Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Yet Another Violent Games Ban 257

Posted by Zonk
from the don't-play-stuff-that's-bad-for-you dept.
Gamespot reports on a proposed Tennessee bill banning extremely violent games. From the article: "The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," with a number of clauses specifying that a game would have to be patently offensive to prevailing community standards, among other things, to be considered extremely violent.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet Another Violent Games Ban

Comments Filter:
  • guess this means (Score:5, Interesting)

    by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@@@yahoo...com> on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:15PM (#14893428) Journal
    Guess this means these guys [americasarmy.com] can't peddle their wares in the volunteer state anymore. Pity.
    • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:32PM (#14893621) Homepage Journal

      Guess this means [the developers of America's Army] can't peddle their wares in the volunteer state anymore.

      Is America's Army any more violent than the 1998 film Saving Private Ryan? The patent offensiveness and lack of artistic value requirements of the bill [state.tn.us] as I understand it are similar to those developed in the Miller test [wikipedia.org], making the regulation more aligned with that of hardcore pornography than that of mere R- or M-rated fare.

      • by Qzukk (229616) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:25PM (#14895090) Journal
        God, our country needs yet another "Miller test" like I need a hole in my head.

        The Miller test has long been a club for the government to threaten whoever it doesn't like at the time. So lets look at it in terms of games: Do you think your game is not "too violent"? The government thinks it is. So you trot out an average person who thinks its not too violent. The government trots out their well paid expert "more average than you" witness to claim it is. Uhoh, there goes part 1. If you've come this far, your game probably already has people being killed or wounded or maybe just gets a papercut. So, part 2. So now you start trotting out the expensive expert witnesses for part 3. Ebert and Kojima say games aren't art. Who do you have to convince the jury that games are, some kid with a website?

        All of this... only after your game ships because it's impossible to know if something will offend someone until after you've offended them. The only safe thing to do in a world of Miller tests is "nothing".
    • And I suspect that if this even had a chance of passing, the import market would grow to fill the gap.
  • by dusik (239139) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:16PM (#14893445) Homepage
    I would hazard a guess that the rare, deranged people who are actually incited to commit violent acts by games and movies will probably play these games regardless if they are legally sold in their state/prefecture/whatever.

    For the rest of us... people need to grow up. We do all agree that it's a game, right?
    • What really gets me is that they arn't trying to ban violent movies. Other than the obvious first amendment problems I would understand if a state attempted to ban all media that had a certain amount of violence or sex or whatever. But aiming directly at video games shows you just don't get it. (Note: I would understand doesn't mean I would support)
    • by dc29A (636871) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:56PM (#14893863)
      I would hazard a guess that the rare, deranged people who are actually incited to commit violent acts by games and movies will probably play these games regardless if they are legally sold in their state/prefecture/whatever.

      For the rest of us... people need to grow up. We do all agree that it's a game, right?


      Is it really effective? Absolutely! It's just as effective as "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror". I mean we won the "War on Drugs" right? And we are doing great in the "War on Terror"!

      Sarcasm aside, you are absolutely right. People who will want to play these games even after a ban is in place, will be able. Someone has to explain these politicians what's the internet. What will stop people from downloading these games?
    • everyone hazards to guess, but we need studies. We no longer play games were the charaters have square heads, and fire is just a few square of pixals stack on top of each other.

      The mind adaptes and behaviours are created based based on the minds input. The more realistic games get, the harder it becomes for the mind to know the difference.
      That is of course an incredibly simplistic statement, but the point is correct.

