Oklahoma Senate OKs Violent-Games Bill 412
CNet is reporting that the Oklahoma Senate unanimously approved a new violent-games bill on Monday that makes it a crime to sell violent video games to children under 18. From the article: "The bill passed 47-0 in the state Senate, but is being held on a motion to reconsider the vote within three legislative days before being sent back to the House to vote on Senate amendments."
violence in the media (Score:4, Interesting)
Make it a crime? (Score:2, Interesting)
Was it not a crime already? Here in the UK the same rating system for movies is applied to certain video games, thus a game rated 18 cannot be sold to anyone under this age. Supplying GTA to a minor can land the shop keeper in a lot of trouble.
Does the US rating system differ?
Meanwhile... (Score:1, Interesting)
What a mess. Is this all humanity can aspire to? I sure hope not.
Where's my nano-factory and space ship. I want off this rock. The meek shall inherit the earth, but hopefully just after I've left it for the stars.
Loop hole? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd say video games hold serious artistic value these days.
No evidence to suggest this actually works (Score:2, Interesting)
Obligatory Ron White quote... (\\Rant On\\) (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with kids today is not advertisements, pornography, drinking, or smoking pot. The problem with kids today is that they act out irresponsibly. The reason for this is that the PARENTS are irresponsible. That's right, the parents. If the parents are doing their job, the the kids will behave reasonably. They will at least PRETEND to study in school, and stay out of trouble. If THE PARENTS don't have the wherewithal to keep THEIR KIDS from doing "bad" stuff, well - you figure that one out.
If you want to make the job harder for THE PARENTS, make the thing that contributes to bad behavior "ILLEGAL." Because, we all know that something that is illegal for a stupid reason is, um what's that word - oh yeah, GLAMOROUS.
Let's take drinking for an example: In Europe, teenagers drinking is not a problem. Let me repeat: TEENAGERS DRINKING IS NOT A PROBLEM. Yes, teenagers in Europe (At least in: Great Britan, Germany, France; Italy) drink. It's true: BUT THEY DO IT IN MODERATION, mostly. IN EUROPE, it's not illegal for teenagers to drink IN MODERATION. What happens is that when teenagers start bugging their parents about drinking, they are allowed to drink (wine, beer, or other soft stuff) at the DINNER TABLE. That's right, IN EUROPE, kids learn about drinking booze from their PARENTS. AT HOME!
In America, IN AMERICA, for the most part kids learn binge drinking from their buddies. What is the difference here? Come on, say it with me... IT'S THE PARENTS STUPID. What do we learn from this? If you want your kids to drink in moderation, YOU need to teach them to drink responsibly. If you want your kids to go on giant benders, let em learn from their friends.
Now, if you want to see more games with whore bashing, general crime, and cop killing: Rely on some law making it illegal for kids to play to do the PARENTS job. You are too much of an irresponsible lazy f*ck to know that they have a copy stashed with the porn anyhow.
Disclaimer: I am a parent, and old enough to know better than to argue with some brainless idiot anyhow. Don't even get me started on the financial arguements about making pot illegal.
Re:this is a good thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is basically where the on-box game ratings are today. Voluntary, done by the industry, but if the store clerk or parent doesn't stop the sale to a minor, there's no criminal penalty.
This law makes it illegal to sell GTA to a minor, but it'll still be legal to let them into the theater to see Showgirls (and allowing anyone, whether they're 16 or 60,to watch that movie should be a crime).
Re:Not much of a solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm quite concerned about the [growing epidemic of obese children/declining faith in God of the children] in America today. I really would like to be a responsible parent and make sure my kid [maintains a healthy diet/grows up with a belief in God]. The problem is, my kid can run into any [corner/book] store and buy [a box of twinkies/books about evolution, atheism, and non-christian religions]. This really makes it difficult for me to be a responsible parent. I think it would be great if we could pass a law making it a crime to sell [unhealth food/these types of books] to minors. That would make it easier to be a responsible parent.
Have fun substituting your own terms for the ones in brackets. Nobody said raising children was easy, but it's not the government's responsibility to do it for you.
Oklahoma is a "social right" state in every sense (Score:5, Interesting)
We have relations in Oklahoma. Decent folks, live and work on their family farm... and as susceptible to idiocy like this demagogue's "anti-violence" bill as anyone could be.
This is the state that elected Tom Coburn "Lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom" as a senator. It's a fricking demonstration case for Dick Nixon's "Southern Strategy" social issues being used to scare and dupe people.
In these folks' minds, promoting "anti-violence" legislation that addresses sexuality as if it's "violent" and preventing churches from controlling who brings concealed weapons to Sunday service are not fundamentally incompatible actions. We're talking my relatives -- whose response to my idea of putting numbers (10 cents, 25 cents) on our coinage was that it smacked of world government.
Re:You don't know what a democracy is (Score:2, Interesting)
But none of this has anything to do with homosexuality. I challenge you to provide any statistical study supporting the claim that homosexuals have a greater propensity to engage in premarital sex than others, despite the lack of any ability to get married when they want to in some states! The majority of straight people I know have had premarital sex.
Re:Not much of a solution. (Score:1, Interesting)
This may come as a surprise to conservative politicians, but some of us don't believe in their favorite religions, nor any religion. Futhermore, we shouldn't be FORCED to believe in one. Being agnostic or atheist is just as valid a belief system as theirs. Personally, I prefer science to dogma. I prefer to believe in things which are demonstrable.
I also dislike these types of laws, which restrict people's liberty on the face value of safety, but in actuality are enforcing a religious dogma on all of us.
Re:You don't know what a democracy is (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, whether the Bible says premarital sex is wrong depends on what the original root word was that is usually translated as fornicate. I don't know myself, since I do not know Greek or Hebrew, but I do know in English that fornicate itself has several different definitions including sex without being married, sex with prostitutes, and unlawful sex. So even if the original texts properly translate directly to fornicate, which of those three definitions do we use?
Frankly, I think our societal morals tend to fudge their way into our interpretation of scriptures. Since the whole point of the Bible is that there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong as determined by God, then Christians should condemn the influence of societal morals on the Bibles interpretation.
Re:Text of the Bill. (Score:3, Interesting)
They say "turgid" instead of "erect" for several reasons, not the least of which being that you can have quite a turgid dick without having being erect. In fact, the larger your penis, the more likely that your maximum 'erection' isn't that hard (John Holmes, for example). Thus, they're trying to cover a portrayal of a turgid (and thus obviously sexualized) penis through clothing.
If you think "sexual excitement" is a self-explanatory term, you ought to do a few Lexis or Westlaw searches. The term is by no means self-contained. To make it concrete, suppose I'm physically aroused but seem very calm; am I "sexually excited"? What does excited mean? Does it require that someone/thing else is exciting me, or can it be self-induced?
As for including homosexuality in their definition of sexual conduct, that's a very heteronormative stance - i.e. that heterosexual relationships are 'normal' but homosexual ones are something within the auspices of actual sexual contact - but I understand it since, in fact, hetersexuality is the norm (that doesn't mean normal, just the statistical average by far).
As is said elsewhere, this is bad law and will almost indisputably be overturned at some judicial level as soon as it is enforced. The fact that you don't understand the language choice, however, doesn't make you right that the language choice is bad.