Oklahoma 'Games As Porn' Bill Now Law 200
simoniker writes "Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry has signed into law the State-specific Bill HB30004. The bill redefines a list of items, such as hardcore pornography, deemed harmful to minors to include videogames which use 'inappropriate violence'. The new Oklahoma law is due to come into effect from November 1st. The story notes: 'Despite being one of the more draconian anti-games bills put before a State senate, HB30004 has faced limited opposition, with apparently little concern being given to the consistent problems other similar bills have faced from legal challenges.'"
Meh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
IMO, the
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
I have a big problem with "extreme violence, mutilation, etc" being classified as pornography. Should kids be able to see either the violence or the sexual depictions? No. But to classify all of it as pornography suggests that a simple regular porn video is of the same substance as a mutilation video. That's
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
But if it is illegal to distribute an X-rated snuff re-enactment film to a minor, why should it be legal to distribute a game where players re-enact snuff films to minors? I h
Re:Meh. (Score:4, Informative)
Oklahoma also outlaws Tattos, that is why the first few exits after the state line in Texas has Tatto and XXX Adult video stores.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Interesting)
That more or less reads, if we do not specifically say something here, then it is up to the states or the people to make up their own laws/rights in regard to the issue. Now, what constitutional clause does it violate? Freedom of speech. This is the argument that has been used to help relieve other states of these horribly vague bills. You see, most state Supreme Courts have ruled them unconstitutional because they use language that is non-determinate and that requires an individuals (or small group of individuals) to make a judgement call on what is deemed "inappropriate violence."
The problem with these vague terminology is that you run into cases that parallel problems you see in movies as well. There are parents who in a million years refuse to let their kids see R-rated movies, but how many of those same parents do you think may have dragged their kids to see "The Passion of the Christ"? Is that movie "inappropriately violent"? In the minds of Christians, it might not be. While a viewer who does not share their beliefs might find some of the depictions grotesque and violent.
Would we run into this same problem if someone created a "violent" video game that was based on the bible? I mean there are parts of that book that are pretty grotesque. I can only hope that this sort of thing gets knocked down by a court with enough common sense to see it for what it is...
Good points in the 1up article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Who's speaking in these games?
Yes, I know what you meant, you meant, of course, the interpretation of the constitution that defines freedom of speech and the press to simply mean "expression." So while the SCOTUS might shoot down this law under that interpretation, it does so because it is (and has been, setting too much precedent) legislating from the bench.
While I might disagree with the law, I don't see any fundamental rights spelled out
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Get over it already.
Fascist tool.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
And the medium does matter! I cannot walk around naked in public with "Bush Sucks!" written on my penis (pun intended), but I can walk around handing out pamphlets that say "Bush Sucks!" on them, and yelling out loud "Bush Sucks, take a pamphlet!" while I do it (in appropriate public places).
So the
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Please read what I wrote again and tell me that just because it's NOT mentioned in the constitution, that you can run around naked with "Bush Sucks" tattooed on your arse. And
Close, but not quite. (nitpick) (Score:2)
Re:Close, but not quite. (nitpick) (Score:2)
This means that all laws, treaties and anything else passed in the United State must comply with the const
Re:Close, but not quite. (nitpick) (Score:2)
Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California. (Score:5, Informative)
Before the Civil War, there was strong arguments for the idea that the limitations on the federal government (as noted in the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law") did not apply to the state governments. The state governments could theoretically pass laws abridging the freedoms of its citizens that the federal government could not. The 10th Amendment is in fact the strongest source of support for that idea. A restriction barring the federal government from doing something is not "power delegated to" it -- it's the opposite.
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment [findlaw.com] was passed specifically to prevent Southern states from passing laws that discriminated against blacks in the way that the federal government could not. This is known as the Equal Protection Clause (and has sadly been used to defend the rights of corporations far more than it has been used to defend the rights of minorities). It reads like this:
This is the clause that extends limitations on the powers of the federal government to the state governments and prevents the abridgement of free speech by them.
