK. I'm quite sick of the lack of personal and parental responsibility laws like this are passed to address.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    31. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      That's the point of that line.

      Mmmhmm.

      Whose rights are eroded? Only children, and children, most of whom lack objective and rational consideration (which is not to say all adults have this), have significantly reduced rights as it is, and this is the way it should be; children should be subject to parental jurisdiction. I hope you don't mean to say that children should have all the same rights as adults, because if so, my kids better get out there and get a job! (that one was sarcasm)

      A child not having a right to something that adults enjoy a right to is not necessarily an affront. In this case, for those children whose parents grant them access to the restricted material, their rights are eroded only by an extremely thin margin (almost all such kids would have had to had a parent at least take them to the store anyhow, and my kids' money comes from me to boot). For children whose parents don't want them having access to this kind of material, well, I guess they're SoL, as well they should be, since it is within the right (and duty, if the parent feels it is necessary) of the parent to restrict this material.

    32. Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      If you are breeding beyond your means, no amount of fascist meddling is going to help you. This is just a weak excuse to keep on perpetuating the cycle of stupidity.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  11. As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... by revlayle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oklahoma has one of the worst legislation faculty in the county. Also, their salary/compensation for senate/house memebers are realtively higher comapred to other states in similar economic situations (not that the economy is HORRIBLE here, but the cost of living is low, but they get paid higher than perhaps some states that a bit higher cost of living).

    couple that with this being THE Bible Belt (we have a many churches as we do convenient stores, and we have a LOT of convienient stores), poor education, and crappy voter turnouts... the government does almost as they damn well please.

    What they are doing with video games now, they tried with comic book stores and game (RPG) shops 10-15 years ago. Once they started creating too much of a ruckus with citizens (the OK goverment, that is), that crap eventually got beaten down into obscurity. Now we hear VERY little about it any more (probably now people with the jobs and some sort of income and intelligence either were more likely to 1) still play RPGs and read comics OR 2) at least USED to, but not anymore, but understand those who do OR 3) didn't play or read, but never saw the big deal around any controversy attributed to such mediums AND they have some srot of voting influence these days)

    Luckily things DO get thrown out as unconsitutional... but until then, OK will be dicks about it.

    1. Re:As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Not arguing with you are anything, just thought it interesting that, last I heard, Las Vegas has the highest number of churches per capita in the country.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    2. Re:As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... by revlayle · · Score: 1

      (more off topic here) I wonder if that includes of the all-night-get-married-chapels located all over the city?

    3. Re:As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... by necrognome · · Score: 1

      Vegas has something for everybody. This is how things should be.

      --


      Let's get drunk and delete production data!
  12. Dear US Government: by Avillia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't give a damn how you think I should raise my children, I will raise them my way with the materials I deem fit, regardless of your holier-than-thou ethical viewpoint. Go worry about the cold bodies in Iraq and the levies of New Orleans before fucking with my fashion of parenting.

    Love,
    The American Family

  13. Mario == porn by Necreia · · Score: 1

    "...or depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely." Since you can't use diplomacy with Bowser... that makes Mario as naughty as Beastality. Broken?

    1. Re:Mario == porn by Synic · · Score: 1

      If Mario is softcore porn then is Power Rangers on TV hardcore porn?

    2. Re:Mario == porn by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1
      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Mario == porn by HarbingerKtS · · Score: 1

      Not only does Mario resort to violence, but he does so cheerfully while taking mushrooms!

  14. Left Behind: Eternal Forces by kherr · · Score: 1

    I wonder whether or not the Christian fundamentalist unbeliever-killing Left Behind: Eternal Forces game is "appropriate" violence. Does this look any better than GTA? At least Doom and Quake are about fighting demons and mutants. This "convert or kill" game is a far cry from Veggie Tales, and very telling of the state of some religions in the US that churches refuse to denounce it.

    1. Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a really bad Photoshop job.

    2. Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or does that blood look like it's been very amateurly Photoshopped in with the default brush? Eternal Forces has a reasonable 3D engine, so I can't imagine why they'd render blood in 2D.

