Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Jack Thompson's Game Bill Moves Forward 272

Posted by Zonk
from the those-are-words-i-hate-to-see-together dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jack Thompson's Game Bill Moves Forward

Comments Filter:
  • by linvir (970218) * on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:23PM (#15446568)
    Legislatin morality [midwestoutreach.org] is one thing, but it should at least have some form of stability. This bill seems to be nothing more than an include() for a dynamically changeable external form of morality. If law were an operating system, the hackers would be pissing themselves out of excitement waiting for all the exploits they could write using this.

    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.

    • by Vengeance (46019) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:30PM (#15446635)
      An insight I've had myself in the past: The law is indeed an operating system for the nation.

      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.
      • The law is indeed an operating system for the nation.

        Reminds me of that /. sig that someone has around;

        "Want the root password to the US Constitution? Try Child Pornography."

        or something like that...

    • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:32PM (#15446661)
      > Legislatin morality [midwestoutreach.org] is one thing, but it should at least have some form of stability. This bill seems to be nothing more than an include() for a dynamically changeable external form of morality. If law were an operating system, the hackers would be pissing themselves out of excitement waiting for all the exploits they could write using this.

      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.

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957

      ...is why.

      • The "oh noes the gubmint is to get us" ayn rand crap is just that: crap. Look at Thompson and his supporters and you'll find the same conservative Christians who have been fighting the culture war for control of expression and action in the US for decades now. If you want to take them on you have millions of ordinary Janes and Joe who think all the arts are obscene, not some government conspiracy theory. If anything, the set and established body of rulings (government) when it comes to free expression and t
        • by Chowderbags (847952) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @03:43PM (#15447957)
          Except that those same people will pay $50 for 10 year old Johnny to get a game that's clearly marked as being for 17 year olds. But the average person isn't really driving it. Jack Thompson attempts to drive it. The moral right does drive it. But what is it? A mere 10% of the population (true, it's still a large number in absolute terms)? Just because some people yell and scream about things doesn't mean that the majority agrees with it, it just means that the majority doesn't seem to care enough to give a shit.
        • by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday June 01, 2006 @05:30PM (#15448893) Homepage Journal
          Look at Thompson and his supporters and you'll find the same conservative Christians who have been fighting the culture war for control of expression and action in the US for decades now.

          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.

      • 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's a form of censorship and would violate the US constitution's first amendment.
    • The problem with enforcing the rating system is that legislating enforcement of this rating system runs afoul of the first amendment as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Thompson's law will most likely run afoul of it as well.
      • I think he knows it will eventually be struck down, but it will get a lot of publicity for him as it winds its way through the courts. This is of course his main objective, self-promotion.
    • Enforcing a rating system in the US is very hard due to issues with our first amendment rights to free speech. And the person in question actually has worked to try to write rating system enforcement legislation, and has had no luck there (gets overturned in our courts every time due to aforementioned first amendment issues).

      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
      • How many kids under 15 are able to get to the store alone or have money to buy a $50 game? I mean it is possible, but not really likely. Invariably the parents just don't care what the kid does, not that the kids are sneaking behind thier parents back. I have seen store clerks in Gamestop tell parents before that a title was rated mature and parents just say give it to me, with Lil' Johnnie standing there, not having hit puberty yet. As far as I see it, it is a non-issue.

        Unfortunately the real effect is
        • I think minors goes up to 17 (in most states) but LA could be different.
          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,
    • by Crash Culligan (227354) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @02:36PM (#15447332) Journal
      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.

      While that would be a big win for him, look at the bigger picture: he keeps introducing legislation which says basically that OMFG TEH GAMEZ ARE TURNING UR KIDS INTO KILLAHS!!!1!!ONE!ELEVENTY. It gets reported on. And those who don't know better buy the subtext and become that much more worried.

      It's said that if something gets repeated enough times, people will believe it. (As long as that phrase has been bouncing around, it must be true.) If he tells people enough people that video games are dangerous, then it doesn't matter if they strike down his dumbass laws now so long as they come to believe it eventually and outlaw them then.

      It's meme warfare, pure and simple. And amazingly, it's so pure and simple that he probably doesn't even recognize it.