However, pornography and obscenity have long been ruled by the Supreme Court as having lesser protection that political speech. The case Miller v. California set forth a test to determine pornography that has been used ever since. Justice Burger in his opinion wrote the following:
Change "sexual conduct" in part (b) to "violence to people" and you've probably got a bill that would survive a Supreme Court decision. Whether or not the list of barred things is overly broad and violates the second test is where it's most likely to stand or fall. The third test is where a lot people think that works will escape, but as Burger says in the sentence immediately following this test, "We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the 'utterly without redeeming social value" test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.'" You can read more about obscenity and the 1st Amendment here. [umkc.edu]
Re:Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California. (Score:2)
This is really an attempt to try to control a relatively young media. People
Re:Wrong Amendment and Miller v. California. (Score:2)
This is the part that needs to be amended. This helps the current 'invasion' by our neighbors to the south. It should not be allowed that illegal aliens can run across the border to drop a kid in the US, and have that kid automatically be a US citizen.
We should amend this part of the Constitution to read a child born to pa
Nice try, but no. (Score:2)
The 14th amendment was the only way that the first 8 could be applied to the states, before then they couldn't. That was the way it was setup.
The idea was you could move to states that had the level of freedom that you desired. Some states were religious led, others totally free. This of course all ended after the Civil War.
Re:Nice try, but no. (Score:2)
Had the southern idea of "live and let live" been genuine, there's no telling how much longer the pre-c
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
I would give him the benefit of the doubt, simply because....
Very few American citizens are actually aware of that fact, which is part of why most Americans are so willing to lay down and just accept any abridgement of their rights and freedoms. They believe that if the government says it, it must be true, and while that statement seems silly to us Slashdotters, we are in a very, very small minority.
Re:Meh. (Score:2)
Your basic criminal knows this because it's been popularized on TV and in popular culture over the past 30 years. The reason Miranda Rights originally started being read to people being arrested is because some people DIDN'T know they had them.
I would like to see a scientific study on the issue too, but what I do know just from watching people talk about rights and laws is that they're horribly, unendingly confused. Pa
'inappropriate violence' (Score:3, Funny)
Re:'inappropriate violence' (Score:2, Interesting)
But my problem is not that we cannot clearly define what is and isn't inappropriatley violent, my problem is that we can't even decided if it is violent in the first place.
Hear me out. For all of you in college dorm rooms or who have friends that play games all gatherd in one room, fire up a game of Grand Theft Auto. Go to the shady parts of town, get yourself a New Jersey Prom Queen (aka a Hooker) and dri
Re:'inappropriate violence' (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:'inappropriate violence' (Score:2)
Re:'inappropriate violence' (Score:2)
No, the kids can't play Silent Hill. But there seems to be little reservation in training them to kill and then shipping them off to other countries where vibrant young minds get to witness their friends innards splayed across a road from a local improvised explosive device.
But better they see that, than something like XXX porn. God, that stuff will ruin you for life.
~X~
GamaSutra (Score:4, Funny)
Re:GamaSutra (Score:2)
Sutra: a short mnemonic rule in grammar, law, or philosophy, requiring expansion by means of a commentary
Re:GamaSutra (Score:2)
Re:GamaSutra (Score:2)
You're right, that leaves us slashdotters in a very uncomfortable position!
This is not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Ultimately this will lead to Oklahoman flocking to Texas to buy video games as well as their porn (since that is illegal too).
I lived in Oklahoma for 5 years. Now I live in urban Houston, Texas. Oklahoma makes Texas look like a liberal oasis. At least people here have more of a "let live" policy than "God hates you".
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
A baby isn't ready to be born until your wife is screaming, cursing your name.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
You. Fucking. WHAAAAAAAAT?
Is this some twisted remnant of Prohibition or something? Because I could handle the idea of banning alcoholic drinks entirely; you do the same with many other recreational drugs, after all, and the principle is at least consistently adhered to.
But permitting drink, but banning just about all the beer that's actually worth drinking... ugh. Don't you guys have so
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Well, if I had to live there, at least I could do Homebrew. I guarantee THAT stuff is much higher than 3.2% alcohol.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
and many Texas communities *do* have pockets of awesomeness, but step too far outside those, and you'll get your face sma
You have a point (Score:2)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
This is Oklahoma we are talking about.
At least being next to Kansas makes Oklahoma look *relatively* good.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
On the Oklahoma side, there is a huge Indian Casino. Gambling is illegal in Texas, so you find this monst
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Isn't Texas the place where possession of dildos with intent to sell is a felony?
