Jack Thompson's Violent Game Bill Signed Into Law 368
simoniker writes "Louisiana Democratic Representative Roy Burrell's HB1381 bill, covering violent videogames, has been signed into law by Governor Kathleen Blanco. The law takes effect immediately, the latest in a very long line of video game-related bills specific to one U.S. State. The measure proposed by HB 1381, which was drafted with the help of controversial Florida attorney and anti-game activist Jack Thompson, allows a judge to rule on whether or not a videogame meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves. A person found guilty of selling such a game to a minor would face fines ranging from $100 to $2,000, plus a prison term of up to one year. Needless to say, the ESA will likely be mounting a legal challenge to this bill in the very near future."
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
So, what about online retailers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Redundant? (Score:4, Insightful)
At least this wasn't a federal initiative. If the people of Louisiana have a problem with this law, they can certainly let their government know about it.
(Although, considering all that's happened in the last year, I can't imagine that current local leaders in that state have a very long and rosy political career ahead of them anyway. It's kind of tough to rein in a lame-duck government which is already world-famous for corruption. The people of that state who don't like this law might just have to wait for the next administration to work on getting it reversed.)
Wonkfest (Score:2, Insightful)
Bill gets challeneged in court and dies.
Couldn't we just get the current videogame ratings enforced instead
of the geschtapo tactics?
I know, it's beyond Jack-off's reach to understand such things.
Grr. (Score:5, Insightful)
Listening to violent music never made me want to stab anybody.
Reading a violent book or watching a violent film never made me want to go out and hurt anyone in any way.
Fearmongering idiots getting ridiculous laws made, on the other hand, would seriously test my limits were I not reasonably confident of this eventually getting struck back down by someone with half a brain.
Free speech? Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Before everyone starts crying incredulity (Score:2, Insightful)
Just some thoughts.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:2, Insightful)
Only in Louisiana... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So, what about online retailers? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
Sobriety checks and parking tickets are every much police work as homicide investigations, and signing bills into law (it passed the house, etc) is every much as much a governors job as planning for hurricanes. Actually planning for hurricanes isn't a governors job, per se.
Random thoughts on who else to point fingers at.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Blame the governor and Jack Thompson all you want, but in the end, the geeks of Louisiana are the ones who dropped the ball here. Did anybody follow through on those calls to "write your legislature, blah blah"? Does anybody ever? Nah, too much like work. But goddamnit they should know how we feel!
A bunch of smelly non-voting hippies with a complete apathy towards government whining about not being represented.
Boo-hoo..
Don't worry, they'll keep making GTA games as long as there's money in it. You'll be able to buy them, too, so long as you aren't a minor.
And they'll probably keep slipping in little porno mini-games to be "edgy" and "push the envelope" and "fuck everything up by making a joke of the ESRB and prompting the government to take notice and usurp it."
Re:Redundant? (Score:5, Insightful)
(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Who makes the diecsion on whether or not games fall into this category or not? Thompson? I think it's fair to say that no game (that people would seriously play) falls into this category based on how I read it. But then again, I don't play games for those reasons and likely, neither does anyone else.
Honestly though, I don't have a problem with either of the first two parts. Selling games to minors that don't fit into the ESRB ages should be a crime. But the fine should be enough and might be a little high on the top. And/or a year in prison is silly even with the fact it could also include hard labor.
What am I to do (Score:2, Insightful)
I love paying for people to live in dangerous area (Score:2, Insightful)
On the upside, this is strong selection pressure against people who like to live near violent storms.
Police don't write parking tickets. (Score:5, Insightful)
But you do have a point, except for the fact that morality (which is what this law entails) is NOT part of the government's job.
Re:Redundant? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Rant mode:
Some places don't even sell M rated games (which is their choice), and I've known people who worked in game/rental places where they could get fired for selling an game to someone in the wrong age bracket. One friend of mine has actually been bitched at by a twelve year old, and then his mom for refusing to sell the kid a game that he wasn't old enough to play.
