Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Louisiana Passes Violent Games Bill 157

Posted by Zonk from the down-with-fun-down-with-fun dept.
GameDaily is reporting that the Louisiana House has passed a violent games bill, aping similar legislation from across the country. From the article: "The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is 'patently offensive to prevailing standards' and if it's appealing 'to the minor's morbid interest in violence.' If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves. Furthermore, someone found guilty of selling one of these games would face fines of between $100 and $2,000, and a prison term of up to one year. According to the Associated Press, even though several members of the House questioned whether the bill would be in violation of the First Amendment, none felt they should vote against the measure."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Louisiana Passes Violent Games Bill More

Louisiana Passes Violent Games Bill

Comments Filter:

  • Gratz. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GundamFan ( 848341 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:16AM (#15357551)
    You just made a big chunk of the population criminals, let me know how that turns out.

    • Re:Gratz. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mythandros ( 973986 )
      They'll only be criminals if stores don't start carding minors like they do for cigarettes and booze and guns and... I mean, if parents are complaining that games make their children violent what's wrong with forcing parents to take responsibility for what their children watch?

      • Re:Gratz. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by plague3106 ( 71849 )
        There's nothing wrong with forcing parents to take responsiblitly in screening what their children watch. There is something wrong with forcing the stores and game companies to do the parents job.

        • Re:Gratz. (Score:2, Insightful)

          by mythandros ( 973986 )
          This doesn't burden the game companies at all. It's only an irritation to the stores that sell the games because now they have to card anyone who looks younger than 30. It's a small irritation, but an irritation none the less. To be honest, I'd rather see parents that aren't interested in actually parenting, forced to parent.
      • "They'll only be criminals if stores don't start carding minors like they do for cigarettes and booze and guns and..."

        C'mon, remember, this is LA we're talking about here. At least in New Orleans, they don't really make that big a deal out of carding anyone for booze or smokes....every once in awhile sure, the ABC acts tough, but, that's not normally the case. Hell, we were the last state to raise the drinking age to 21. Till the 'oil crunch' in the 80's, we figured we'd lose more revenue from liquor sale

      • I didn't RTFA (at work, don't have time), but the summary suggests that these items must be PULLED FROM SHELVES, ie, you can't sell to anybody. Carding minors has nothing to do with it.
    • Since criminals can't vote this means that anybody affected by this law can't vote against it come next election because they are convicted criminals. Brilliant isn't it?

      Now if only we could outlaw thinking then the next elections should be a steal for the republicans.

      • Re:Obsolutly fantastic (Score:4, Insightful)

        by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @12:12PM (#15358078) Homepage Journal
        Haha! Stupid Republicans.

        Except the Louisiana state legislature is 64% Democrats in the state House and 61% Democrats in the state Senate and a Democratic governer. Whoops. Oh well. The important thing is to always blame Republicans for restricting people's personal and economic freedom, no matter whose fault it really is. Holding the guilty accountable isn't the point. The point is blasting people we find politically distasteful.

        Crusade onward, my good man! Get those Republicans!

        • Get those Republicans!

          Isn't it great that so many follow a party line so hard that they are blind to their own "ideals" falling pray to the same people they'd elect into office? The stereotypes of political parties MUST fail if there is to be progress in government. As long as people keep pulling that one party lever we're going to have problems.

          Too bad these people don't show their discontent with the system by voting outside of party lines and forcing the parties to compete for the vote, not just be ha
          • I vote third party for whatever it's worth. Even that's tough. As somebody smart once observed, the Libertarian philosophy has the right answer to everything except raising children and fighting wars. You can't abandon children to be raised by the free market any more than you can turn them over to government. And the motto, "it's none of our business, we'll jusy stay out of it" has lead to more misery, death, suffering, persecution, pain, and destruction than any other belief outside of religion.
            • So... you voted for David Duke?

              (Note: for those unfamiliar with David Duke, he is a former leader of the KKK, a long time New Orleans resident, and an all around scum-bag who actually tends to run for office on the Republican ticket these days, although he has run as a Democrat and as a third party candidates before. He's one of the guys that gives Louisiana politics a bad name... actually a lot Louisiana politicians do that.)

              In all seriousness, I feel the same way as many others in this conversation seem
        • The problem here is not party lines, the problem here is that it is an election year and this is an easy way to look good to the public. The whole 'Look at me! I voted to keep your children safe from smut!' advertisment. They know darn well that the law will be overturned before it gets applied and that there is no real down side other than spending a couple hundred thousand tax dollars on litigation.