A coupla years ago, some woman who was in the sex-toy-party business got nabbed for drunk driving. In the impound yard, they found a large quantity of sex toys in the car, so the police also charged her with a felony (iirc punishable by 10 or so years in prison).
-b.
Re:This is not surprising (Score:2)
Semantics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Semantics (Score:2)
Left Behind: Eternal Forces (Score:2)
Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces (Score:2)
Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces (Score:2)
Amazingly, there's another picture [photobucket.com] on the same website with exactly the same pose, zoomed out to show the controls, and not a drop of blood. As Ricky Ricardo would say, you've got some 'splainin' to do.
Re:Left Behind: Eternal Forces (Score:2)
Re:Semantics (Score:2)
Re:Semantics (Score:2)
~X~
"Limited opposition" (Score:3, Insightful)
"inappropriate violence" (Score:2, Insightful)
"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:4, Informative)
Whether you like it or not, and whether or not you agree with the specific cutoffs or punnishments present in this bill, young minds are impressionable.
I'm not saying that every kid who plays Grand Theft Auto is going to go out and relive those experiences on the street, but I assert there are some kids who have not yet developed a sense of right and wrong, and for whom, exposure to this sort of material may establish certain Antisocial [wikipedia.org] (in the psychological sense, follow the link before disagreeing with me) patterns in the developing mind.
I don't agree that this should be a felony offense (as this law seems to make it? This article says so, but I can't cooberate since the article doesn't include any text from the bill, nor a link to the bill). But there are kids for whom this stuff would be damaging until they have a better sense of the world established. I know; my wife works with them, and she also works with the kids who got access to violent and/or highly pornographic content at the wrong stage of their psychological development.
All this law is saying (and those proposed which are like it), is that kids need adult oversight to get access to this material.
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
That said, I do sympathize with the parents who are begginb for bills like this because they can't get retailers to cooperate. They're trying to raise their kids without the rest of the world making it easy for those kids to get their hands on things they may not be mature enough to see.
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
The lines aren't as defined as you think.
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
And what about the other things that can impress upon a young mind, like, say, religion? Shall we begin letting the state supervise everything that *might* be a
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
While we're at it, we might as well not have any laws since people are only going to break them. Might as well not put airbags or seatbelts in our cars either since some people will die in car accidents anyhow.
Trying to pretend we live in a kinder world, one that doesn't have as much violence, is about as sensible as...
There's a difference between letting children know v
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
My arguement was not "lets protect them from nothing". My arguement was "X and Y have the same effect on children. If we regulate X, shouldn't we also regulate Y?" Unless you can show me that X and Y (games and any of the other things I listed) do not have the same impact upon children, then your entire rebuttal is baseless.
Do games, and for example movies, have the same impact upon children? Probably. Are we regulating movies as tightly as
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
There is reason, and in fact significant evidence, to suggest that imagining a violent act, seeing a violent act, roleplaying a violent act, and finally performing a violent act each have a more significant impact than their predecessor in that list on long term behavioral patterns.
Government regulations like
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
In an RTS game, you might be cast as a medieval ruler. How is that different from children building snow forts and declaring themselvs king? Or commanding mock battles with toy s
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
DAMN RIGHT!
It is NOT the role of the government to be your unpaid nanny.
Problems are best left to the entity closest to the problem. The further away the meddler is, the more likely they will royally f*ck everything up.
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
Kids who have abusive fathers (even adopted kids, eliminating genetics as a factor) have a significantly higher than average incidence of continuing this abusive behavior when they become fathers. (See here [wikipedia.org], though there's plenty of other sources on this)
There is no reason to suspect that this same characteristic will not manifest in children who are exposed to, and permitted to roleplay violence at a young age.
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
like religion, for example?
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
If the kid is subject to active adult supervision, this law is meaningless.
It's really simple: watch what they watch, read what they read, play what they play, meet their friends and meet their friend's parents.
All of that is considered SOP by many entire clans (nevermind atomic families).
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that you don't have kids and that you don't yet understand teenage rebellion? Either that, or you have a really odd definition of simple.
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's not what they're saying. They are saying that minors MUST have supervision when acquiring material that some people find objectionable.
