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)
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Priorities (Score:2, Funny)
If you're 8 years old and *able* to have sex, well then bravo!
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.
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.
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.
Morality, Ethics, and Political Science (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Police don't write parking tickets. (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.
Re:I love paying for people to live in dangerous a (Score:2, Interesting)
Hurricanes are a piece of cake to deal with. I'd rather deal with them then earthquakes or tornados.
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:3, Insightful)
Absolutely corre
Re:I love paying for people to live in dangerous a (Score:3, Insightful)
Fool me once...etc... (Score:2)
Florida gets awesome weather and the beautiful gulf...with the price of hurricanes (which have been increasing in frequency and strength over the last 15 years). So it seems to me that people who live there enjoy the nice weather...and if a hurricane smashes their house and they didn't/coudn't get insurance...the federal government picks up the tab to fix it for them.
Is this a mistaken assumption
Re:Fool me once...etc... (Score:2)
Was this a typo, or a subtle swipe at government mismanagement?
Re:Priorities (Score:2, Offtopic)
Each state will treat it differently, but (Score:2)
Re:Each state will treat it differently, but (Score:2)
Re:Each state will treat it differently, but (Score:5, Informative)
Politically, state law can affect other states in a couple of ways. First, politicians are always playing 'keep up with the Joneses.' If poll numbers go up for legislators in La. or a borderline incumbent gets reelected after campaigning on 'save our children from evil video games' you bet your sweet ass that will have a bearing on how other states deal with video games.
Also, politicians are lazy farks. Why do think they pass laws written by lobbyists? La. has a bill demonstrated to be passable. You think every other state considering a law on the same material is going to reinvent the wheel? Heck no! You can probably already buy a copy of this law at Office Depot--all you need to do is fill in the name of your state.
Now legally, a law like this can have great bearing on how other states deal with violent video games. Let's say there is a legal challenge to this new law in La. Whatever the outcome of that suit, again other states will use that information in forming their own laws. If it get's thrown out, expect the lobbyists to study the ruling closely to determine exactly what version of the same law would stand up in court. Think dealth penalty.
So, what about online retailers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, what about online retailers? (Score:2)
Re:So, what about online retailers? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So, what about online retailers? (Score:2)
At what department stores do you shop?
Re:So, what about online retailers? (Score:2)
Re:So, what about online retailers? (Score:3, Informative)
British common law is the slippery slope made manifest.
How many more times does it need repeated.
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.)
Re:Redundant? (Score:2, Funny)
Arbitrary... (Score:2)
Not wanting to slog through the bill, can someone confirm the impression I get from the summary...
After a judge rules that a game is not suitable for minors, a store can be fined for carrying it before the judge mad that decision?
This sounds like a clear case of "Not convicting enough criminals? Just make some more!"
Re:Arbitrary... (Score:2)
I was going to aplogize for that typo, but somehow, it fits better than "made".
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
Re:Eroge (Score:2)
The Japanese stuff I'm not so sure about. It might very well qualify as obscene under current laws. Certainly anything comparable to actual porn would fit the description. However, I don't know where you could
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.
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
If people really are all that concerned, wouldn't community pressure be enough?
In a lot of neighborhoods across America, you can't buy pr0n in convenience stores anymore. Not because of laws, but because community groups shamed the stores into taking it off their shelves with threats of boycots and/or very visible campaigns against it.
If you had a couple blue-haired ladies in front of every EB store (or whatever) holding up signs t
Re:Redundant? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
Perhaps many or even most laws there have that provision.
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
They need a law against that? Louisiana must have the best parties ever!
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
There are some other games that I'd consider "artistic" such as Rez [wikipedia.org], or the upcoming Spore. I suppose if you stretched the definition enough you could extend it to Dance Dance Revolution, Guitar Hero, or even Parappa th
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:Redundant? (Score:2)
As to who decides
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
he likely put it here to allow us non-us people to understand what he meant. i certainly didn't get it without the article.
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
And even if there was one, no one could possibly be brought up on charges (successfully anyway, one would hope) given that video games are not movies.
And the whole reason laws like this are getting passed is that none of the big 3 games distributors is willing to be first to put in place a national policy to restrict sales of mature games to minors.
Re:Redundant? (Score:2)
I think this kind of legislation belongs with the state. The Federal government already encroaches in areas they really don't belong. The rating for DVDs is essentially a self-censoring activity by the movie industry with compliance by retailers. I'm not aware of any law actually enforcing the ratings (except pornography). IIRC, the adoption of the movie rating system was a move to stave off governme
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.
