Jack Thompson's Game Bill Moves Forward 272
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."
Legislation, meet morality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Reminds me of that /. sig that someone has around;
"Want the root password to the US Constitution? Try Child Pornography."
or something like that...
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:2)
It's a form of censorship and would violate the US constitution's first amendment.
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:2)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the real effect is
Re:Legislation, meet morality (Score:3, Insightful)
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,
The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill (Score:2)
Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill (Score:2)
Don't you mean, "As often as that phrase has been repeated, it must be true"?
Re:The law isn't the sole purpose of the bill (Score:4, Funny)
Whoooooooooooosh
"America's Army" video game (Score:2)
Re:"America's Army" video game (Score:2)
That would be more in line with the real army! And still educational too!
--jeffk++
Re:"America's Army" video game (Score:3, Funny)
Fine with me IF... (Score:2)
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)
Re:this is crap (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Good luck holding on to that idealism (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re:this is crap (Score:2)
The definition is "whatever Jack Thompson finds offensive or objectionable". Today it's video game violence, yesterday it was rap music, tomorrow it is?
Re:this is crap (Score:2)
We should ban this whole "Nintendo" company. I mean, they've named their most recent game machine machine after a male phallus!
Re:this is crap (Score:2, Funny)
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general accep
Re:this is crap (Score:3, Insightful)
there's only one word for this - idiocy (Score:2)
So what you are saying
Re:there's only one word for this - idiocy (Score:2)
So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:2)
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:2)
And to be clear, the bill ands the 3 conditions, not ors them. So in addition to lacking scientific or artistic merit, it must also have violence beyond community standards, and that part would be pretty hard to argue for any of those 3 games.
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:2)
91.14. Prohibited sales of video or computer games to minors
9 A. An interactive video or computer game shall not be sold, leased, or rented
10 to a minor if the trier of fact determines all of the following
11 (1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would
12 find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's
13
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless chess appeals to ther violent character of kids -- you know, horsies trampling on bishops. Which brings out the fact that chess is part of an attack on Christianity[1]!!one! Ban it!
[1] You do know chess came from Arabia, right? Chess is conclusively a terrorist game, expect to hear all about it on O'Reilly Factor soon.
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:2)
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:2)
Re:So are Tetris, Chess and Checkers banned? (Score:2)
How about an Anti Needless Legislation bill (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How about an Anti Needless Legislation bill (Score:2)
They should expand this to other media (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:They should expand this to other media (Score:2)
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.
Re:They should expand this to other media (Score:2)
Is that it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sometimes I wonder who has more irrational fear - Jack Thompson or the gamers themselves.
Implied sex? (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:Implied sex? (Score:3, Funny)
EEW man... careful with what you say, I'm eating!
Jack Thompson is proud of you (Score:2)
America, where a titty is taboo but violence is A okay!
Re:Implied sex? (Score:2)
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)
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!
come on, it's obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Solving the problem. (Score:2)
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?
Re:Solving the problem. (Score:3, Informative)
What current laws? Public decency laws? Pornography laws? The ESRB is not law, it's voluntary.
Re:Solving the problem. (Score:2)
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
So I have this idea for a game... (Score:2)
Oh. Never mind.
Re:So I have this idea for a game... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So I have this idea for a game... (Score:2)
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
Re:So I have this idea for a game... (Score:2)
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
Cowboys and Indians (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Intersting wording! (Score:2)
The author of this bill thinks that minors have an intrinsic morbid interest in violence. But non-morbid violence would be okay. Wow.
I support a law to protect children, BUT (Score:2, Insightful)
(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
Easy challenge if it passes (Score:2)
Blah (Score:2)
Like most other laws... (Score:2)
I love the addition of the artistic value portion th
Re:Like most other laws... (Score:2)
Artistic Value? (Score:2)
The problem in games today, to use cliche is not life imitating art but art imitating life.