      Amazingly, there's another picture on the same website with exactly the same pose, zoomed out to show the controls, and not a drop of blood. As Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splainin' to do.

    3. Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1
      Is it just me or does that blood look like it's been very amateurly Photoshopped in with the default brush? Eternal Forces has a reasonable 3D engine, so I can't imagine why they'd render blood in 2D. Amazingly, there's another picture on the same website with exactly the same pose, zoomed out to show the controls, and not a drop of blood. As Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
      While I don't know why the blood photoshop may have been done, does it really matter? Is shooting people because they're not of your preferred religion ok as long as they don't bleed? It's still pretty clear to me that it's supposed to be fairly realistic violence, shooting what are pretty realistic people with what are clearly supposed to be standard, modern, real life guns.
    4. Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces by kherr · · Score: 1

      Dammit, I got punk'd. But still, the real picture isn't much different from a violence standpoint. I was trying to avoid giving the game any links, but if anyone wants to see official screenshots and a trailer the url is http://www.leftbehindgames.com/pages/the_games.htm

    5. Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      1) These look like official government security bad-guys. They're supposed to shoot people. If they just bop people on the head, they're not scary enough to be servants of the Antichrist.
      2) Yes, the blood does matter. We know this is a game involving violence. But if they simply shatter or collapse, it's not gory and it's quite better than GTA, Doom, Quake, etc., the original comparisons.
      3) The game's making the point that no, it's not okay to shoot people because of religion. These are bad guys, as far as I can tell. What kind of covert group of recent Christian converts (after all, if they weren't recent converts, they would've been taken in the rapture) can quickly organize a uniformed armed force with sufficient conventional weaponry?

  15. oh well duh! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    I finally understand the blinking neon sign! blink ARCADE blink ARCADE blink ARCADE

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  16. Good points in the 1up article. by Irvu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The recent 1up article on this issue makes some interesting points. Two of the key ones with respect to this are:
    1. There are existing court rulings (U.S. Circuit Courts) asserting that violence is not the same as sex and is therefore cannot be used to classigy something as obscene. This runs counter to the "structure" of the law in question.
    2. Forum posts carry little or no weight on this issue. Only real letters to the gov in question will do so. Those *dont'* have to come from local voters. Perhaps companies that won't want to do business in the state will want to as well.
    1. Re:Good points in the 1up article. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      There are existing court rulings (U.S. Circuit Courts) asserting that violence is not the same as sex and is therefore cannot be used to classigy something as obscene.

      That itself is obscene. One creates life, the other takes it away. Which should be more culturally acceptible?

  17. How do you know if it's inappropriate by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

    So, not even worrying about the whole freedom of speech bit, how does one know that the game is going to be deemed inappropriate and should not be sold BEFORE they are taken to court over it, seeing as how it appears to be based wholy on opinion and no hard standards such as the clearly marked ESRB ratings? How does one determine what the average person 18 years or older considers ok/not ok? Are they going to call everyone up and do a phone survey for each case? I hardly think the prosecution, or even probably the judge and/or jury, are going to be representative of the overall average opinion.

    1. Re:How do you know if it's inappropriate by tuzzyfoad · · Score: 1

      Since the Bill doesn't take the ESRB rating into consideration, *nobody* knows what game(s) will be deemed inappropriate.

      What's going to end up happening, at least once, is some kid is going to shoot someone, steal a car, smoke a joint, take a drink, or shoplift. A lawyer will ask if the kid plays any video games. When he finds out that the kid bought "the Sims2" 6 months before becoming a master criminal, this law will be used to sue Wal-Mart or Gamestop, or Best Buy, etc...

      Wal-Mart near my house(I live in OKC) has already removed *every* single PC game from it's shelves. They had all the console locker things opened with big emtpy carts in front of them, looking as if to empty everything into. I haven't check any others yet, but I'm sure they're following suit.

      I suppose Gamestop will wait and see what happens before closing stores here, there's a ton of them in OK.

  18. Sense of scale by Bastian · · Score: 1

    I wonder why they neglected to include governments that use 'inappropriate violence' in the bill.

