Games Are Porn in Utah 160
GameDailyBiz reports that there is new anti-videogame legislation brewing in both Iowa and Utah. Utah's law is more poorly thought out than most, essentially classifying violent games as porn. From the article: "Meanwhile in Utah, State Rep. David Hogue (R-Riverton) is taking a different approach. Hogue's HB 0257 would seek to amend an existing Utah statute by adding an 'inappropriate violence' clause--such as violence exhibited in some of today's popular video games. Under the existing Utah statute the distribution or showing of pornography and explicit nudity to minors is a felony. Hogue is certainly not the first politician to compare violent video games to pornography. CA Assemblyman Leland Yee and countless others have put playing violent games in the same category as porn or smoking cigarettes."
Not again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Texas taxes too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:tsk, tsk (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple math really.
Re:Not again (Score:4, Insightful)
1> Religion creates the concept of vice
2> Guilt and fear in the populace create a need to criminalize and/or tax vice
3> Criminalized vice gives rise to organized crime and makes criminals of ordinary people
4> Legitimite business buys off legislators
5> Organized crime buys off judges and prosecutors
6> Law enforcement gets more tax money to handle the growing criminal populace
7> The offering plate at church gets more donations from laymen assuaging their guilt
8> Everybody profits but the average Joe, who gets completely screwed
Of course, it could be that #2 is the cause of #1 instead; I don't know. Chicken and egg? I say roast the chicken and stuff it with an omelette, that would be yummy.
It is unfortunate. If society were more open about sexual exploration and the recreational use of pharmaceuticals, and thought that responsible gambling was just fine, and provided socially acceptable outlets for aggressive tendencies, things would be just fine. The government could go about its real duty of providing security (at the national level) and infrastructure (at the local level), and leave all the law-abiding folk to their business.
Re:Why not add a "material harmful for minors"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's right for the government to draw that line, in either case. Besides, aren't there a lot more important issues to deal with?
Re:tsk, tsk (Score:4, Insightful)
The other problem is that the retailers don't take the ratings as seriously as the movie theater operators do, and frequently sell kids games that aren't meant for them. However, this isn't as big a problem as the other one; it turns out that 84% of games that kids get are bought for them by parents.
Just More Me Too-ism (Score:4, Insightful)
This is still a debate? (Score:4, Insightful)
"As bad as porn" (Score:1, Insightful)
Well waitaminute...
Why does porn need to be censored again?
If Utah suddenly stopped censoring everything it currently considers "porn" and started censoring games, will the state have improved or degraded itself in terms of moral standards?
I think maybe when we talk about censorship of games, we might as well open up the notion of censorship in general: when is it it wrong, when (if ever) is it right, and what objective standards can we use to decide whether to toss a communication into one bin or the other?
'Cause, to me, it wouldn't matter if games were classified as "porn", so long as porn is freely available to all.
Re:Parental control (Score:5, Insightful)
We do have such a rating system [esrb.org]. Hell, I'm 33, huge with a bushy beard and a register monkey at Target tried to card me when buying an M-rated game - probably because he thought it was funny, but the important thing is that the register stopped him and reminded him that the game had a "not for little kids" rating.
These videogame laws are attempting to criminalize something which I don't think should be criminal. In fact, in the case of Utah the result of their law (if it held up, which it won't) would be to make it a felony for a parent to let their minor child play GTA3 or Medal of Honor. The article doesn't contain the actual text of the amendment, but if it's as vague as they say an adult could go to jail for showing Serenity to a 17-year-old, let alone giving them a copy of Call of Duty. The Iowa law is hardly better since someone would have to determine on a case-by-case basis which games would cause a violation and the "offender" would still end up with a friggin' criminal record.
These legislators are just trying to get publicity. I doubt they truly give a rat's ass about videogame content or they would recognize that the ESRB sets some good guidelines and at least reference those standards when constructing their patently unconstitutional laws...
