Jack Thompson's Violent Game Bill Signed Into Law

simoniker writes "Louisiana Democratic Representative Roy Burrell's HB1381 bill, covering violent videogames, has been signed into law by Governor Kathleen Blanco. The law takes effect immediately, the latest in a very long line of video game-related bills specific to one U.S. State. The measure proposed by HB 1381, which was drafted with the help of controversial Florida attorney and anti-game activist Jack Thompson, allows a judge to rule on whether or not a videogame meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves. A person found guilty of selling such a game to a minor would face fines ranging from $100 to $2,000, plus a prison term of up to one year. Needless to say, the ESA will likely be mounting a legal challenge to this bill in the very near future."

Comments

Priorities

[TheBogie]

Kathleen Blanco should be worried about the coming hurricane season rather than wasting everyone's time with this.

Re:Priorities

[stratjakt]

Yeah and police should be worried about the "real criminals" instead of harassing 16 year old kids for drinking beer in the woods!

So, what about online retailers?

[azrane2005]

I see the point of this, if you're going to Wal-Mart or GameStop/EB. But what about online side of retailers, Amazon, GameStop, Wal-Mart, etc. This bill only affects Louisiana, so if you can't find the game on store shelves, you'll be able to find it online.

Redundant?

[Golias]

Was a new state law really needed for something like this? Wouldn't it have made sense to simply apply the same rules that currently apply to the distribution of R-rated movies on DVD?

At least this wasn't a federal initiative. If the people of Louisiana have a problem with this law, they can certainly let their government know about it.

(Although, considering all that's happened in the last year, I can't imagine that current local leaders in that state have a very long and rosy political career ahead of them anyway. It's kind of tough to rein in a lame-duck government which is already world-famous for corruption. The people of that state who don't like this law might just have to wait for the next administration to work on getting it reversed.)

Re:Redundant?

[dyslexicbunny]

It's a pretty short bill (the bill) but this phrase takes the cake.

(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Who makes the diecsion on whether or not games fall into this category or not? Thompson? I think it's fair to say that no game (that people would seriously play) falls into this category based on how I read it. But then again, I don't play games for those reasons and likely, neither does anyone else.

Honestly though, I don't have a problem with either of the first two parts. Selling games to minors that don't fit into the ESRB ages should be a crime. But the fine should be enough and might be a little high on the top. And/or a year in prison is silly even with the fact it could also include hard labor.

Re:Redundant?

[Khaed]

Selling games to minors that don't fit into the ESRB ages should be a crime.

Agreed. Rant mode:

Some places don't even sell M rated games (which is their choice), and I've known people who worked in game/rental places where they could get fired for selling an game to someone in the wrong age bracket. One friend of mine has actually been bitched at by a twelve year old, and then his mom for refusing to sell the kid a game that he wasn't old enough to play.

People are going to bitch no matter what happens, as long as the violent games are made. Music has warning labels, and people still try and blame music for stuff. Even without labels -- come on, a game named Doom? Grand Theft Auto? You must be stupid to not realize that this might not be appropriate. Halo? Well, that one sounds acceptable (moreso than Super Smash Brothers name wise).

Until we live in Carebear land where everything is flowers and unicorns we're going to have to put up with these stupid people and their crummy elected officials.

Okay, rant mode off. This issue just pisses me off because the people involved are so stupid and deliberately ignorant. Gr. Argh. And stuff.

Grr.

[Rob T Firefly]

Playing violent videogames never made me want to shoot anyone.

Listening to violent music never made me want to stab anybody.

Reading a violent book or watching a violent film never made me want to go out and hurt anyone in any way.

Fearmongering idiots getting ridiculous laws made, on the other hand, would seriously test my limits were I not reasonably confident of this eventually getting struck back down by someone with half a brain.

Free speech? Think of the children!

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

I like how this generation of parents is teaching this generation of kids to value and defend their freedoms.

Only in Louisiana...

[sleepophile]

I live in Louisiana ...and there are a hundred things far more important than this shit.The state of education heres is pathetic , NO hasn't recovered from the last hurricane season ..and the new one is already upon us. Crime is off the charts ...and so on.And they waste time on passing a stupid video game law. Blanco needs to get her head checked .

Police don't write parking tickets.

[FatSean]

That is what 'meter maids' do. As for Sobriety Checkpoints...I think they are the evil product of cowardly turds who fear what they are told to fear.

But you do have a point, except for the fact that morality (which is what this law entails) is NOT part of the government's job.

Re:I love paying for people to live in dangerous a

[011011]

Personnaly I don't really know what where people live and the natural disasters they are prone to has to due with a videogame bill. As far as natural disasters go, just about everywhere has its own type of possible disaster to be dealt with. As far as this gaming bill goes, in my opinion, morality is not specifically the job of government to make rules on, but without moral rules, laws really wouldn't exist. In all honesty, murder is just a question of moral reasoning. If it weren't, every solder that came home from a war would need to be tried for every confirmed kill. The real question comes down to what issues are morally objectable enough for the government to step in and create a law for it. I don't believe games should be one of these issues. Thats like saying people who put their elbows on the table should get a fine and possible jail time. As a parent, I firmly believe parents should step up, learn what the ESRB ratings stand for, research the games your children want, and enforce a restriction on your child to not get a game you do not believe they are mature enough to play. Jack Handey.....er Thompson should not be the one setting the rules for what I beleive my child is mature enough to play. Of course I do have the right to buy the game on behalf of my child, but then they may look at a 5 day waiting period for the purchase of a game. "Want to make sure you're not training for black ops, y'know," says the kindly Best Purchase guy as I fill out the ream of paperwork to buy the latest Splinter Shock game. Of course the problem here stems from people who don't want to be bothered by actually taking the time to be interested in and raise their child. Enough of this rant. Back to your regularly scheduled weather......

Living with the danger you know

[Kelson]

Hurricanes are a piece of cake to deal with. I'd rather deal with them then earthquakes or tornados.

Here's the funny thing: I, and most people I know who have grown up in California, would much rather deal with earthquakes than hurricanes or tornadoes. We can't imagine why someone would want to stay in a hurricane-prone area. And I'd be willing to be that people in, say, Kansas, would much rather deal with tornadoes than hurricanes or earthquakes.

I think it just comes down to the disaster you grew up with. You know what to expect, you know how to prepare for a typical hurricane/quake/flood/tornado, you know what to do during the disaster, and you know how pick things up afterward. Every once in a while something hits on the level of Katrina or the 1906 San Francisco quake, but for the most part, the locals in any region are comfortable with their area's disasters -- and often freaked out totally by the disasters that hit other areas.

Morality IS the government's job; taste is not

[Pfhorrest]

But you do have a point, except for the fact that morality (which is what this law entails) is NOT part of the government's job.

I must strongly disagree with your words here (and with the many others who espouse them), though I agree completely in spirit. Enforcing morality is the government's ONLY job. But morality is not synonymous with any particular group's common tastes or traditional values. Morality is about what is good for the everybody, and that is precisely what government's legitimate purpose is: to look out for the well-being of all of society.

But what is good for the everybody is a very small set of things: liberty and security. Any of the particulars (i.e. watching porn, eating red meat, having long hair, wearing shoes, whatever) may be good or bad for different people in different contexts, but freedom and safety are the two things that are always good for everyone. With those provided, people are free to acquire all the things that are good for them in particular and avoid those which are bad.

Which means that the government's job, as I think you were saying, is to mind it's own business, that business being making sure that other people are minding theirs. It is not the government's job to enforce the tastes or personal values of any people on any other people.