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.'"

Comments

Meh.

[Rob T Firefly]

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.

Re:Meh.

[thebdj]

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...

Re:Meh.

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:Meh.

[computechnica]

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.

'inappropriate violence'

[Megaweapon]

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.

Re:'inappropriate violence'

[gid13]

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.

GamaSutra

[gEvil (beta)]

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

This is not surprising

[thedogcow]

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".

Re:This is not surprising

[quantum bit]

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

Re:This is not surprising

[raider_red]

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.

Semantics

[quantum bit]

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...

"Limited opposition"

[Delusion_]

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.

"inappropriate violence"

[The Real Toad King]

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

"Games As Porn" = FUD

[nahdude812]

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.

Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD

[RsG]

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.

Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD

[Dunbal]

when acquiring material that could be damaging to young minds.

      like religion, for example?

Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD

[jedidiah]

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).

Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD

[Red Flayer]

"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.

Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD

[nahdude812]

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.

As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa...

[revlayle]

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.

Re:Parenting

[Eivind]

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.

Good points in the 1up article.

[Irvu]

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.

Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California.

[Valdrax]

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.

Ode on an Excessive Weapon

[PMuse]

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.