Re:Wonkfest (Score:2)
If the bill dies, Jacko still has his moment in the spotlight, which he craves. The man is a media whore. And when it does die, he can go on about "activist judges" and liberal bias in the courts (nevermind that there are censorship wonks on the left as well as the right). Jackass's crusade will continue no matter how many times he loses.
This isn't about protecting minors. This is about lawyers getting paid, politicians getting votes, and whores like Jack getting attenti
Actually, no. (Score:2)
Maybe.
Maybe not. Bill gets challenged in court. Bill gets ruled unconstitutional. Judge issues ruling on bill. Lobbyists now have blueprint for what needs to be changed to make bill good.
Think death penalty. I wouldn't expect a ruling, 'you can't restrict the sale of video games ever, in any way, don't even think about it, ain't gonna happen.' I would expect a ruling, 'this phrase in this section of the bill is too vague in regards to free speech protection
Re:Wonkfest (Score:2)
That's why, in terms of a law, they need to keep the ratings system out of the process.
Dear Mr. Thompson (Score:5, Interesting)
1:) Prove it
2:) If you can't do you as an attorney know what Libel is?
3:) IIRC Libel can be grounds for revocation of your BAR registration.
Re:Dear Mr. Thompson (Score:2)
Re:Dear Mr. Thompson (Score:2)
Given that there are far more dangerous abuses of the legal system that lawyers get up to, the bar association likely turns a blind eye to minor infractions, especially if disbarring Jacko would be unpopular in whatever district he's licensed to practice in. OTOH, I dearly
Re:Dear Mr. Thompson (Score:2)
it might give rise to some intresting statistics about how often the court finds and existing ratting to be in error.
Re:Dear Mr. Thompson (Score:3, Interesting)
2. Claiming that someone is engaging in fraud is not lobbying; that is a very specific legal term which Jack should understand and only use in its legal context. When used in a fashion that cannot be proven, against a person, business, or industry intentionally to harm their reputation, it could be construed as slander.
3. Committing libel against an industry to further your own agenda impacts both honest and integrity. You cannot claim that the indus
How does he do it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I want to drive to Louisiana and kick this guy in the nuts.
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
Get in line.
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
I see a slashdot carpool in the future! :-)
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
Stand in line please, no skipping.
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
Nut kicking is too weak. (Score:2)
Didn't GTA learn you anything better? You gotta go kill him, either with a baseball bat or a submachine gun. Then steal his wallet and use the money to buy a hooker. Kids these days.
Re:Nut kicking is too weak. (Score:2)
Get him in the back seat of your car first. That way, he'll replenish your health first, and then when you're done, he gets out, you run him over and get your money back!
Oh wait, my bad, he's a lawyer. I mistook him for a whore. It's a common mistake.
Re:How does he do it? (Score:2)
What was your point exactly?
Video games, violent music, lax gun laws and countless of other things were blamed for the shootings, but at most any one o
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.
Re:Grr. (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. When I was a kid, I had a sudden urge to run around with a bent tent pole and go after highly pixellated "Ducks" [wikipedia.org]
Re:Grr. (Score:2)
Actually, playing Duke Nukem 3D made me want to rampage around a movie theater with a flame thrower.
Oh wait, it wasn't caused by the game; it was caused by thinking "I paid $16 to see this turkey?!"
Free speech? Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free speech? Think of the children! (Score:2)
I see the whole thing as sort of a stupid nonissue, redeemed only by the unbelieveable shitfuckery of Jack Thompson. It is a constant source of amazement to
Before everyone starts crying incredulity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Before everyone starts crying incredulity (Score:3, Informative)
yeah right (Score:2)
Re:yeah right (Score:2)
Where are the parents? (Score:2)
Only in Louisiana... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an election year (Score:2)
How is this bill supposed to work? (Score:4, Interesting)
The bill's intent is to keep adult-oriented (this criteria to be determined by a judge) games from getting into minor's hands, and fines any store responsible for selling said games to minors. This is not necessarily a bad thing; one of the biggest weaknesses of the ESRB is its lack of real power: it lacks any and all punitive ability. It can assign ratings all it wants, but when it comes down to it, individual store policy determines who can buy any given game. Clearly this has been ineffective in keeping inappropriate games from the hands of minors. We can argue all day long that: "this is the responsibility of the parents, zomg the government is evil, how dare they try to say that killing hookers is bad, zomg," but really the gaming industry lacks any coherent self-regulation and this needs to change.
