Slashdot Mirror
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."
Kathleen Blanco should be worried about the coming hurricane season rather than wasting everyone's time with this.
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.
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.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"The reason is that this industry, through the ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board), its developers' lobbyist, the ESA (Entertainment Software Association), and the retailers' lobbyist, IEMA (Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association) are involved in ongoing fraudulent conduct in marketing video games that contain adult material to children."
1:) Prove it
2:) If you can't do you as an attorney know what Libel is?
3:) IIRC Libel can be grounds for revocation of your BAR registration.
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.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I like how this generation of parents is teaching this generation of kids to value and defend their freedoms.
http://outcampaign.org/
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 .
The bill's intent is to keep adult-oriented (this criteria to be determined by a judge) games from getting into minor's hands, and fines any store responsible for selling said games to minors. This is not necessarily a bad thing; one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability. It can assign ratings all it wants, but when it comes down to it, individual store policy determines who can buy any given game. Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors. We can argue all day long that: "this is the responsibility of the parents, zomg the government is evil, how dare they try to say that killing hookers is bad, zomg," but really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.
Unfortunately, this bill is one step in the right direction (fining retailers who sell GTA3 to ten year olds) and three steps in the wrong (absolutely no specification as to what can be considered "inappropriate," granting sole discretion to the judge, and calling for any "inappropriate game" to be pulled from circulation.) The last wrong is the one that concerns me the most: since when does content "not suitable for minors" suddenly translate into "not suitable for sale?" That seems to me a gross overextension of what the bill should be trying to do, which is to keep minors from playing excessively violent or sexual games. It's no secret that idiots like Jack Thompson believe the world would be a better place without video games, period, but it shocks me that any legislature would buy into this. There are plenty of types of media (rape-pornography, for instance) that the courts currently do not have the ability to demand be removed from circulation. I'm supposed to believe that ANY game could be more harmful to society than the simulation of rape? That doesn't make any sense at all.
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.
Blar.
Politically, state law can affect other states in a couple of ways. First, politicians are always playing 'keep up with the Joneses.' If poll numbers go up for legislators in La. or a borderline incumbent gets reelected after campaigning on 'save our children from evil video games' you bet your sweet ass that will have a bearing on how other states deal with video games.
Also, politicians are lazy farks. Why do think they pass laws written by lobbyists? La. has a bill demonstrated to be passable. You think every other state considering a law on the same material is going to reinvent the wheel? Heck no! You can probably already buy a copy of this law at Office Depot--all you need to do is fill in the name of your state.
Now legally, a law like this can have great bearing on how other states deal with violent video games. Let's say there is a legal challenge to this new law in La. Whatever the outcome of that suit, again other states will use that information in forming their own laws. If it get's thrown out, expect the lobbyists to study the ruling closely to determine exactly what version of the same law would stand up in court. Think dealth penalty.
Why is Louisianna dealing with this stupid issue when there are lots more pressing an immediate issues at hand, like gays getting married
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......
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.
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."