    • America's Army is a propaganda tool\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "... an accurate portrayal of Soldier experiences .." video game put out by the US Army. Does it count as encouraging violence, or does it count as permitted "political education"?
      • I wonder if the "America's Army" video game has missions like "Torture Prisoners" and "Kill Innocent Families in this village".

        That would be more in line with the real army! And still educational too!

        --jeffk++
        • It does have a "torture prisoners" mission. An Army spokesperson defended its inclusion by pointing out that "While it exists on the game CD, it can only be accessed by means of a third-party tool which the Army does not provide".
  • ...rental places and retail outlets can have a flag (or note or whatever) saying that kids are allowed to rent games if their parents give permission. It's reasonable (IMO) to help parents with parenting. It's not reasonable to make parenting choices FOR parents.

    I kind of doubt this bill has such a provision, though, and as such it should be used to choke jack thompson to death.

  • this is crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sepharious (900148) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:25PM (#15446579) Homepage
    there is no standard, no definition, of what is offensive or objectionable. it leaves open wide interpretation and would open businesses to frivolous lawsuits based on someone's ill-informed position on a game. "oh well, I find that Mario portrays violent acts of an offensive nature"
    • Re:this is crap (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MrSquirrel (976630)
      Mario is a BAD influence. Jumping on turtles? Eating mushrooms? Playing with fire? I don't want my kid around that. When I drop my 12 year old off and give him $60 (~price of a new game) at the mall to do whatever he wants for 12 hours while I go spend the day at my crackhouse, I don't want him buying garbage like that Mario character! Honestly... there is already a rating system in place - enforcing that is easy and it is actually based on real criteria (rather than saying "any game that we think at
    • by Alaren (682568) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:50PM (#15446848)

      I am starting Law School in the fall, and this is why. This kind of thing has to stop, but the only people who can challenge the lawyers are... lawyers.

      For here we see past Jack Thompson's usual craziness and into the heart of the matter: cash. A law this vague does not just allow interpretation, it demands interpretation. Repeatedly, since "community standards" are never obvious and often changing. Every case will need expert witnesses, and who is more established as an "expert" in video game law than Jack Thompson?

      • by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@nOSpam.yahoo.com> on Thursday June 01, 2006 @03:50PM (#15448030) Journal
        No sarcasm intended, I really mean that.

        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!
    • Of course there's a definition.

      The definition is "whatever Jack Thompson finds offensive or objectionable". Today it's video game violence, yesterday it was rap music, tomorrow it is?
    • And to make matters worse, he's a racist stereotype!!!

      We should ban this whole "Nintendo" company. I mean, they've named their most recent game machine machine after a male phallus!
  • "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."

    So what you are saying
    • The US has a frequently used rating system, the ESRB system. However, getting a rating is volutary (to the extent that it is up to you, but if you're not rated, you'll lose 90% of your sales because walmart won't carry unrated titles). But on the sales side, there is no enforcement legislation (which actually was Thompson's previous strategy, but which was overturned in the courts). Basically, due to free speech and commerce requirements in the US constitution, it's very difficult to restrict what retail
  • by HanClinto (621615) <hanclinto&gmail,com> on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:30PM (#15446634)
    The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

    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

  • by Megaweapon (25185) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:30PM (#15446637) Homepage
    According to MY bill, it would be illegal to pass stupid laws if it met the following three conditions(1) The average person, applying contemporary intelligence standards, would find that the legislation, taken as a whole, appeals to the government's morbid interest in sociatial manipulation. (2) The law depicts intervention in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the liberty-mined community with respect to what is suitable for citizens. (3) The law, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for ANYONE except those in power.
  • by TerenceRSN (938882) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:31PM (#15446646)
    The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

    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?
    • Considering the idea of applying community standards to determine what material is indecent was created by the Supreme Court, the answer to your question is probably "no".

      Of course, one could argue that the Supreme Court itself is fundamentally wrong when it issues an opinion that the words "no law" in the 1st Amendment don't really mean "no law", but as far as American law is concerned, the Supreme Court is always right by definition, until it says otherwise.

