Jack Thompson's Game Bill Moves Forward 272
Gamespot reports that the Jack Thompson-penned anti-games bill currently being considered by the Louisiana Senate Judiciary Committee has been approved, and will now go to the full Senate for debate. From the article: "According to the text of the bill, it would be illegal to sell, rent, or lease a game to a minor if it met the following three conditions: (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence. (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors. (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
Legislation, meet morality (Score:5, Insightful)
And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain? It sounds to me like he's deliberately avoiding this because he wants to create a situation in which he can sit back and pick targets at his leisure.
this is crap (Score:5, Insightful)
So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:5, Insightful)
So wait, so under these rules, it sounds like Tetris, Chess and Checkers are all illegal to sell directly to minors? Unless you count the gameplay logic involved in Checkers to be "scientific", which is a bit of a stretch of the bill's apparent wording.
Is stuff like this being taken into account I wonder?
--clint
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:4, Insightful)
Software developers like myself can see the mass of spaghetti which has been the direct result of a bunch of rank amateurs writing the code ad-hoc. Additionally, we can see their failings when it comes to poorly-understand complexity and unintended results of actions.
See Genetic Engineering for some similar concerns.
They should expand this to other media (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if they could outlaw movies and TV shows for similar reasons we'd get rid of about 90% of the garbage coming out of hollywood these days.
Regarding the law itself, aren't laws required to be unambigious and clear as to what's legal and what isn't? How is a video game store supposed to determine what's acceptable by the adults in the local society?
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:5, Insightful)
Law is an operating system, and those who hack it are called politicians. From their point of view, these exploits are features, not bugs.
And now the eternal question: what the fuck would be wrong with simply enforcing the existing, objective, ubiquitous rating system? You know, like we do here in Britain? It sounds to me like he's deliberately avoiding this because he wants to create a situation in which he can sit back and pick targets at his leisure.
Implied sex? (Score:5, Insightful)
"He also engaged in implied sex with a prostitute in a rocking vehicle before chasing her across a parking lot and beating her to recoup his cash." (Emphasis added)
Since when was implied sex ever an issue? We've had that in movies for what, 70 years now at least? I could see graphic sex, or even just sex being an issue... granted I haven't played the game but that's what the article says...
I think once Jack gets done with this he should go after Britney Spears because of implied sex in her songs.
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:3, Insightful)
come on, it's obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of that /. sig that someone has around;
"Want the root password to the US Constitution? Try Child Pornography."
or something like that...
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
I support a law to protect children, BUT (Score:2, Insightful)
(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.
"Average" compared to what? Don't forget that 50% of the population is below average.
"contemporary community standards" in whose community? Do we apply the same community standards of a small town, bible belt parish to a neighboorhood in San Francisco?
"Minor" by age standard, where you can vote or serve in the military but can't buy a beer?
"violence" by whose standard? Is jumping on mushrooms with faces considered a violent act? How about sending 300lb collinding into each other at full speed in an attempt to steal a oblong pigskin?
(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors
See: Above
(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
"Literary, artistic" the cutscenes in GTA are no less well written and directed than scenes from Goodfellas or Boys N Da Hood or Taxi Driver. And yet those films are considered by many to be amongst the pinnacle of modern american cinema. I saw Taxi Driver in a psychology class in High School.
Whose artistic vision are we judging these standards to? One of DaVinci's most famous drawings is of a nude man. It's prominently displayed on the best selling book of the past few years. If a game features the Venus Di Milo, is that inappropriate for children?
"Political" for whose politics? Are we worried about offending children now with images of war, that would make CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC for mature adults only? What about the nightly news? What about images of the 9/11 planes? What about games that question authority? Should the Federalist Papers be considered too mature for school grade reading, for advocating social unrest and revolt against government?
"Scientific" is also questioned when talking about a government that tried to apply that title to Intelligent Design. If the Big Bang is a promient plot element, does that insult to fundamentalism constitute a mature rating?