    1. Re:Sense of scale by ezwip · · Score: 0

      see americas army if you need any more information

      --
      "I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
  19. Broad definition ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

    This definition considers inappropriate any game which "lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic or political value"

    So does this include Frozen Bubble?

    1. Re:Broad definition ... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1
      So does this include Frozen Bubble?
      Nah, the naked penguins are covered under the other porn bill . . .
      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  20. all that needs to happen... by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is get THE BIBLE listed as porn under this law, with all the begatting and smoting going on, it's kind of like an ancient GTA, in fact, Rockstar should use it as a source, :)

    The kung-foo of my invisible being is better than the kung-foo your invisible being.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    1. Re:all that needs to happen... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Dude - a game by RockStar based on the bible would kick ass.

      Remember when Moses slaughtered the Mideans, took their women and children prisoner, then order his men to kill all the males and non-virgin ladies, then take the young virgin ladies for themselves to do with as they pleased?

      That would make a *great* video game (or movie...or book)

  21. It means.. by imunfair · · Score: 1

    It means killing 'terrists', of course! We all know that's the only current acceptable form of violence. ;P

  22. You have a point by thedogcow · · Score: 1

    I would imagine that there are probably at least 200,000 people within a 5 mile radius of where I live. Back in Oklahoma, the population of the city was about 100,000 and that was when college was in session and that was the entire 20 or so mile radius of the city. Yeah, it's a bit unfair to compared with a city of 4 or 5 million to 100K.

    --
    Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
  23. Close, but not quite. (nitpick) by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1
    Um, yeah it does. No state constitution can abridge a freedom guaranteed under the US Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

    That more or less reads, if we do not specifically say something here, then it is up to the states or the people to make up their own laws/rights in regard to the issue. Now, what constitutional clause does it violate? Freedom of speech.
    OK, you're correct that if the U.S. Constitution says the states can't do something, they can't do it. And you're correct that the Supreme Court has ruled the states cannot violate the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments. (Almost, see below.) But as originally written, the BoR did not apply to the states. The BoR only restricts the actions of the federal government.

    It's the 14th Amendment that extended the BoR prohibitions to the states. And that wasn't even decided till a Supreme Court case in 1925 (Gitlow v. New York).

    But even then, they didn't rule that the entire BoR applies to the states. For instance, they have never ruled on whether the Second Amendment applies to the states.
  24. In other news.... by Criceratops · · Score: 1

    Seattle, Washington

    The city council passes a resolution to ban all dust-bowl-related games or related states as being "full of inappropriate ignorance". Councilor Steve Krebs was quoted as saying, "I mean, really, you have these huge flat states that are apparently so drab and lifeless that people have to oppress each other based on what invisible sky father they believe in. That sort of thing has no place in twenty-first-century society, and we've got to protect the children!"

    Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Nebraska were not available for comment, as they became lost in their own damn acreage.

    --
    crappy triceratops
  25. Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California. by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before the Civil War, there was strong arguments for the idea that the limitations on the federal government (as noted in the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law") did not apply to the state governments. The state governments could theoretically pass laws abridging the freedoms of its citizens that the federal government could not. The 10th Amendment is in fact the strongest source of support for that idea. A restriction barring the federal government from doing something is not "power delegated to" it -- it's the opposite.

    After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed specifically to prevent Southern states from passing laws that discriminated against blacks in the way that the federal government could not. This is known as the Equal Protection Clause (and has sadly been used to defend the rights of corporations far more than it has been used to defend the rights of minorities). It reads like this:

    "Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    This is the clause that extends limitations on the powers of the federal government to the state governments and prevents the abridgement of free speech by them.

    However, pornography and obscenity have long been ruled by the Supreme Court as having lesser protection that political speech. The case Miller v. California set forth a test to determine pornography that has been used ever since. Justice Burger in his opinion wrote the following:

    The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

    Change "sexual conduct" in part (b) to "violence to people" and you've probably got a bill that would survive a Supreme Court decision. Whether or not the list of barred things is overly broad and violates the second test is where it's most likely to stand or fall. The third test is where a lot people think that works will escape, but as Burger says in the sentence immediately following this test, "We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the 'utterly without redeeming social value" test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.'" You can read more about obscenity and the 1st Amendment here.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California. by thebdj · · Score: 1

      The problem is that many laws are written with this language changed from sexual conduct to violence (or violence towards people) and still getting shot down in their own state Supreme Courts. Granted, this would vary from state to state, and we have yet to have one of these laws tested at the federal level. Also, trying to equate pornography and violence in this country is a joke. America tends to be quite prudish after all.