  • Is that it? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann.slashdotNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:33PM (#15446673) Homepage Journal
    This is the controversial, censoring, extreme-right-wing menace that had been haunting us?

    Sometimes I wonder who has more irrational fear - Jack Thompson or the gamers themselves.
  • Implied sex? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by imunfair (877689) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:35PM (#15446690) Homepage
    Personally, I think parents need to stand up and do some actual parenting, but aside from that, this sentence stuck out:

    "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. ;P

    • ... Britney Spears ...

      EEW man... careful with what you say, I'm eating!
    • You see a problem with the sex NOT with the violence in beating her up to get the money back?

      America, where a titty is taboo but violence is A okay!

    • I think once Jack gets done with this he should go after Britney Spears because of implied sex in her songs. ;P

      You think he wouldn't like to? The problem is that the RIAA is well organized and has a lot of money to spend on lawyers. The game industry doesn't have a representative body with comparable resources, so they make an easier target.
    • Re:Implied sex? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Soul-Burn666 (574119)
      For fuck's sake. In GTA, while the car is rocking you can still move the camera. Move it to the front and you'll no movement, the dude's hands on the wheel and the car spontaneously moving.
      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!
  • by ArmenTanzarian (210418) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:37PM (#15446711) Homepage Journal
    Clearly, Louisiana has no bigger problem than this.
  • How about we just throw out all the crap and use the current laws instead?

    Add in HUGE fines for not sticking to the age ratings and ta dar! All problems solved.

    Kids don't get content they shouldn't have, parents become responsible. Everyones happy except people with an axe to grind (Jack), but who gives a fuck about dip shits like that any way?
    • "How about we just throw out all the crap and use the current laws instead?"

      What current laws? Public decency laws? Pornography laws? The ESRB is not law, it's voluntary.
    • There aren't any current laws in Louisiana / the U.S. due to first amendment issues. Such laws have been passed in several states, but all have been struck down as unconstitutional. It is fully expected that even if this law is passed, it will be immediately struck down in court.

      The ESRB rating system is just that, a rating system. It describes the content of the games it is applied to, but has no legal or actual bearing on who a given store can or will sell the game to (none of the 3 largest retail game
  • You get to be one of Jesus' disciples, and you follow him around, and listen to him preach, and then the Romans grab him and nail him to a cross and...

    Oh. Never mind.

    • In Louisiana, that qualifies as scientific merit, I believe.
    • Oh, cool, we're doing game ideas! Ok, here's mine.

      You play this third-rate lawyer. Points are accrued by:

      * Chasing ambulances
      * Finding extremely disturbed people who did something terrible, and blaming their actions on something that millions of people do every day for fun. (The murderers played Frisbee, which gave them the hand-eye co-ordination required to commit the crime, your honor. I rest my case.)
      * Pretending you are associated with large, responsible, lobby groups
      * Takin' the fight to the web, setti
    • How about Mel Gibson doing a video game version of The Passion of the Christ?
      You could choose what character to control...

      You could play various Romans, including the ones lashing him. You get points for each lashing, plus bonus points for the artistic value of the lacerations on his torso. If you can draw a perfect Z for Zorro, you get a cheat code. You keep track of his health, and if you lash him too often or too fast, he dies and you lose the game. Remember, this is just torture, not murder. If you
  • by Spazmania (174582) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @01:52PM (#15446868) Homepage
    In Thompson's youth, kids didn't play violent games. They just ran around with toy pistols playing cowboys and indians where they pretended to shoot and kill each other. Well, mostly the pretended to exterminate the Indians because everybody rooted for the cowboys to win.

    Of course, they were fully clothed and didn't desecrate any all-american baseball bats along the way, so it was all good clean fun.
  • The wording on this bill is very interesting:

    (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.

    The author of this bill thinks that minors have an intrinsic morbid interest in violence. But non-morbid violence would be okay. Wow.

    (2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for mino

  • ...but these "conditions" are the most vague, debatable, and questionable set of standards I've ever seen codified in law.

