Comment Re:Why the First Amendment is Important (Score 1) 383
What TFA doesn't mention is that there already is a law against representation of violence, which argueably covers video games already. Beckstein is just trying to make it stricter and waterproof against video games.
An unofficial translation of the current law:
"Section 131 Representation of Violence
(1) Whoever, in relation to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which describe cruel or otherwise inhuman acts of violence against human beings in a manner which expresses a glorification or rendering harmless of such acts of violence or which represents the cruel or inhuman aspects of the event in a manner which injures human dignity:
1. disseminates them;
2. publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
3. offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
4. produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers 1 through 3 or facilitate such use by another,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine.
(2) Whoever disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in subsection (1) by radio, shall be similarly punished.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply if the act serves as reporting about current or historical events.
(4) Subsection (1), number 3 shall not be applicable if the person authorized to care for the person acts. "
(Note: "Writings" already covers digital media.)
What Beckstein wants to change is to include violence agains 'human-like beings' (because many localized version of video games already made blood look green or black and argued that it wasn't humans but robots/aliens that were being killed)
and to explicitely include interactive video games because some law experts claim that because it requires the players interaction, it's not a 'description' of violence as specified by the law.
Personally, I'm against it and think it's a publicity stunt, I just thought I'd add this info to clarify the situation.
An unofficial translation of the current law:
"Section 131 Representation of Violence
(1) Whoever, in relation to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which describe cruel or otherwise inhuman acts of violence against human beings in a manner which expresses a glorification or rendering harmless of such acts of violence or which represents the cruel or inhuman aspects of the event in a manner which injures human dignity:
1. disseminates them;
2. publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
3. offers, gives or makes them accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
4. produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers 1 through 3 or facilitate such use by another,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine.
(2) Whoever disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in subsection (1) by radio, shall be similarly punished.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) shall not apply if the act serves as reporting about current or historical events.
(4) Subsection (1), number 3 shall not be applicable if the person authorized to care for the person acts. "
(Note: "Writings" already covers digital media.)
What Beckstein wants to change is to include violence agains 'human-like beings' (because many localized version of video games already made blood look green or black and argued that it wasn't humans but robots/aliens that were being killed)
and to explicitely include interactive video games because some law experts claim that because it requires the players interaction, it's not a 'description' of violence as specified by the law.
Personally, I'm against it and think it's a publicity stunt, I just thought I'd add this info to clarify the situation.