          -Rick
        • I voted for Kodos.
        • Except the republicans are just so much BETTER at attacking personal freedoms.
        • Ever heard of the term DINO? A lot of those voted for Dubya. Oh, yeah, Lousiana has no minimum wage law [dol.gov], some Democrats they are. Damn worthless DINOs are giving Democrat a bad name.
      • Only if the crime "prohibited sale of video or computer games to minors" is a felony (as generally only felonies cause the loss of voting/firearm/etc. rights, and then only in some states). Since the max punishment appears to be a year, it is likely classed a misdemeanor (felonies generally start at greater than a year).
      • Now if only we could outlaw thinking then the next elections should be a steal for the republicans.

        No need to outlaw thinking, it has already been voluntarily surrendered.

    • Re:Gratz. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lave ( 958216 )
      Hang on, I'm confused:

      "to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves.

      So they've incriminated most of the game playing populace and pulling games completely instead of just rating games inappropriate for minors? They may as well have mass burningd of the games in the street.

      This is a perfect example of generation X. Like Rap, Rock and Roll, Cinema those who were born before it, don't understand it and fear it -

      • Re:Gratz. (Score:5, Funny)

        by KlomDark ( 6370 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @01:52PM (#15359183) Homepage Journal
        There's GenXrs who were born before CINEMA?? Where?

        I don't fear rap, I just think it's pathetic. Bad poetry accented with a drum. The same drum over and over. Fucking boring.

        I *BOOM* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *BOOM BOOoM.*
        WITH MY *BOOM* GUN *BOOM BOoOM.*
        *BOOM* *BOOM BoOOM.*
        *BOOM* *BOOM BOOoM.*
        *BOOM* *BOOM BOoOM.*
        I *BOOM* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *BOOM BOOoM*

        What if you changed the drum to a gong, or a triangle, or an AOOGAH horn? Could you imagine listening to:

        (Gong)
        I *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRRRRr* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRRrRR BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRrRRR.*
        WITH MY *BURRRUUURRRRRURrRRRURRRRRRR* GUN *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRrRRRRR BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRrRRRR.*
        *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRRrRR* *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRrRURRRRRRR BURRRUUURRRRRURRRrRURRRRRRR.*
        *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRrRRR* *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRrRRRR BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRrRRR.*
        *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURrRRRRRR* *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRUrRRRRRRR BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRRRrRR*
        I *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRUrRRRRRRR* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *BURRRUUURRRRRURRRRURRRrRRRR BURRRUUURRrRRRURRRRURRRRRRR.*

        (Triangle)
        I *ting* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *ting ting.*
        WITH MY *ting* GUN *ting ting.*
        *ting* *ting ting.*
        *ting* *ting ting.*
        *ting* *ting ting.*
        I *ting* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *ting ting.*

        (A-oogah horn)
        I *AOOGAH* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *AOOGAH AOOGAH.*
        WITH MY *AOOGAH* GUN *AOOGAH AOOGAH.*
        *AOOGAH* *AOOGAH AOOGAH.*
        *AOOGAH* *AOOGAH AOOGAH.*
        *AOOGAH* *AOOGAH AOOGAH.*
        I *AOOGAH* GONNA FUCK YOU UP *AOOGAH AOOGAH.*

        Music for idiots with small brains.
        • that's known as "bad rap"

          try the good kind, written by a real poet like Aesop Rock or KRS-ONE, instead of listening to the crap mtv and the rest of the popular media feed you alongside britney spears and the spice girls
  • Video games = Bad! Cockfighting [2theadvocate.com] = Good!

  • so... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Abstract_Me ( 799786 )
    so you can have a real gun... just not a virtual one.. at least they have their constitutional priorities in line.

    mod me down Im use to it.
    • "so you can have a real gun... just not a virtual one.. at least they have their constitutional priorities in line." Minors can own guns? If that's the case, i'm glad I live in illinois.
      • Isn't that the case in most of the US? You have to be of a certain age, no doubt, but my brother got a 22 rifle when he was twelve. And that in New York.
    • so you can have a real gun... just not a virtual one..

      The difference is context. I can legally own a gun, there are places and times where it is legal to discharge my gun but if I go out shooting people in the head that is when we have the problem.