    • I would also guess that the rare, deranged people who commit violent acts based on what they see in games and movies are just that: rare and deranged. These people wouldn't magically be happy, healthy, well adjusted people if there were no violent imagery in the media. Violence predates violence in the media by a couple hundred thousand years (or 5000 years, depending on who you ask). The only credence I give to the "the video game made me do it" claim is that the particular violence the person commits m
  • Hah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tadrith (557354) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:17PM (#14893451) Homepage
    I suppose sending them a death threat with the words "Take my video games away and I'll f****** kill you!" would not be helpful to the cause?
  • by Threni (635302) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:20PM (#14893490)
    I suppose the US Military *could* stop using Doom etc for training (as has been reported) and instead try Pacman or something. It would have certain advantages, I guess...
    • I don't think Doom would count, because the enemies you kill in Doom are not 'human beings', which apparently means it's not violent.
    • But then, next thing you know, it'll be that Pacman is causing drug use in our troops by teaching them to eat random "power pills".
      • And just behind the ATF will be the EPA, complaining that Joust advocates the injury and killing of endangered species.
      • Reminds me of a great quote:

        "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.)

        Althought it was funnier when raves were exploding with popularity.
    • by galonso (705202) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:37PM (#14893673)
      Yes . . . Pac man . . . alert Gabe!;)

      Seriously, this points out the fundamental dichotomy that exists between our "violence is bad" cultural notions and our quickness to go to war, whatever the good or bad reasons might be (and I'm not making a stand on that today).

      The point about 'America's Army' is a good one, because this explains the 'Sibyl' in our national consciousness . . . we use so many psychological tactics to resolve these little cognitive dissonances, but are we sufficiently aware of it?

      I have yet to see a link proven between so called violent video games and real life violence, personally my WoW sessions do nothing to make me want to go out and gank a wandering priest;)

    • I don't know, I don't think I want the soldiers eating thousands of identical white pills.

      And besides, think of all those poor gosts of dead family members that the military would be forced to consume.
    • Hudson: "Game over man... Game over!"
  • The Sims (Score:5, Insightful)

    by szembek (948327) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:21PM (#14893498) Homepage
    I think there are a lot of unintended games that this proposed bill would affect. Take for instance if you are playing The Sims and put your character in the swimming pool and remove the ladder... they will eventually drown. Wouldn't this fall under killing an image of a human being? Off the top of my head I can't think of any other examples like this, but I'm sure there are plenty.
    • Re:The Sims (Score:2, Insightful)

      by yassax (416227)
      Civilization, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations... pretty much any strategy game that involves humans and waging wars. How about MMORPGS. Killed plenty of humans in Ultima Online back in the day.

      You know, while their at it, why don't they just ban life?
    • Re:The Sims (Score:3, Insightful)

      by enjo13 (444114)
      You only had to read the SUMMARY to know that this statement is wrong, and yet there are like 5 replies all chiming in taking it to even further extremes.

      The bill (which I strongly disagree with) proposes to ban games which meet a test of objectionability (not unlike restrictions on hardcore adult films).. one of which is games which limit the player to a range of violent options. Clearly the Sims, final fantasy, and the ilk fall outside of this. What is more interesting are games like GTA, which are no mor
    • by Belial6 (794905)
      They just reprint the manual to say, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, these NON-HUMAN creatures that look just like us....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:28PM (#14893578)
    This bill wouldn't just ban minors from purchasing these games, it bans ANYONE from purchasing them. Since less restrictive bans have been struck down, this bill doesn't stand a chance of taking effect. Still, the fact they're no longer doing this just "for the children", lends weight to the slippery slope arguments that said a ban for minors would lead to a ban affecting adults as well. Scary stuff actually.
    • by RobinH (124750) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:40PM (#14893693) Homepage
      Still, the fact they're no longer doing this just "for the children", lends weight to the slippery slope arguments that said a ban for minors would lead to a ban affecting adults as well. Scary stuff actually.

      Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.

      The logic is like this. If I wanted to walk to the crack house, I have to go one block south, then one block east, so that means I shouldn't go to the blockbuster one block south because that just takes me half way to the crack house. That logic is invalid because it contains a slippery slope falacy - the idea that I shouldn't walk one block south because it is on the way to the crack house.