Re:Why not add a "material harmful for minors"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Video games are a visual, interactive and immersive medium where the player generally takes part in the virtual violent conduct.
There is a clear difference, like the difference between saying that Anne and Bob had sex and showing a video of it.
Although I disagree with these laws, it's correlation, not causation. A person with violent tenencies may be drawn to violent video games, but a person without violent tendencies will not develop them by playing violent video games.
ok....? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Parental control (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, I don't mean external controlling forces.
What I mean is that children are probably better off it raised such that "bad external influences" don't have "negative effects" on them. The last think you want is anyone to grow up too sheltered, because then they may lose all control once they enter the real world.
This sort of reminds me of the environment that I grew up within...
I basically started school in a relatively sheltered private school environment. The school ran from K-8, but people typically left for public schools in the 6-8 range. (I was there all the way from 1-8)
In any case, almost everyone there was from a upper-middle-class family (not everyone but most of 'em). No idea of anyone's true home environment, but chances are that they weren't that dissimilar.
Once entering into unsheltered public school, however, it seemed like there were a very high percentage that got "screwed up". (I turned out ok, as well as most of my class, but it seemed like many ahead of me, behind me, and even those in my younger sister's class fell into this trap.) Frankly, I'm glad for my experiences in a "normal" public high school. It didn't screw me up, and gave me exposure to more kinds of people.
Then again, I may have still been isolated from the "negative" influences even in public high school, due to a number of factors:
1) I only took "honors" or "gifted" classes when possible. (often the difference, especially with honors classes, seemed more like "decent vs. trash" than "smart vs. dumb", though I think the gifted classes were 40% druggie)
2) I was never really sociable (like the rest of you), which isolated me from the "popular kids".
3) I had a conservative enough upbringing that I always thought negatively of those "bad behaviors" such that I was never really even at risk on the few occasions where I might have been exposed.
Re:Not again (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because then religion would have no need to worship the positive deity (e.g., God) instead of the negative deity (e.g., Satan). In order to say that God is good and the devil is bad, there must be an external reference point for good and bad.
2gt; Guilt and fear in the populace create a need to criminalize and/or tax vice
I would say you only need to criminalize or tax something if people aren't already deterred. If religion were doing such a good job of keeping people moral, why are there laws?
Your point about religion creating vice to criticize activities it doesn't like reminds me of Nietzche's point about religion criticizing human love - which has been eloquently answered in that encyclical from yesterday [vatican.va]. See sections 3 and 4.
3gt; Criminalized vice gives rise to organized crime and makes criminals of ordinary people
How are these two related? If vice is artificial and organized crime is just a group of people who are smart enough to ignore laws. I don't think you're trying to equate "ordinary people" and "organized crime".
4> Legitimite business buys off legislators
Legitimate? How is that legitimate?
5> Organized crime buys off judges and prosecutors
Sorry, there actually isn't a conspiracy by crime and business to control half the government each.
6< Law enforcement gets more tax money to handle the growing criminal populace
Why? They're being payed off by someone else, right?
7< The offering plate at church gets more donations from laymen assuaging their guilt
Actually, even churchgoers are rational (like you kinda are) and can realize that if the church is trying to guilt you into paying, then the church doesn't have a good reason. This isn't the Dark Ages with its indulgences. Have you ever watched a church ask for money? Every church I've seen makes its case based on the church's need for money to do good works.
8> Everybody profits but the average Joe, who gets completely screwed
Why isn't he part of one of the other groups - at the least, legitimate business?
Get off your a** and vote (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want the politicians to behave themselves, then you need to use that stick called voting to put them in their place.
I have five friends who moan and complain and did they vote? Nope. They went on about this "I didn't vote as a jab at the system."
Well guess what - if you don't vote that means the morons have fewer people to attract to gain power over YOU. THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO VOTE.
Go vote for a green or a third party if you don't like someone - at least they will recognize that they have people actively working against them. It is a lot harder for someone to say they have a mandate with 53% of the vote than someone with 70% of the vote could say.