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.'"
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.