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its an issue because 1) The definitions are intentionally vague 2) It is defining what is morally acceptable and enforcing it by law and 3) It is a good beginning.
The first 2 points should be fairly clear, let me explain the third.
If someone were to introduce a law to ban all violent video games, it would get shot down. If someone were to introduce a bill that once passed into law would allow others through lawsuits to build the definitions of what is morally 'correct', then it would not take much to slowly adjust the bill until it had strangled adult games into a 'near criminal obsession by a few lonely gun carrying nut jobs'.
I hate the term, but its near classic 'slippery slope'.
Besides, do you really want to be told how to raise your child by someone else?
Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, you're a parent with a 9 year old (or at least was/will be 9 years old)...
1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA?
2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA?
3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing?
4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?
I see a lot of potential for parenting in there that the state is supposedly going to do for you now. So the question is: why does this need to be a crime? What if you gave your child permission to buy a game that met the three vague criteria but you didn't consider harmful?
We can talk about GTA which I'd think most people would agree is not suitable for young children, but you know there are going to be ridiculous cases where this applies -- assuming anyone knows in advance what games are affected, meaning it could be the game stores themselves which apply the rules to ridiculous cases just to cover their own asses. This is the problem with legistlating moral standards, and it isn't going to work this time.
We've gotten along fine without making it a crime to let someone under 18 into an R-rated movie. I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths, and while they would rather their own kids not do the same, they probably wouldn't think criminal prosecution of the theatre is necessary if they did. Yet video games, which so many of that generation simply don't understand and thus are deathly afraid of, suddenly require a whole new set of laws to protect the children (so the parents don't have to).
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need is a voluntary agreement by the 3 major retailers of games to abide by the ratings system voluntarily, but no one wants to be the first mover on that issue because of the sales loss they'll take. The only thing that will change this, frankly, is if enough parents get up in arms about this to coordinate a serious boycott of walmart to force them to make the first move on enforcement.
The 3rd Clause (Score:3, Insightful)
A question is, can one make a law based on the nebulous idea of what people find moral, rather than defining a moral code in the bill. Personally I think not, and as such the law will either not pass or be swiftly struck down.
Re:So I have this idea for a game... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Implied sex? (Score:3, Insightful)
If implied sex is that bad, go and ban games like Civ. The population in the cities increases and it's known there was no cloning at that time. Guess what? Those simulated people had sex and multiplied.
THE HORROR!
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the real effect is that independenat and small shops like Gamestop will close up in LA. Bigger chains like BB and Target and Walmart will only carry G rated titles. And heaven help the poor clerk that sells Spyro to a minor after Jack gets a bug up his butt about fire breathing dragons.
As I see it that is the real thing they are going for. Between all the poor that could care less about video games, Baptists that are against all games, and Politicos that will do anything to secure thier positions, it is a bad time to be a gamer in LA.
Re:Uh.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it that hard to see the big letter "M" on the side of the box and know that you shouldn't let the kids play it? its even usually larger than the big "R" on the video boxes.
If I'm letting my parents or in-laws watch my children for any length of time I provide the games. and if my parents (or in-laws) want to buy a game for my kids they clear it with me first.
so
Ira
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I think most 13+ year olds are frequently allowed by parents to spend time alone with their friends in the mall. Getting $50 for a game isn't very hard if you have an allowance or a job (tutoring, lawn mowing, paperboy, etc). A lot of kids have access to considerably more money than that. Buy the game, ditch the box and cd-case, carry the game disk home in your pants.
So I would say that even being a reasonably cautious parent, there is a pretty reasonable chance that your child could buy a game without your knowing.
Whether or not they could manage to play it without your knowing would be another matter, but unless you have them under pretty sever lockdown they can probably play it at a friend's house without your finding out. Kids are smart. As smart or smarter than you were at that age. My parents were both Masters+ educated, and did their utmost to completely lockdown my experience. They were stricter than anyone else's parents I have ever met (now at age 33), and still I had plenty of ways around their monitoring.