      This is really an attempt to try to control a relatively young media. People are complaining about a lack of self-regulation, but it is much harder for a group to go through many hours of gameplay (sometimes in the 15-20+ range) versus the MPAA rating movies, which typically are no longer then four hours. In fact, the MPAA rating system has not been without its critics but they stayed out of the way when the system came into place because we hadn't created this lame ass "significant literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" standard yet. A standard which is poorly defined, and I am sure searching through case law long enough, you will find places where it is applied differently from state-to-state and maybe even applied differently by SCOTUS.

      --
      "Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
    2. Re:Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      ""Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

      This is the part that needs to be amended. This helps the current 'invasion' by our neighbors to the south. It should not be allowed that illegal aliens can run across the border to drop a kid in the US, and have that kid automatically be a US citizen.

      We should amend this part of the Constitution to read a child born to parents at least ONE of which is a valid US citizen, is therefore automatically a US Citizen. If not...then you're a citizen of one of the countries your parents are 'visiting' from...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  26. If only Rockstar WOULD make a Bible game! by gknoy · · Score: 1

    It would certainly be a more memorable way to hit upon the various parts of the bible. Even better if they worked hard to make it keep to the chronology stated in the bible. Maybe even have multiple "campaigns" : the 40-year Moses campaign (OK more like 45 or more ;)), a campaign for after the hebrew nation was well established, etc. :)

    The amount of content available actually seems pretty massive. If Rockstar made it, I would actually expect its quality to be pretty good, and would probably buy it. :)

    It would sure beat /reading/ it. (though think about it: No need for a strategy guide. Don't know what is suppsoed to happen next? "Try reading chapter 12, verses 23-40!" ;))

  27. Before someone says it... by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

    Whenever this argument comes up, inevitably someone will claim that in the USA films ratings are government regulated. This is not true. In the USA films are rated by the film industry just like videogames are rated by the videogame industry. This is exactly why such anti-videogame laws are not only unconstitutional, but are also nothing more than moral panics. If such laws pass, videogames would be the only medium in the USA that are regulated by law.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    1. Re:Before someone says it... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Pornographic magazines, VHS and DVDs; the Faces of Death videos; playing cards showing boobies; websites and web cam streams; adult cable tv channels; the Jackson at the superbowl; gentlemen's clubs; none of these things are regulated by the government. Why should video games be?

      I don't support the law, but at least I'm willing to look at it in a legitimate context.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    2. Re:Before someone says it... by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      In the USA the Faces of Death videos are not and were not regulated by the government. They were advertized as banned in several countries, but those claims, like many of the deaths themselves, were fake.
      So remove that and what remains in your list? things having to do with sex. Then how is violent videogames in the same category as things having to do with sex?

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
    3. Re:Before someone says it... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      In fact, the Faces of Death videos aren't available to people under 18 in about half of the US. The point I was making was that we regulate content according to age fairly often, and that to suggest that doing that is a violation of the first amendment is patently absurd.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    4. Re:Before someone says it... by bigbigbison · · Score: 1

      I don't want to debate law here, but I would really like to see some evidence that Faces of Dead is regulated anywhere in the USA. I've never heard of such a thing and I've looked at several online retailers and none of them mention any sort of age restriction.

      There are numerous local and state restrictions on sexual content, to teh best of my knowledge, there are none on violent content to the best of my knowledge. If someone can point to some documented evidence to non-videogame related anti-violent media legislation that is on the books (and at least somewhat actively enforced rather than one of those old laws like it is illegal to take a bath outside on a Tuesday) please let me know.