      To discuss it in your terms, we have existed for many decades in a society that bans alcohol for minors, but allows alcohol for people over a certain age. At one point, alcohol was banned for everyone by democratic choice, and then by democratic choice (and practicality) it was overturned. But most people are ok with minors not being allowed to buy alcohol, even though it would be a step in the direction of banning it for everyone.

      When we draw a line in the sand, we have to know exactly why we're drawing it at that spot. It has to be the right spot. To argue that we can't draw the line because someone in the future might move the line is an invalid argument.

      Personally, I'm against censorship or bans, but think that rating games for their content and restricting sales to minors is the right way to go.
      • That's a very good explanation of why slippery slope arguments are inherently invalid. I do want to add that I think you're overstating how strongly these arguments should be dismissed.

        From a purely logical point of view, you are correct but most people aren't very logical. If it takes me saying that if this law passes, the next step is going to be to ban movies to someone who doesn't play video games but enjoys violent movies in order to get them on board and to take some action - I'll do it. Logically, it

      • by CoughDropAddict (40792) on Friday March 10, 2006 @06:01PM (#14894443) Homepage
        Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.

        You are relying on the assertion that passing "legislation such and such" does not create a political climate where similar legislation is more likely to pass. Without demonstrating this, you have no basis for calling the argument invalid. A slippery slope argument is not inherently a logical fallacy.

        The people who wrote the slippery slope [wikipedia.org] article on Wikipedia claim that "Use of the slippery slope can be valid or fallacious," and I agree with that characterization.
        • The slippery slope *is* fallacious, but that doesn't indicate anything about the truth value of the resulting argument. All the fallacy part means is that it doesn't logically follow, in a rigorous sense. It may still be true, and sometimes slippery slopes are real.

          There's a big difference between logically sound and truthful.
        • except that it is wrong.

          If it was true, then porn would have been banned 20 years ago.

          As a people we can draw the line where we want.
          • It was under his administration that many bans came into place - the most relevant example being, in this case, child pornography. The thesis was banning child pornography was permissible, among other similar reasons, because such speech helped "normalize behavior" and that it could be use to coerce other children into similar behaviors. The fallacy is that ADULT pornography can (and sometimes will) be used to exactly those same ends regarding indoctrination. The other fallacy is that such regulations serve
      • I do agree with you that it is a logical fallacy. However, there are times when "slippery slope" effects can actually be observed, e.g. when you give power to your government and they, tantalized by the power over people's lives, grab at more and more. Or (and I hate to use this, but I just discussed it in class) the gradual slide of harm inflicted on Jews in Nazi Germany. First stripped of jobs, then stripped of rights and humanity, and finally stripped of life... well, that's a real-life slippery slope.

        Li
      • People shouldn't talk in terms of "slippery slope," they should talk in terms of setting a precedent. Precedent is a very important concept in American law.

        If video games are found not to deserve First Amendment protection then laws can be made against them on a state level for any random reason. In this case, a law would be valid restricting video games because they incite violence in children but it would be just as valid if the argument is made that they incite violence in unstable adults.

        The First

      • I think you are not considering though how these controversies work.

        When you have a small (or not so small) core of very determined people who want an outcome that most people would not like -- in this case, the banning of everything contrary to their "Christian" values, not just videogames, but books, television, and movies as well -- there is a very real 'slippery slope.' It may not be a logical argument, but it's a human one.

        To use your example, it would be as if you had a friend who really wanted, for r
      • I think what we are looking for here is "precedent" not slippery slope.

        I agree that arguing whether to do this or not to do this on slippery slope.... is not really that valid. Just because you allow same sex marraige doesn't mean you're going to legalize incest.

        However, what worries me more is the notion of precedent - that if they're allowed to get away with banning sales of a video game to adults with a violent context then the next thing down the pipe will be a ban on something else, and they'll hold up
      • A "slippery slope" is usually called when somebody grossly violates a basic principle, but in an innocuous manner, thus opening the door to more flagrant violations of principle (the slope). This is not a logical fallacy; it only appears a fallacy to people who cannot see the underlying principle. A better analogy might be crossing a border with a tank. Going one foot across hardly an invasion makes, but once you've established that you can roll your tank over it any time you like, pretty soon you're rol
      • The term "Slippery Slope" actually refers to two distinct types of argument: a "Semantice Slippery Slope" and a "Causal Slippery Slope".