    (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
  • The third critieria is _easy_ to challenge. Games offer excellent artistic merit, just ask the script writers and artists.
  • The first two provisions are fine. The third is a carte blanche to criminalize the sale of any game they want to kids.
  • this will be defeated quickly in the courts. The problem they have consistently had from state-to-state is that the terms used are vague and do not make it clear what is and is not acceptable. It relies heavily on individual perception of certain games and quite possibly misuses the term "game as a whole", since they are probably saying, if one piece is bad the whole thing is bad and not that if the whole game is okay minus one little piece it is okay.

    I love the addition of the artistic value portion th
  • The 3rd would be met on most games, who can judge the artistic nature of a video game? What defines art? Does art inspire? If a requirement for art the it inspire thought or inspires one to be creative, than video games would certainly fall into that category. How many people are working in gaming to due to that one defining moment in some game they were playing that inspired them to learn and become a developer?

    The problem in games today, to use cliche is not life imitating art but art imitating life.
  • "Be it resolved that the legislature of the state of INSERT_STATE shall impose a fine on any vendor equal to twice the sale price of any game rated to be mature or adults only by a recognized authority within the video gaming industry for the offense of selling a game of this rating to a minor not accompanied by his or her legal guardian. In the event that the rating system should change, the rating authority shall be obliged to inform the attorney general whereby the attorney general shall take all necessa
  • by Skevin (16048) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @02:25PM (#15447216) Journal
    > (3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors

    We can make GTA an educational game... like "Grand Theft Auto: Reader Rabbit".

    Literary Value
    Da Brute: "Lo, like two fucking ships passing in the night. Who the hell are you?"
    Stranger: "Call me Ishmael."
    Da Brute: "You sent me to hell and back, mofo. What a tangled fucking web you weave."
    Stranger: "Sammy paid me to screw you over, man! It was the best of times, and it was the worst of times!"
    Da Brute: "Fine, then I shall strike you down with great vengeance!"
    Stranger: "Et tu, Brute?"
    *blam* *blam*

    Artistic Value
    Unscrupulous Collector: "Dude, here's the dig. You hijack the shipment and kill every motherfucker who gets in your way. Take all the Renoirs and the Monets, but burn all the Warhols - we don't need dat shit pollutin' our 'hood."
    Mission: Steal all Renoir and Monet paintings from the convoy. Destroy any Andy Warhol artwork with your weapons. Use your real-life art sense to determine which painting is which.

    Scientific Value
    Big Don: "Alright, gangsta, heads up. We got a perfectly spherical mortar shell 12 centimeters in diameter that weigh 2500 grams, but our freaking mortar only delivers exactly 8000 square foot pounds of force-... No, I don't have a fucking conversion table between metric and english, you look that up yourself! Anyway, the rat we gotta nail is parked in between those two buildings 30 furlongs away, where the air pressure is 13.2 PSI instead of usual atmospheric constant 14.7, you got that? Anyway, he'll be there for only ten minutes, which gives you enough time to come up with a Second Order Linear Partial Differential Equation accounting for air resistance. Hey, mofo, if you miss this shot, we gonna shoot yo homies, cut up yo family, and rape yo gerbil."
    Mission: Hit the car with the perfectly spherical mortar shell. You have one shot.

    Solomon
  • My dad got his first rifle at age 10. Had his first smoke then, too. This was typical for kids in his neighborhood, which was a suburb, not the ghetto. That's what kids were up to before tv and video games, so obviously stopping games so we can get back to owning real rifles and smoking is a priority!
  • Eh, this bill seems so vague that the only good it will do is give lawyers jobs for years debating what constitutes "morbid interest in violence" or what is "literary, political, artistic or scientific value" which is probably the point altogether.

    Anyway, if this bill passes, will it force developers to get creative with games? Eh, probably not, they'll just hire more lawyers to oppose it while making the same stuff. It's kind of a shame. I think some of the best art is created when artists are pressured wi
  • repeatedly hit the asshole in the head with a huge purple dildo [imageshack.us].