Unfortunately, this bill is one step in the right direction (fining retailers who sell GTA3 to ten year olds) and three steps in the wrong (absolutely no specification as to what can be considered "inappropriate," granting sole discretion to the judge, and calling for any "inappropriate game" to be pulled from circulation.) The last wrong is the one that concerns me the most: since when does content "not suitable for minors" suddenly translate into "not suitable for sale?" That seems to me a gross overextension of what the bill should be trying to do, which is to keep minors from playing excessively violent or sexual games. It's no secret that idiots like Jack Thompson believe the world would be a better place without video games, period, but it shocks me that any legislature would buy into this. There are plenty of types of media (rape-pornography, for instance) that the courts currently do not have the ability to demand be removed from circulation. I'm supposed to believe that ANY game could be more harmful to society than the simulation of rape? That doesn't make any sense at all.
Re:How is this bill supposed to work? (Score:2)
If some teenagers want to go out on a bender, do you really think it's the retail clerk who sells them the abuse which is responsible? The retain chain at which he works? The cops, legislature, or judiciary?
While I agree that some things are probably not appropriate for children, I also believe that parents should be the ones primarily responsible for deciding what is appropriate for their childr
I disagree with part of your statement (Score:2)
Yes it is necessarily a bad thing. It's not the government's job and it's not an appropriate use of taxpayers' money to perform morality/value judgement/child development enforcement in the private sector. Here's a crazy thought: the Twinkies (R) stores sell to minors are prob
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 wo
Re:Random thoughts on who else to point fingers at (Score:2)
As a concerned citizen, voter, taxpayer, consumer, and constituent in your perfect state and district, I respectfully submit that I am concerned with the situation concerning your honorable boot upon my face. I would like to ask of your honorable and distinguished self that you give due consideration to the possibility of not stomping on my face, and perhaps consider the alternate position of only invading my home and imposing the strength of your will and morali
What am I to do (Score:2, Insightful)
Pulled? (Score:2)
Why does it need to be pulled from shelves? Just make a "do not sell to minors" label on it and if they sell to a minor then they get fined/jail. I have no problem with preventing minors from buying particularly violent bad games themselves. Normally i would say it is against freedom of speech/privacy and what-not, but we are talking about minors. That segment of our population which cannot buy guns, alcohol (some states it is 21
Re:Pulled? (Score:2)
Re:Pulled? (Score:2)
you have no right to view or purchase a game.
The rights being steppped on are that of the company that sells the game.
Re:Pulled? (Score:2)
Exactly. We have quite enough precident for this with, oh, I don't know, things like liquor, tobacco, porno mags, and movies. Make the (already existing) ESRB ratings carry a legal punch preventing their sale to minors.
Re:Pulled? (Score:2)
The "think of the children" line can be used to justify banning anything and everything though. JT isn't interested in just stopping the sale to minors, he's interested in stopping the sale to anyone on the basis that minors might come in contact with it somehow. Let's just lock everyone under 18 into prisons and stop worrying about whether this or that might hurt them. I don't have kids and I'm over 18, so
who's fault? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:who's fault? (Score:2)
This law potentially sends the seller, not the buyer of an inappropriate game to jail.
Since the seller sold it to an adult, he's off the hook.
Since you gave it, without monetary consideration, to the minor, I think you're off the hook too. It's vaguely possible that you could get busted, though, IANAL, and the last time I read this bill was a couple of weeks ago.
Old games (Score:2)
And is it exicution or intent that counts? IE in nethack you become the 4th rider of the end times and are able to kill anything in sight. But its text bassed. Does that count?
Yeah, that's what they should worry about in LA (Score:2)
Get your priorities straight (Score:3, Funny)
My 2 cents. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My 2 cents. (Score:2)
Obligatory Lester Lave quote (Score:2)
And if the people of Louisiana are so convinced that video games are such a menace that they require laws like this, then by $DEITY they deserve their government!
Let's do it all the way then (Score:2)
Seriously, though. I don't see why games were singled out.
Jack Thompson Interviewed by a Free-Marketeer (Score:3, Interesting)
Mr. Thompson comes across as a deluded, selfimportant, lawerish, jack-ass of an individual. Granted, the host was intentionally pushing his buttons ("I think it should be legal for convenience stores to sell beer to 10-year olds! Parents will boycott the place and it'll go out of business... let the market sort it out!") but surly Mr. Thompson knew this was going to be an interview with someone whose views were diametrically opposed to his own. Surely he could have at least engaged in a real, 2-way debate?
Thompson got so irked by the free-market ideas, he wouldn't even discuss the concept. He hung up on the interview! What an infantile, childish little busybody! These are the kind of asses that make this kind of law to "protect the children!"
Here's the clip:
http://freetalklive.com/files/thompson.mp3 [freetalklive.com]
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:2, Insightful)
grammatical error (Score:2)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just don't freaking give children money (Score:2)
Don't let your children enter life ignorant on this matter, otherwise they will become another family that makes just enough to get by.