      It's illogical to blame the gun for the murder. Not that pinning the blame of murder on games is any better but most people have the ability to see the valid and legal reasons for gun ownership and usage.

      By your arguement it actually makes the banning of games

  • So the seller can't know it's 'illegal' beforehand (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jimmy King ( 828214 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:21AM (#15357601) Homepage Journal
    Bah, TFA not wanting to load for me. What I get from this, though, is that a retailer can be taken to court AFTER a sale for selling a game to a minor and then if the judge decides that the game is indecent and trying to appeal to minors, the store will be punished and the game pulled from shelves? How is the store to know this before selling the game to be able to be taken to court for it? Is the lousiana state government going to review all games themselves before allowing them to be sold in the state? I've got to figure out how to get in on this. You guys do something, after you do it I'll tell you if it was legal or not and sue you and throw you in jail if it wasn't. Sound like a good deal?
    • Ok, got it to load. Is the rating on the packaging going to be taken into account in the same way other similar laws that have been attempted were or is this based purely on the judges discretion of if the game is violent or not, meaning that (careful, slippery slope, watch your step) potentially a store could be fined, people thrown in jail, etc for selling an E game to a minor if the judge felt it was violent (obviously not likely)?
      • The law will eventually get tossed out as being unconstitutional, if it ever gets enforced against a major chain, and possibly a small chain if they stand up for themselves.

        The main thing here is that the law will have a chilling effect on all mature games being sold in LA. The problem is that it will be about impossible to repeal the law through the courts without being tried under the law, and noone really wants to be the martyr. I expect that stores just over the state border in TX, MS, and AR will do
      • > potentially a store could be fined..for selling an E game to a minor ..(obviously not likely)?
        >

        Unless that game had content the ESRB missed. Or, post-Hot Coffee, I would not be surprised if you could get in trouble if somebody found a way to edit in violent content after the sale.

  • Bravery (Score:2, Insightful)

    by benjjj ( 949782 )
    "Even though several members of the House questioned whether the bill would be in violation of the First Amendment, none felt they should vote against the measure."

    "These decisions should be left to the legislature, the representatives of the people, not the courts."
    Legislators: "I'm not touching that. Let the courts decide."
    • Which leaves us in the wonderful situation where the most draconian laws are passed because no one is willing to stand up and so "Enough".

      What was that quote?

      "Evil is what happens when good men do nothing." ... Of course that assumes that at least some of the Supremes and Congress qualify as "good", instead of just "good for themselves".

    • Re:Bravery (Score:2, Insightful)

      by timon ( 46050 )
      On the plus side, when the courts throw out the law as unconstitutional, the politicians get to blame "activist judges" for thwarting the "will of the people." Win-win!
    • Legislators: "I'm not touching that. Let the courts decide."

      Well, in all fairness to the Legislators, I think they've been abundantly clear that they would like to pass such legislation, without any real equivocation. It's just that they are aware that it is not really within their power to do so.
    • What I would love to see is, how does this sort of thing line up with their Oath of Office. Assumably it follows the whole "uphold the constitution" line from the US Constitution's oaths. Now, if I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution and then vote for a measure that I believe directly contravenes that Constitution am I not breaking my Oath?

  • Just plain stupid (Score:4, Interesting)

    by KingBraden ( 959219 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:24AM (#15357625)
    Another useless videogame bill that will be overturned by the courts.

    We all know why no one voted against this bill. They have seen the bans in other states thrown out on first ammendment grounds. They understand this will have no real effect (aside from forcing the game industry to pay some legal bills). They do this because they do not want to be the guy in November with ads running against him saying "John Smith wants kids to kill hookers like they do in the game he supports Grand Theft Auto."

    I am sick of legislatures playing lip service to what the lattest fad is. I wish Americans (and I am sure it happens in the rest of the world too) would grow a brain and quit letting rhetoric dictacte their life.

    • I wish Americans...would grow a brain and quit letting rhetoric dictacte their life

      It's easy to listen to rhetoric. It takes effort to actually learn about something.

      Sadly, the vast majority of humans lack the interest (or even the capacity) to
      really understand the issues. Therefore, rhetoric remains effective.
    • One where if you vote for too many bills that are unconstutional, you lose your seat in government and are forever barred from running again. Perhaps that would lead politicians to think more and pander less. Unfortunately, that is the kind of thing that the legslature has to pass and the chances of them passing a law restricting themselves is almost nil.