        A semantic slippery slope is an argument where one argues that because the boundary between two sets is undefined, the two sets are actually identical.

        For example: people can have verying number of hairs on their head. People with few hairs are bald. People with many hairs aren't. However there is no number X for which we can say that all people with less than X hairs ar
      • by tgibbs (83782) on Friday March 10, 2006 @07:15PM (#14895011)
        Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.

        Your statement is logically equivalent to the assertion that "slippery slopes" do not exist--i.e. there are no circumstances such that change in one direction is much easier than the other. Considering that there are many physical circumstances in which such is the case--including a literal slippery slope, as well as innumerable examples of thermodynamically irreversible reactions in chemistry and physics, this is a fairly remarkable assertion. What empirical evidence can you provide to support the radical claim that this cannot occur in legal or social contexts?
      • Just for future reference... "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. In fact, it is the name of a logical fallacy. When someone says "new legislation such and such could lead us down a very slippery slope", that's when you can stop listening because they have decisively abandoned logic.
        Not a fallacy since you made no concrete logical statement

        "new legislation such and such will lead us ... to some conlusion"
        However, is a fallacy...
        Maybe you should learn the difference first before accusing others of b
  • GTA (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Did anyone else notice the GTA San Andreas ad on the right side of the page?
  • by crotherm (160925) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:28PM (#14893585) Journal


    Tennesse also is trying to ban sex toys. [decaturdaily.com]

    Some people really need to mind their own business.....

  • Sigh. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Perseid (660451) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:35PM (#14893653)
    I don't think these bills are even intended to be passed anymore, much less enforced. I think these politicians are merely pandering to the religious fringe by creating these laws so that they can later say, "I tried. Vote for me so I can try again."

    There's no way these people can be as stupid as they seem.
  • by RyoShin (610051) <[tukaro] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:42PM (#14893713) Homepage Journal
    You know, if they're calling people killed in video games "victims" (with a real world notion), then why stop there? There are real people behind the avatars being robbed in many a MMORPG. Where is their retribution? Where is their justice? DO THEY NOT PAY A MONTHLY FEE?!

    Ahem.

    In any case, I think I'll start a pool taking dates when

    A) The bill fails
    B) Some court shoots down the bill as unconstitutional, or
    C) Lizard men invade
  • Contradictions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ClamIAm (926466) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:44PM (#14893743)
    Guns? OK! Simulation of guns? NO!
    • If only more people would pick up on this point! Maybe the game industry lobby needs to step up and call someone out over this. An interesting statistic would be the risk of a gun owner killing someone vs the risk of a gamer killing someone.
    • Guns? OK! Simulation of guns? NO!

      How is it a contradiction? I've never killed anyone with my firearms... Maybe if you made a video game who's theme was target shooting...

      And it's not that I disagree with the general idea you're trying to get at but attacking gun ownership as a means to undermine those who'd ban/censor video games isn't really logical at all.

      Another way to see this in action is to examine this body's attitude twords something for which most people consider firearms acceptable at such as
  • Choices (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xiroth (917768) on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:49PM (#14893791)
    What about when the player can choose whether or not to be highly violent? For example, a Star Wars game where you can go to the Light or Dark side, and could have a pivotal moment involving "helplessness of the victim". The game does not encourage the player to be excessively violent, but gives them the option to be.
    • Don't you understand?! Giving someone the option to do something violent is exactly the same as encouraging them to do it! This is why there are no serious culinary schools in Tennessee -- they encourage knife fighting.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10, 2006 @04:56PM (#14893853)
    So if they make Furry Theft Auto, it will be ok, since you'll be killing, maiming and raping catgirls and dogpeople instead of human beings?
  • by MaliciousSmurf (960366) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:00PM (#14893898)
    I guess this means a game that focuses on killing kittens would be OK?
  • Hah (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kittie Rose (960365)
    Trying to enforce a violent video game ban on America is a lot like trying to block out Porn in Germany.
  • by ApharmdB (572578) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:05PM (#14893955)
    If they are trying to ban things that cause violence then they should start with toilet paper. Check this out - a murder and an assult - both in the US and over toilet paper within a month of each other.