      The fact is that every one of these anti-violent videogame laws have been overturned on the basis that they are violations of the first amendment (search for videogames and first amendment and numerous articles support this claim). There is no reason to believe that this law will be any different.

      --
      http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  28. Re:Dear US Government: Part II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha Ha the jokes on you! You only see your kids when you get home from work. The Government has them 6 hours a day and you discover you do not control what your kids see and do in those times. But looking over your words, they will probably improve their vocabulary by being away from you. :)

  29. In other news... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

    Porn downloading amongst Teens and pre-teens in Oklahoma is down... When asked why many young men and boys have slowed their consumption at the fountain of sex that is the internet, the boys generally respond with: "We need some of that bandwidth to pirate games now". State legislators couldn't be reached for comment, as they were busy receiving emergency treatment for a self inflicted pedal bullet wounds.

  30. old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hasn't Texas drifted off into the Gulf of Mexico?

    Because Oklahoma sucks!

  31. Nice try, but no. by hsmith · · Score: 1

    The 10th amendment allowed states to do whatever they pleased. The amendments were ONLY applied to the federal government, not the states.

    The 14th amendment was the only way that the first 8 could be applied to the states, before then they couldn't. That was the way it was setup.

    The idea was you could move to states that had the level of freedom that you desired. Some states were religious led, others totally free. This of course all ended after the Civil War.

    1. Re:Nice try, but no. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You could certainly TRY to flee to a state with a different level of freedom. In practice this became impossible as it became law that bounty hunters to go up north and freely capture anyone they thought might be an escaped slave. Not only could they do this but they could force your neighbors to contribute to your capture (or have them imprisoned if they didn't co-operate.

              Had the southern idea of "live and let live" been genuine, there's no telling how much longer the pre-civil-war situation might have lingered on.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  32. Read Song of Solomon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think the bible is prude? Read Song of Solomon...

  33. Waaaa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, the Christian Right in Oklahoma seems to be a couple of steps to the right when compared to the Christian Right in Texas.

    Oh man, I read that and felt a chill go down my back. "... a couple of steps to the right .." of Texas? How is this even possible? Since there is no proof of any god(s) these people's actions could be atributed to somekind of mental illness in their leaders. Time to rename the "Bible Belt" the "Psycho Belt".

    --
    Silly christian, god is for kids!

  34. Re:Close, but not quite. (nitpick) by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Actualy, article 6 says something like "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." in it.

    This means that all laws, treaties and anything else passed in the United State must comply with the constitution. If the supream law of the land says a felon cannot be president, then no state can pass a law saying he can. Simularly, if the constitution or a federal law for that matter says it is legal to do something then the states cannot pass a law restricting it. Imagine a federal law or even a clause in the amendment that allowed alcohol ot be legal again, imagine it saying you can drink unlimited quantities on saturday but cannot get drunk on sunday. Then a state passing a law that says no drinking on saturday. Of course the supream law of the land step in and allows thqat behavior.

    The 14th amendment was neccesary because some states and people were trying to cliam minorities were not human or citizens and were a lesser class of people. While achiving everything you said, it is basicly redundet in it's purpose except that it defines who americans are and set fourth specific instructions forbiding the discrimination on someone who is a citizen. It also mentions states specificly but those states were already subject to the supream law of the land.

  35. This is just games though, right? by sharkey · · Score: 1

    No mention of hacking web servers and forcing them to serve "Installation Successful" boilerplate to hardworking municipal appointees?

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  36. What is inappropriate violence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would games based on Road Runner cartoons qualify? Surely the violence depicted in those are REALLY inappropriate.

    (And for some reason, I vaguely remember some fuss over exactly that [violence in cartoons] back in the mid to late 70's. Can anyone else confirm? I recall Road Runner being cited as an example, in a typical "save the children" fear mongering just as they are doing today with video games).