Parents shouldn't believe that they can control their children's experiences. They can't. There's not a shred of hope (consider: the best trained experts in experience control, jail wardens, can't keep drugs out of any prison in the world). What parents can do is influence their children, educate them, help to reduce their interest in whatever they want their kids not to get involved in.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck holding on to that idealism (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know the whole purpose of law school is to kill that idealism of yours, right? I heard a lawyer friend of mine say that 85% of first year law school students say they want to get into some kind of advocacy law. That goes down to less than 15% of graduating law school students. I have no idea if this is true or not, but my gut tells me it is, and as Stephen Colbert says, that's the organ we should all be using to think with.
I'm sure you can do it, but you have to stick to your guns. Don't let them brainwash you!
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:1, Insightful)
One thing that continues to strike me with people who consider themselves left is that there is a lot who are no better than some of those, "conservative Christians who have been fighting the culture war for control of expression and action in the US for decades now."
The harsh truth is that there's a constant battle, and the quote in the previous point actually talks about in it's monologe. The only thing you've done here is pulled out a High school student rant that talks about how other have lack of fact, yet never really has any kind of form or point besides saying that the ruling body isn't anything the general populus is looking for.
True, look at Thompson and h is supporter. What about them? They're appearently Conservative and Christian. What does that mean? What does that prove? They're just like you and me pal. They've got a few ideas, some of which may seem extreme but in the end they're looking for good.
"What about freedom of speech?" I want you to give me an example where everyone is so completely eger to comprimise and agree what is 'morally' right. Where people's tendancies to cause harm or manipulate are processed in a way to benefit everyone (including a wrong doer). You won't find it outside a Starhawk book or other utopian novel.
You do however live in a place were process can be fought. You think you have no power to make a difference then you're right, you don't. They've finally done a good job and forced you onto Slashdot to talk about the woes. However, that's not entirely true.
You keep yourself informed about what's being done about the laws etc that you care about and you can make some difference. May not change the world but that's because the world has billions of others who have ideas outside of you. Bitching about the 'uninfored bigoted but working mob rule' doesn't help--shows how apart of it you actually are.
On a more on topic note. Sure it is moving 'forward' but it is one state and its a place where something like this may need to be applied for people to wake up somewhat. However, I'm not sure nor care because different country, and it's affects are too small to worry about on my end.
[J]
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
When's the last time you saw a sexually-themed game with good production values (no cheesy low-grade graphics or barely-interactive movies that claim to be "games") which doesn't just treat sex as a topic for crude attempts at juvenile humor (sorry, Leisure Suit Larry, you don't count either)? They're generally not made. The sort of bill described in the article, if passed into law and not struck down, would consign graphically violent games to the same obscurity as graphically sexual games.
Re:this is crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:5, Insightful)
On behalf of conservative Christians throughout America: you have no idea what you're talking about. I am far more interested in regulating my own household than asking the government to do so. Jack Thompson is a nutcase who has much in common with your average Christian as he does the average man, the average 50-something, the average white person, or the average person who doesn't wear glasses.
And don't forget that liberals have been advocating censorship [wikipedia.org] for decades as well. I say that not as an excuse, but as a reminder: don't think that every last person in your political demographic is as anti-censorship as you'd like to believe. Pointing at the other guys and yelling doesn't help anyone, least of all you.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:2, Insightful)
I've always thought that it would've been a good idea for the Constitution to explicitly prevent the disenfranchisement of criminals. While most folks seem to be horrified at the idea of letting felons vote, I think it would be a good form of negative feedback against legislators - if legislators do things that cause a lot of people to become criminals, then they have created a large bloc of people who will vote against them.
As far as "problems" with allowing criminals to vote, if your laws are sane & generally accomodates the "common sense" of the public, then there shouldn't be enough criminals to have any significant effect. If you _do_ start seeing the "criminal" voting bloc having significant effects, then that's a strong indication that the laws that are being passed are not reflective of the desires of the overall populace.