    http://www.boston.com/news/odd/articles/2006/03/09 /toilet_paper_dispute_overflows_into_fight/ [boston.com]

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Man-charged-in -killing-over-toilet-paper/2006/02/23/114056388866 5.html [theage.com.au]
    • It's a well known fact that TP causes violence. In a recent prison poll, 99.97% of serial killers have used TP at some point in their lives.

      When will humanity learn.
  • Well, there goes' America's Army if this were passed in San Francisco. It involves killing people, and current "community standards" are very anti-military so it would likely be found offensive.

    Just showing the idocy of these laws.
  • by zymurgy_cat (627260) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:24PM (#14894111) Homepage
    Before you TN residents/lovers start bashing me, I have to say I like the state. Very beautiful and the mountains/hills are great. I've got some real neat photographs [homeip.net] of thunderstorms running through valleys.

    That said, if these guys want to make laws, maybe they should look at Newport, TN. They had a big cock fighting ring busted down there. They even snagged cops and judges in the bust. Before cock fighting, it was stolen cars. Before that, drugs. Before that, moonshine. Although I'm fairly libertarian, I'd say if they want to work on eradicating "bad" behavior, maybe they should work on other things....
  • by javaxman (705658) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:27PM (#14894150) Journal
    I don't know about today, but I seem to recall a friend of mine from Tennessee telling me that it was all the rage in his hometown to wear a holster with a gun in it... as it was perfectly legal to walk around with a loaded weapon, just so long as you weren't concealing it.

    Sometimes, all you can do is shake your head, ask the obvious questions, and try to make the best choice you're allowed to at the ballot box...

    • Why does repression in one area make respression in another area OK? Just because Tennessee has implemented a backwards and repressive policy restricting videogames, doesn't mean that they need to implement a backwards and respressive policy aimed at citizen disarmament. Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and lik
      • Why does repression in one area make respression in another area OK?

        Did I say it did ?

        Just because Tennessee has given up the 1st Amendment on the bill of rights, doesn't mean they should flush the whole constitution away. Instead they should realize that freedom of speech is just as sacred as the right to bear arms, and like the right to bear arms should not be restricted in any way.

        That's much closer to the point I was trying to make, actually...

        Of course, the reality is that this is just the resu

  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:34PM (#14894209)
    Sounds like the typical reaction to one or two isolated cases of game-induced violence.

    When will people realize that kids don't need to be protected? When I was younger, it was normal to go around playing with (toy) guns, and most parents let their kids run around wherever they wished. Now parents lock their kids away, and they aren't allowed to be kids. Kids need to be desensitzied to things at an early age so that they don't turn out soft. Video game violence isn't going to hurt anyone other than the extremely stupid or mentally handicapped kids who can't separate reality from fantasy.
  • ..where you're a politician. It would totally mirror real life, where the game higly encourages you to make a complete prick out of yourself in order to get a few social conservative votes. Bonus level to see how many fragile child minds you save through wiping your ass with the constitution... Maybe a hack the voting machine mini-game. Grand Theft Election?
  • ...those of us in tennessee can still us video games to kill, maim, dismember and (best of all) sexually assault images of small puppies and kitties! or religious icons! the american flag!

    hurrah for free speech!
  • by ivanmarsh (634711) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:49PM (#14894347)
    I may just start killing people in real life.

    There's nothing more relaxing after a long frustrating day dealing with morons than going home and shooting Nazi's in the head and watching their little helmets pop off.