  37. That about covers it by PMuse · · Score: 1
    From the article, this covers:
    any game which "lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic or political value" and
    • features glamorized or gratuitous violence; . . .
    • has violence so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together;
    • trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence; . . .
    • endorses or glorifies . . . excessive weaponry, or
    • depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely.
    What shooter, first-person or otherwise, doesn't fall into one of those categories? Duck Hunt?
    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  38. Ode on an Excessive Weapon by PMuse · · Score: 2, Funny

    I like big guns and I cannot lie
    You other gamers can't deny
    That when a target walks in with those big and pointy teeths
    You need a BFG at the least.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  39. jumping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember that if your timing was good enough, you could jump over (or run under?) Bowser.. it's been a while, though, so I could be wrong (maybe this was only the previous princess-in-another-castle-pseudo-lizards?)

    Maybe we should be considering such a strategy in Iran.. (whether or not that is metaphorical is left as an exercise for the reader..)

  40. Army Game Banned in OK by ezwip · · Score: 0

    So this means the US Army game that ANYONE can d/l free on the web will be removed.

    --
    "I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
  41. That would be perfect... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

    Anyone from Rockstar reading this, please get it contact with Mel Gibson and make this game! He took a snuff film and managed to make everyone in the country take their children and elderly relatives too it, think about what he could do for video games!

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  42. Including movies? by clambake · · Score: 1

    Just checking if these people are for real or just the same old hypocrites who'd drown thier mother if they could use the corpse to buy themselves an extra vote or line thier pockets: Does this bill include provisions to block MOVIES with explicit violence as well?

  43. Re:Close, but not quite. (nitpick) by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1
    Actualy, article 6 says something like "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." in it.

    This means that all laws, treaties and anything else passed in the United State must comply with the constitution.
    That's completely correct, and completely irrelevant.

    Yes, all laws must comply with every provision of the constitution. And since the text of the 1st Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law...", a state can go right ahead and pass a law establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. Because the 1st Amendment just says that Congress shall make no such laws.

    Just read the Wikipedia entry, man. It describes the 1833 Supreme Court case where they specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights doesn't protect against the actions of the states (except where the states are specifically mentioned.)

    It wasn't till the 14th Amendment that the BoR protected against states' actions, and the 14th Amendment was not at all redundant in that respect.
  44. Bible video game by Kwesadilo · · Score: 1

    Would we run into this same problem if someone created a "violent" video game that was based on the bible? I mean there are parts of that book that are pretty grotesque.

    What if someone made a game where you were Samson, and you harvested and sacrificed the foreskins of the Philistines? I'm pretty sure that something similar to this would happen.
    --
    This space reserved for administrative use.
  45. Yee haw! by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

    Why is it, that every time I hear the words "Oklahoma" and "legislation" in the news, that I have an internal dialogue that goes somewhere along the lines of "Yee haw! Anotha' victory fo' keepin' tha Bad Influenses of tha Autsahd Wuhrld away fram oua cheeld-run! Let's go shoot oua shotguns inna air ta sellebrate!"

    In all seriousness, it seems that their solution to any of the state's many social problems is "More Religion!" Because after all, it's worked so well up to this point.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  46. As an Arkansan and a gamer... by tubapro12 · · Score: 1

    ...I hope to see this, as well described, draconian law shot down by either the Oklahoma courts or any other method as I don't wish to see anything similar being implemented here in my state. As a software developer, although not a game developer, it would be easy to see this as an obstruction of my freedom of speech from the point view of a game developers responsible for such gaming software. As digital technology advances the internet and software have became more and more a method of [b]content delivery[/b], they're not always "the content" or an "object" as many laws have sought to treat as.

  47. No, that's not inappropriate violence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's perfectly appropriate! after all, Killing Ragheads and Niggers with your 12-gauge is the American way! Doing it on jap gaming machines means you're anti-american! Virtual life is more sacred than human life anyway, will someone think of the poor pixels?

    Scary yet true. Somehow the idea of people killing undesirable human life is better than killing virtual life in this nation. Same with money, life isnt important as a virtual holding of value. Which is all money is. It's virtual, it's just your share of gold in a virtual value. Gold the Government owns. Not just gold either but I wont get into that.

    Also, I used the above terms to pretty much sum up Oklahoma for those mods with an itchy troll-mod button.