People are going to bitch no matter what happens, as long as the violent games are made. Music has warning labels, and people still try and blame music for stuff. Even without labels -- come on, a game named Doom? Grand Theft Auto? You must be stupid to not realize that this might not be appropriate. Halo? Well, that one sounds acceptable (moreso than Super Smash Brothers name wise).
Until we live in Carebear land where everything is flowers and unicorns we're going to have to put up with these stupid people and their crummy elected officials.
Okay, rant mode off. This issue just pisses me off because the people involved are so stupid and deliberately ignorant. Gr. Argh. And stuff.
Re:Police don't write parking tickets. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I love paying for people to live in dangerous a (Score:3, Insightful)
Living with the danger you know (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the funny thing: I, and most people I know who have grown up in California, would much rather deal with earthquakes than hurricanes or tornadoes. We can't imagine why someone would want to stay in a hurricane-prone area. And I'd be willing to be that people in, say, Kansas, would much rather deal with tornadoes than hurricanes or earthquakes.
I think it just comes down to the disaster you grew up with. You know what to expect, you know how to prepare for a typical hurricane/quake/flood/tornado, you know what to do during the disaster, and you know how pick things up afterward. Every once in a while something hits on the level of Katrina or the 1906 San Francisco quake, but for the most part, the locals in any region are comfortable with their area's disasters -- and often freaked out totally by the disasters that hit other areas.
Re:Living with the danger you know (Score:1, Insightful)
Morality IS the government's job; taste is not (Score:5, Insightful)
I must strongly disagree with your words here (and with the many others who espouse them), though I agree completely in spirit. Enforcing morality is the government's ONLY job. But morality is not synonymous with any particular group's common tastes or traditional values. Morality is about what is good for the everybody, and that is precisely what government's legitimate purpose is: to look out for the well-being of all of society.
But what is good for the everybody is a very small set of things: liberty and security. Any of the particulars (i.e. watching porn, eating red meat, having long hair, wearing shoes, whatever) may be good or bad for different people in different contexts, but freedom and safety are the two things that are always good for everyone. With those provided, people are free to acquire all the things that are good for them in particular and avoid those which are bad.
Which means that the government's job, as I think you were saying, is to mind it's own business, that business being making sure that other people are minding theirs. It is not the government's job to enforce the tastes or personal values of any people on any other people.
RE: Wacko Jacko and his amazing band of morons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Living with the danger you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely correct. I spent several years teaching wilderness survival for travelers going to remote areas overseas, and one of the single most important things was to educate them about the REAL risks of where they were traveling. People are very, very bad at risk evaulation because we perceive new risks as being MUCH greater than familiar risks. A large part of that is because we dramatically overinflate the danger of things we cannot control, while dramatically underrating situations we feel in control of. And familiarity can give a fantastic illusion of control.
The classic example is of course people who worry about being killed in a terrorist attack (something they feel helpless in preventing) and demand that we spend trillions of dollars to defend against the possibility, while we cheerily drive public roads every day despite knowing the chances of being killed in a car accident is astronomically higher. But we all think of ourselves as being good drivers, so we think WE won't get into an accident because we have influence over the situation -- which is of course ridiculous, since we have no control over the drunk idiot in the other car who plows into us, no matter how defensively we drive.
The net result is that of course someone who grows up with a given natural disaster (in my case, hurricanes), considers them merely an inconvenience. I know how to prepare, I have supplies, and have a realistic expecation of how the storm will progress, what kind of damage it will do, and how to deal with the aftermath while things return to normal. So I feel like I have some control over the situation. But I've only ever been through one earthquake, a very minor one and it scared the heck out of me because I did not instinctually know what to do in those moments. To me, it's a ridiculous risk because it can happen spontaneously without warning, but I know to someone who grew up in an earthquake-prone area, it would feel very manageable.
Of course we would both be proven very wrong if we ever had the "big one" happen to us, because the rare but terrific disasters are completely beyond our experience.