  • not morbid! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nesetril ( 969734 )
    how is the interest morbid? if anything, it should be called 'natural', in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word. i think that it is much better to be a "hardcore" "pro" halo gamer (with all the negative connotations that it entails) rather than a typical mellowed-out PC loser. I guess, the Man still can't give up His dreams to fully "Baden-Powell all the boys and Betty Crocker all the girls"... Anyway, long live violent videogames - the new underground.
    • The language is an attempt to parallel the "offensive to prevailing community standards, devoid of artistic, scientific, etc., value, and appealing to a prurient interest in sex" legal standard for pornography as closely as possible, in hopes of (when it is challenged) getting a court to agree that a giant unwritten (in the text of the Constitution) exception to the First Amendment exists regarding violent material that is parallel to the one courts have previously found with regard to pornography.
  • The first time someone tries to enforce it, it will (eventually) be ruled unconstitutional. At enormous cost to somebody, but hey, that's not their problem.

    Meanwhile, these legislators get to shout about how they've 'taken a stand' and are 'protecting your kids'.

    • Yah, and then when it gets knocked down by the courts, all of the people who supported it will scream "activist judges!" and demand more hardline socially conservative judges be put on the bench, which makes it more likely that a bill like this will actually stand up in court in the future.
      • I thought the whole point of a representatitive democracy is that the representatitives would make rational decisions instead of the knee-jerk reactions that are problematic with a direct democracy?
        • It actually works quite well, as long as the people are paying attention. This assumption has failed miserably. On the other hand, that was to be expected. Evenatully, the people will get tired of watching their government, they will become rich and decadent and no longer understand the dangers of government run amok. They will loosen their grip on power, and slowly hand it over to the government. There will always be those that oppose such, but they can be religated to the fringe and safely ignored.

  • To Louisiana politicians (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zephc ( 225327 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:28AM (#15357672)
    Don't you asshats have a city to rebuild? Why the fuck are you wasting your constituent's money on this?
    • Actually, they have a coastline to rebuild, doing so would make a much bigger difference in minimizing the future destruction (the forecast is that that part of the country is going to get owned by ma nature again) than anything else they could do. That's not happening either, of course.
    • It's important that their politicians do everything they can to spew as much hot air as possible, as only the resulting high pressure zone can hope to keep further hurricanes at bay.
    • Because rich Soccer Moms whose kids have Xboxs vote, wheras poor people with no house, don't. Its called democracy.

      • There is no such thing as democracy - or at least, there has never been a true democracy. Well, there might be, I haven't looked in the last few months (and some of the countries around are unstable enough to where you might want to look every month to see if the government has changed - but I doubt any of them will convert to democracy.)

        The US is not a democracy. It's a republic. The definition of republic is a "representative democracy". What's the definition of democracy? Every citizen gets a vote. T

      • "I am Jesus ...try prove otherwise."

        So if you are Jesus, tell me if this bird in my hands (that are behind my back) is alive or dead.
    • They hope they'll get the money from the fines and law enforcement budget increases which will be necessary to enforce such a stupid law. Obviously the politicians now assume that if the hurricane didn't get people to move, taking rights away from them won't get them to move either.

      It's the new American way of doing things. Instead of making honest money by taxing the sale of the games they try to make money by making them illegal so that they can demand money for unnecessary work.

      The Netherlands is on the
    • Don't you asshats have a city to rebuild? Why the fuck are you wasting your constituent's money on this?

      Why do you think that they have a city to rebuild? It wasn't because of a weather event.
    • And they wonder why the rest of the country shrugged after New Orleans bit the big one? Yes please - let's pour 200 billion rebuilding a sinkhole for the entire cast of Deliverance. What a great idea! Pitty no one sober gives a fuck.

      Hey Louisiana - we decided to give you back to the French! Get packin'!
  • It just means that if you don't have a drivers license that states you're over 18, you don't get to buy the game. If you're a minor and you have the game, it's because mommy and daddy bought the game for you. What's wrong with making parent's take more of an interest in what their children experience?

    What's that? Your kid brought a gun to school and executed his classmates? You say that his violent video games made him do it*? Well then, who bought him the video game?