  48. XXX is marketing fluff by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    The cable versions would most likely be rated NC-17. Growing up I was told that X, XX, and XXX represented different degrees of "hard core", but there actually is no XXX rating. The MPAA's scale goes up to X-rated, and anything "beyond" that is either marketing fluff by the porn industry or a sticky keyboard. ;-)

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  49. Re:Close, but not quite. (nitpick) by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the references - I've been arguing essentially the same thing on this and other forums, that people don't understand the difference between "Congress shall make no law..." and "There shall be no law..."

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  50. Write the congressional 1d10t by wrex · · Score: 1

    I suggest everyone write the tard and inform him of his bad judgement :-)
    fred@fredmorganforcongress.com

    --
    http://wrexallen.blogspot.com/
  51. Things I can't let lie #38: xenophobia. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    I know it's best to just walk away, but I can't let that stand.

    This is the part that needs to be amended. This helps the current 'invasion' by our neighbors to the south. It should not be allowed that illegal aliens can run across the border to drop a kid in the US, and have that kid automatically be a US citizen.

    I don't see this as a problem. I've personally always thought that countries that put strong limits on who can become a citizen are backwards and xenophobic. Call it racist; call it nationalist -- whatever. It's an "-ist" mentality, and I despise people who divide and exclude. What you're proposing isn't nearly as reactionary as the policies of countries that allow multiple generations of people born, raised, and grown old in the same country to still not be citizens, but it's a step in that direction, and I think it's a step away from the grand American tradition of acceptance, equality, and growth.

    Our country has grown great on the back of immigrants. From the Irish to the Chinese to now the Mexicans, our country has grown stronger and more interesting. Immigrants built the foundations of our economy from railroads to factories in the 19th century. They gave us holidays, unique architecture, and music and arts that have enriched American culture. Almost all the great American foods come from either non-Anglican immigrants or from slaves.

    I don't fear the "Invasion from the South" anymore than I fear "the Yellow Peril." It's just a new wave of Americans to be (if we'll let them). There is no such thing as a "true-blood" American. We're all immigrants and that's what makes us special. We have enjoyed having only a future and not the baggage of a past for many generations.

    I tell you something -- sometimes I value the patriotism of a person who sacrificed to come and be an American more than someone who just lucked into the position. At least they came to love America by conscious choice instead of by just not shopping around for other options. If someone so loves America that they'd give their child the gift of an American citizenship that they themselves cannot so easily get, then I personally welcome them with open arms, and I find it shameful that you would turn your back on 200 years of American progress to shut them out.

    It's the people that look forward to America with the future in mind that will make this nation great and not those who pine for the past and resist change.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  52. 2 points of confusion by chunkylimey · · Score: 1

    Firstly isn't it annoying that violence and sex get put together in the minds of those seeking to censor everything? They are two very different things. If you confuse the two then you really need psychiatric help and exclusion orders from the sex that you are attracted to. Secondly the obsession with pornography is annoying because it sustains itself on the myth that sex is somehow bad. To paraphrase the great Bill Hicks we're all here because someone had sex. I just wish these up-tight anti-porn campaigners would take it to heart and stop having sex so evolution can do us all a favor and naturally select this idiocy out. Sadly hypocrisy and their tendency to treat women as property to rape for child rearing (hence their confusion of violence and sex) lets them procreate. So perhaps we should make more games fitting the porn label? More sex less violence. Just to make it clear. I suggest a game with mutant rabbits out-breeding up-tight puritanical shrew creatures for world domination.

  53. Re:Things I can't let lie #38: xenophobia. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    No...I just think immigration should be controlled and done the legal way. It only needs to be controlled to allow an ease in the newly arrived immigrants to more easily 'melt' into the US, like in the past.

    I have no problem with new people coming to the US from anywhere...as long as they want to become US citizens and join in and contribute to the great melting pot that is the US. Learn to celebrate and contribute to our culture, this also includes learning English as a language. I just don't like uncontrolled, illegal immigrants coming over and becoming a burdon on our already stretched social saftey nets and schools.

    Controlled and legal immigration is all I'm wanting. I do think, however, that the US really needs to restructure the legal immigration system to make it a bit easier, more streamlined and take less time...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........