    I don't think it would be a very good idea to take away the one safe outlet I have for my anger.
  • by Chuckstar (799005) on Friday March 10, 2006 @05:49PM (#14894352)
    Guys, its really easy to argue free speech and all, but don't we need to take drastic measures to try to put a dent in this unprecedented crime wave we've been seeing since violent video games became epidemic.

    Oh, wait ... [tomgpalmer.com]

  • we need MORE! How about those of you who find these colossally stupid acts of the government you pay for offensive rise up and act on your primal impulses and go wreck havoc on the government buildings, paying special attention to the throats of the officiates thereof. Then we can pass legislation that bans the use of stupid government, on the grounds that it makes people commit violent acts.
  • where characters are mentally and physically tortured but tennesee proposes that I can not write a video game where the same exact thing happens.

    I guess that means no video game adaptions of any kind of film or book involving horror, terrorism, state goons torturing victims, etc.

    yea.. this is unconstitutional on the face of it.

  • by Shihar (153932) on Friday March 10, 2006 @06:07PM (#14894491)
    I have an idea for a new law. Lets call this the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution rule".

    The way this bill would work is that any politician that votes for three bills that are later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and are prevented from coming into effect is kicked out of office. Any politician that blatantly fails to do their duty to uphold the constitution of the US three times in a row should have their ass thrown from office. End of story. They have violated the trust of the people far too many times and failed to uphold their oath to the constitution.

    This is a non-story. This stupid bill, even if it is passed will be promptly struck down by the courts. What pisses me off is that I keep having to read about these stupid bills being passed and struck down. Someone needs to smack some sense into these dumb fuckers heads.
    • I have an idea for a new law. Lets call this the "three strikes, now stop fucking with the constitution rule".

      The way this bill would work is that any politician that votes for three bills that are later deemed unconstitutional by the courts and are prevented from coming into effect is kicked out of office. Any politician that blatantly fails to do their duty to uphold the constitution of the US three times in a row should have their ass thrown from office. End of story. They have violated the trust of the

  • > a game would have to be patently offensive to prevailing community standards, among other things, to be considered extremely violent.

    So just put the main character in a Uniform, and call it "Grand Theft Iraqi".
  • This is definitely censorship.

    What's wrong with simply banning the sale of games labeled for certain age groups to those not of those agre groups? Adults can play whatever they want. Adults can think for themselves.
  • I live in Alabama. Unlike most surrounding states, fireworks are legal here (yeehaw!)

    I guess this means we'll see game stores next to the fireworks stands at the state line.

    Hey, this business plan has an actual item #2!

    /runs off to look into some property near the state line...
  • I doubt this will make it very far. There are plenty of mature adults in Tennessee, I'm sure, that enjoy sitting down to a game of GTA or something. I could see them making it a state-law that you must be over 18 to purchase a game like that, but banning them completely? I'd have to see it to believe it. That would be enough reason for me to move out of state, if I lived there (I like my video games!).
  • The bill defines the phrase 'extremely violent video game' as 'a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.

    Easy.

    GTA becomes GTU. Grand Theft UFO. Now everyone's an alien!
  • This is just another example of a legislator pandering to an electorate that he imagines to be too stupid to understand that such a law, even if it were somehow to be passed, would immediately be invalidated by the courts.

    To have even a prayer of getting the courts to accept such a drastic restriction of the constitutional rights of adults, it would be necessary to prove that such games pose some grave threat. This would be pretty difficult, considering that as violent video games have gotten more popular a
    • I read the actual text of the statute, and it is pretty well drafted to try to fit within Constitutional requirements. They basical use the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity and work from there. The standard for restrictions on obscene speech is much less than that for non-obscene speech. The text of the statute seems quite likely to be able to pass constitutional muster. The problem will come in its enforcement and law enforcement's interpretation of the statute.

      In case it hasn't been linked else
  • Those "images of humans" are unborn. When will Tennessee finally protect the unborn from these sensless murders?

Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long

Working...