    * - I find this notion laughable, b
    • I can't believe you would laugh at a very serious problem. Video games not only cause school shootings, but often times commit them themselves and simply blame regular children. It is not just violence, Mario has created a booming industry in psychadelic mushrooms, and the lemmings created the great slavery epidemic of 1995.
    • It just means that if you don't have a drivers license that states you're over 18, you don't get to buy the game.

      "The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is "patently offensive to prevailing standards" and if it's appealing "to the minor's morbid interest in violence." If the title meets these "criteria" the game could be ordered to be pulled from store shelves." How does a drivers license provide a means to purchasing games that are not on the shelf?
  • if it's appealing 'to the minor's morbid interest in violence.'

    So, then, anything rated Mature should be exempt from this part. Right? Oh wait, I forgot, only children play video games so any game made with any violence or sex must be marketed entirely at ten-year-olds.

    • Not that this is actually going to be able to be upheld in court anyway, but your comment hints at what worries me most. At least in the article, there was no mention of basing this on the ratings system of the game, only on the feelings of the judge, which means that the game has to be sold and then the store taken to court, so the "illegal" deed already done, before it can be determined if it was illegal or not. But, as has been said and proven time and again now, this is going to be taken to court, dee

  • We have them now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:47AM (#15357865)
    even though several members of the House questioned whether the bill would be in violation of the First Amendment, none felt they should vote against the measure

    In summation:

    -they know a law already prohibits this
    -they decided to approve it anyway

    Therefore, every member of the legislature that voted for this bill has committed a crime. I assume the courts will be as swift in getting the wheels of justice spinning as they are for the local meth dealer or pot farmer.
    • It would have been interesting to follow the ethical course of action, yes, but the south's grand tradition states that appeasing the conservative voters is probably the safer bet for their careers than voting with the laws of the nation. Make the judges look like hippes instead.


    • Therefore, every member of the legislature that voted for this bill has committed a crime. I assume the courts will be as swift in getting the wheels of justice spinning as they are for the local meth dealer or pot farmer.

      I know that was intended to be humor...

      However, Canada's political system can require to vote along party lines or receive retribution (i.e. be kicked out of the party, effectivly ending the political career.) I'm not sure if the American system is different, but you get the idea.

      The on

      • However, Canada's political system can require to vote along party lines or receive retribution (i.e. be kicked out of the party, effectivly ending the political career.)

        I beleive the excuse "I was only following my orders" went out of fashion at Nuremburg. These are elected officials. They have a duty to righteousness.
      • However, Canada's political system can require to vote along party lines or receive retribution (i.e. be kicked out of the party, effectivly ending the political career.) I'm not sure if the American system is different, but you get the idea.

        Nothing institutionalized -- if you don't toe the party line, they won't throw you out, and politicians do occasionally switch parties -- but a lot of politics runs on the "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" principle. If you don't go along with the party when so
    • I love how Rep. Martiny (R) says "that's for the courts to decide." He's probably one of the same guys complaining about "activist judges." What a prick. Maybe the LA state congress doesn't have to swear an oath to uphold the state and federal constitutions, but if they do, this guy must not have been paying attention. Generally upholding the Constitution doesn't mean specifically writing laws that he suspects are unconstitutional but decides "that ain't my job; let them thar judges figger it out." Th

  • Once Again... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:54AM (#15357924) Homepage Journal
    A state legislature passes a bill, knowing full well that it won't survive a court challenge. They wasted your tax dollars coming up with the thing. They wasted your tax dollars getting it passed. And they'll waste your tax dollars defending it in court. If I lived in Louisana I'd be pretty pissed off about that. Maybe you guys should get a voter referendum going to take all the money wasted on such laws out of the salaries of the legislators instead of out of the general funds of the state. Isn't Louisana pretty cash-strapped anyway? I seem to recall some whining about them not having enough money recently...

  • Vague (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doomstalk ( 629173 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:54AM (#15357926)
    The bill would allow a judge to determine if a video game is 'patently offensive to prevailing standards' and if it's appealing 'to the minor's morbid interest in violence.'

    I'm not sure if they could be any more vague. I mean, given the right conditions, you could argue this about just about any game. I recall many an hour in wholesome puzzle games like Lemmings and The Incredible Machine inventing horrible things to do to the creatures under my control. Does that count as morbid violence?
  • To those of you in Louisiana I stringly suggest you started writing/calling/emailing/confronting in public your representatives about this. Even if you agree with the legislation in question what you need to be calling them on is why they voted FOR a bill they had reservations about. Particularly since those reservations were related to first amendment issues.