You're missing two key points:
1. The definition of objectionable material is arbitrary but universally enforced in OK
2. This is government legislating what material they feel is appropriate for children in a specif
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:3, Informative)
If you wish to use this overly broad definition of censorship, a definition which somehow, contrary to the meaning of the word, doesn't deny access, only requires adult supervision for kids, then yes, it meets your definition. And I believe it is appropriate. Whether the punnishments for noncompliance set forth in the law are appropriate, and whether the law itself is overly vague, I'm not really debating at the moment, only that such laws, if crafted carefully, are a good th
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
Material... such as books?
Re:"Games As Porn" = FUD (Score:2)
An arguement I saw once against regulating (videogames/rockNroll/TV/boogieman-of-the-week) for the children's sake, in the vein of "A modest proposal", was as follows:
If a child grows up wrong, the single greatest culprits are usually the parents. Other people who can severly screw up a child
As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... (Score:4, Interesting)
couple that with this being THE Bible Belt (we have a many churches as we do convenient stores, and we have a LOT of convienient stores), poor education, and crappy voter turnouts... the government does almost as they damn well please.
What they are doing with video games now, they tried with comic book stores and game (RPG) shops 10-15 years ago. Once they started creating too much of a ruckus with citizens (the OK goverment, that is), that crap eventually got beaten down into obscurity. Now we hear VERY little about it any more (probably now people with the jobs and some sort of income and intelligence either were more likely to 1) still play RPGs and read comics OR 2) at least USED to, but not anymore, but understand those who do OR 3) didn't play or read, but never saw the big deal around any controversy attributed to such mediums AND they have some srot of voting influence these days)
Luckily things DO get thrown out as unconsitutional... but until then, OK will be dicks about it.
Re:As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... (Score:2)
Re:As much as I enjoy living in Tulsa... (Score:2)
Sense of scale (Score:2)
Before someone says it... (Score:2)
Re:Before someone says it... (Score:2)
I don't support the law, but at least I'm willing to look at it in a legitimate context.
In other news... (Score:2)
That about covers it (Score:2)
What shooter, first-person or otherwise, doesn't fall into one of those catego
Ode on an Excessive Weapon (Score:3, Funny)
You other gamers can't deny
That when a target walks in with those big and pointy teeths
You need a BFG at the least.
Including movies? (Score:2)
Re:Parenting (Score:4, Insightful)
Show a naked breast -- instant 16. Chop the head of people -- 12, unless lots of blood gushes, in which case 16.
Blowjob ? 18 for sure ! Beating random people up with a baseball-bat and getting points for style ? 16.
Unless you're a religious nutcase completely locked up about sex, the rating-system is no substitute for making up your own damn opinion. But I guess that's too much work for some parents.
Re:Parenting (Score:2)
Surely, according to the religious nutcases, the min. age for seeing nekkid bewbage should be 0 ... since G-d meant for breastfeeding to happen and all that... :-P
-b.
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
Also, coming from Pennsylvania, I know the Amish are a peacefu
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
Yeah, because long standing "liberal" figureheads such as the Clintons, Diane Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer would never ask that legislation concerning media and public decency standards be considered. [cough] [cough]
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
As the public seemed to be increasingly conservative in the last elections, they are trying to capitalize on those.
Because, to they games & internet is something new, and the democrats do not have a definite stance, it seems like they can exhibit conservativism there and noone would notice - it wouldnt be a let go of liberal stances similar to abortion etc.
But, ignorance is bliss, they say. H
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
Can you be so sure of that (gamers being liberals)? Do you have any source to quote on this? Not to question your facts but the gamers I know of voting age seem fairly conservative. I guess it is a good polling question to get an idea of the demographics on this issue.
Frankl
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
This is the fact that hillary is investing in the wrong cause, the wrong way.
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
Re:Midwest is turning into a huge Amish country (Score:2)
I always swore I'd start voting libertarian if they'd stop being so crazy. But last year I came to the realization that Democrats and Republicans are just as crazy, it's just a brand of craziness I'm used to. So, you know, go libertarians, rah rah rah.
Re:Mario == porn (Score:2)
Re:Mario == porn (Score:2)
http://www.videogamedc.com/Pixeled_Parodies/Mario
Re:Broad definition ... (Score:2)
That would be perfect... (Score:2)