Re: (Score:2)
How to get around this (Score:5, Funny)
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
what did kids do before games/tv? (Score:2)
And then the lawyers argued (Score:2)
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
Just makes me want to (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:The 3rd Clause (Score:2)
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.
Subjective standards? (Score:2)
There's lots of room for this to go wrong, as usual.
Question for Slashdotters (Score:2)
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
This law is Soooo Goood (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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
Katrina? (Score:2)
Paperboy (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Violence Vs Atmosphere (Score:2)
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
Good News!! (Score:2)
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>
Re:Sounds pretty sensible (Score:2)
Re:Sounds pretty sensible (Score:2)
I mean, as long as you're willing to go along with anything that will help prevent it.
Re:no it doesnt (Score:2)
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Its an issue because 1) The definitions are intentionally vague 2) It is defining what is morally acceptable and enforcing it by law and 3) It is a good beginning.
The first 2 points should be fairly clear, let me explain the third.
If someone were to introduce a law to ban all violent video games, it would get shot down. If someone were to introduce a bill that once passed into law would allow others through lawsuits to build the definitions of what is morally 'correct', then it
Re:Uh.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, you're a parent with a 9 year old (or at least was/will be 9 years old)...
1) How did your 9 year old get the money to buy GTA?
2) How did your 9 year old get to the mall to buy GTA?
3) How did your 9 year old get it home without you knowing?
4) How did your 9 year old play it at home without you being aware?
I see a lot of potential for parenting in there that the state is supposedly going to do for you now. So the question is: why does this need to be a crime? What if you gave your child permission to buy a game that met the three vague criteria but you didn't consider harmful?
We can talk about GTA which I'd think most people would agree is not suitable for young children, but you know there are going to be ridiculous cases where this applies -- assuming anyone knows in advance what games are affected, meaning it could be the game stores themselves which apply the rules to ridiculous cases just to cover their own asses. This is the problem with legistlating moral standards, and it isn't going to work this time.
We've gotten along fine without making it a crime to let someone under 18 into an R-rated movie. I'd be willing to bet most adults snuck into an R-rated movie at some point in their youths, and while they would rather their own kids not do the same, they probably wouldn't think criminal prosecution of the theatre is necessary if they did. Yet video games, which so many of that generation simply don't understand and thus are deathly afraid of, suddenly require a whole new set of laws to protect the children (so the parents don't have to).
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it that hard to see the big letter "M" on the side of the box and know that you shouldn't let the kids play it? its even usually larger than the big "R" on the video boxes.
If I'm letting my parents or in-laws watch my children for any length of time I provide the games. and if my parents (or in-laws) want to buy a game for my kids they clear it w
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
When's the last time you saw a sexually-themed game with good production values (no cheesy low-gr
Re:Uh.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh.. (Score:2)
Who gets to decide whose views represent those of the "average person"?
Who gets to decide what the "contemporary community standards" or the "prevailing standards in the adult community" are?
Re:Legal Madlibs! (Score:3, Informative)
1. If at first you don't succeed try, try, try, try, try and try again. Then try some more. Eventually, something will stick.
2. If you're having trouble getting something passed, just parrot existing, accepted legislation.
The only thing we can hope for is that Jack will die of a massive heart attack or some such, before he gets something to stick.
err (Score:2)
well shiver me timbers (Score:2)
(I figured I should follow-up my initial ignorant post with another one)
Re:Ummm... (Score:2)
However, in neither case could he legally go to a cockfight, as they are illegal throughout the US, for both attendees (slap on the wrist
Re:Or... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Priorities (Score:2)
The reason is straightforward, actually. There are only 2 other serious (widespread) forms of entertainment: audio (RIAA) and video (MPAA). And the reason games get attacked is that there isn't (yet) a GAA. The RIAA and the MPAA have a lot of powerful lawyers on retainer ready to defend themselves against any such attack. Jack Thompson would have no chance against them (and more powerful or