    One would hope that their representatives are not only representing their constituents' views but also strongly protecting their guaranteed constitut

  • This is GOOD stuff (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @12:04PM (#15358010) Homepage Journal
    We need states to enact this kind of thing. The states, not the federal government. When one state does this, consumers on the borders will flee to adjoining states to buy video games. If it's a truly horrible piece of legislation, the market will bear this out and the retail outlets will raise hell. The feedback loop between a free market and a democracy will show itself one way or another. It could be that the residents of Louisiana overall want exactly this kind of thing, they should have it. This is not a clear violation of free speech, but it's a worthy law to challenge it. What we want now, is a legal challenge to this law. A case will be decided using this law by the lower courts, and we'll get an appelate court decision. At this point, we'll know what this law really means. Don't worry, gamers and liberterians. The passage of these kinds of laws is vital to ensuring that rights are preserved in a common law judisdiction.
    • We need states to enact this kind of thing. The states, not the federal government. When one state does this, consumers on the borders will flee to adjoining states to buy video games.

      Yes. Just look at Utah's laws against just about everything "Sinful". Utah has trouble supporting it's own educational system while encouraging it's citizens to support the educational systems in surrounding states. Go to any border town and count the Utah license plates. It makes you wonder if the border towns would exsist

  • If anyone's interested in the "logic" behind this bill, you should read the coverage at GamePolitics [livejournal.com] or watch the entire hearing linked therein.

    In summary, Jack Thompson was the star witness for the hearing, so one could imagine the mountain of crap he spewed about games. Perhaps even more fantastic than Thompson's testimony was the list of "racist games" Representative Burrell used to terrify the House with (a list no doubt provided by Thompson). Burrell spent about five minutes naming off a bunch of rac

  • From a different article
    http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4888522 [wafb.com]

    Thompson tells 9 News he hopes retailers do end up in court so often, they will choose to stop selling violent games altogether.

    Great idea, lets just harass people until they do what we want.

    The interesting thing is that the use the excuse of protecting minors to push these laws, while the real goal is to prevent the games from existing at all.
    • The interesting thing is that the use the excuse of protecting minors to push these laws

      Aren't there laws against the exploitation of children? It's a shame they don't seem to apply to these "For the children" types.
  • Violent video games even permeate the highest levels of government: http://americasarmy.com/ [americasarmy.com]
  • but isn't it kinda true that most games are just around to satisfy the morbid curiosity for violence? If you look at any other entertainment medium - books, television, film - video games would come out on top for violent content. The games where your objective isn't going around and killing something are pretty few and far between. Why is this? Is it just the easy road to take? "How do we make this level harder? Oh, just add a couple of monsters to kill." While I don't like the passing of this bill, I wish
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test [wikipedia.org]

    Adding violence to this definition of obscenity wouldn't be a bad idea, really. Of course, they forgot to add the most important part:

    "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

    Most of the violent games I can think of at least have serious artistic value.

    Rob
  • Send a letter to your congressman and ask them why they don't support our troops. [americasarmy.com]
  • I can see it now - hordes of gamers, struggling to make their way north to the land of the free. The GTA railroad.

    Fuck Louisiana. If any state deserved everything they got - that's one of them. I hope they get 20 more hurricanes. Let-em enjoy their puritanical government regulations. Perhaps they'll re-institute Jim Crow laws next!
  • There's often discussion about "games as art", and some people question why it's important for games to be considered "art" instead of being just fun. This story shows one of the biggest reasons: it makes the medium of games more legitimate and less prone to attacks like this.

    Do you think this bill would have passed unanimously if we were talking about violent books? What about violent paintings? Consider Goya's El Tres de Mayo [wikipedia.org]. It's extremely violent, but we consider it art. I remember seeing this p
    • "Do you think this bill would have passed unanimously if we were talking about violent books? What about violent paintings?"

      Sad thing is, it already happened. Games are only the latest scapegoat. Before that it was (in no particular order) comics, music, board games, etc.

      E.g., since you mention books or paintings, how about comic books? Seems to me like it fits both categories outstandingly. Well, long before computer games even existed, Congress was savaging comic books and presenting them as the great Sat

Slashdot Top Deals

Neutrinos have bad breadth.

Close