    This is ridiculous, why use language like "average person" "contemporary community standards" "morbid interest in violence" to define what is against the law? Oh wait, I know, so that they can ban as many games (and fine as many people) as possible, without setting any standards beforehand. A "good" law would just enforce the official ratings. And by "good" I mean "also unacceptable".
  • The 3rd Clause (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dr_LHA (30754) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @02:51PM (#15447484) Homepage
    The 3rd clause could basically be used to ban all sales of video games to minors, allowing only purchasing of educational software. After all "New Super Mario Bros" "...lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors...", but its still a fun and harmlessly innocent game that is perfect for all ages, which in no way should be banned.

    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.
    • The 3rd clause could basically be used to ban all sales of video games to minors, allowing only purchasing of educational software.

      IANAL, but that's an incorrect interpretation.

      In these games-as-porn bills, it must meet all three requirements. Thus, a game that sprays gibs as if they were popcorn could still be sold to minors with whatever marginal plots they currently have.

      Ultimatly, this bill does not affect any game available on the market, and violates the first amendment regardless.

      After all "New S

  • Seems like many of these criteria are subjective. How is "community" defined? Is it fine to sell 50 Cent shoot-em up video games to minors in the ghettos, but not in upscale suburbia? How is "adult population" defined? A majority of 50% or more? To be determined by an independent poll?

    There's lots of room for this to go wrong, as usual.

  • In the 1950s - 1970s was there any attempt to pass laws to make rock music illegal? I'm looking for a parallel with the video game laws.

    Every now and then someone posts about how, in each generation, there is some subversive counterculture thing that is supposedly going to brainwash the children. Elvis, Rock and Roll, Dunegons and Dragons, whatever. Today it is video games. But I can't recollect anyone talking about laws to make D&D illegal. It seems like something different is happening this time
  • It is really doublePlusGood, with this superGood(tm) law, parents will not have to look at what their childrens are doing with their PC/games console etc...
    Since the only way they could have a EvilTeroristDrugSexAndALlOtherBadThing Games running on their Electronic toy would be for somebody to loan one to them.
    And this cannot of course happen right.

    And if parents would actually look at what their teenage childrens are doing they would have less time for TV and other important pursuits.

    With this law they can
  • In general, I'm actually in support of limiting the sale of a variety of products (including excessively violent or sexually explicit) products to minors.

    However, this law, as apparently written, is absurd. You cannot make it illegal to do something as a judgement call of what the community would think. This is far too open to interpretation, and is more than likely to land some kid behind the counter in a game store in jail when it's discovered he sold Mario Kart to the next columbine kids.

    It needs to se
  • So the LA gov't is spending time/$$$ on this instead of helping Katrina victims?
  • Paperboy (Score:3, Funny)

    by leroybrown (136516) on Thursday June 01, 2006 @03:31PM (#15447858) Homepage
    I think Jack Thompson is onto something with this whole "video games cause violence". After playing Paperboy for countless hours when I was 13, I was under the following assumptions about being a paperboy:
    • Non-subscribers are to be punished by destroying their property with extra newspapers
    • Subscription was not based on how good the paper was but how well I was at delivering the papers
    • The proper way to deal with people fighting is to throw newspapers at them
    • The newspaper has horrible logistics problems since each day I would be given literally hundreds of papers in the hopes that I'd get to all 10 subscribers
    • My fitness as a paperboy was not only judged on how well I delivered the paper, but on how much property I could damage.
    • I should never turn my bike around or stop before venturing into traffic

    Much like in the game, I was fired after the third day. If only Jack Thompson had been around to save me, I wouldn't have royally been misinformed about my duties as a paperboy.

  • The ability to define the content of the game is somewhat subjective as well here. Sometimes the violence is part of the game (for example, GTA), whereas in others it's part of the atmosphere.

    Even games such as diablo had some pretty nasty things such as staked corpses and the like. However, that was atmospheric, designed to induce a feeling of fright or foreboding. You could also happily club at demons or humanoids with various weapons, etc. The overall environment, though, is one of fantasy.

    GTA on the
  • My historically accurate, photo-quality, anatomically correct Jack the Ripper game will still be available!

    I think I'll follow up with "Mad Like Vlad", an FPI (first-person impaler) where you get to do what Vlad does best.

    </Joke>

Be sociable. Speak to the person next to you in the unemployment line tomorrow.

Working...