Louisiana Gaming Bill Headed to Senate

[Labyrrinth]

1767
Gamespot is reporting that Louisiana is one step closer to passing a bill that will prohibit minors from purchasing, renting, or leasing video games that don’t meet specific but very vague criteria.

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.

The bill, co-written by Jack Thompson (big surprise there…) was approved by the Louisiana Senate Judiciary A Committee and will now go to the full Senate for debate.

The whole bill, in and of itself is amazing and sufficiently blurred to begin with, but what really stuck out was item number 3, “The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” Will every game then be open for interpretation as to its “value” to minors and better yet, who will be responsible for defining what is valuable and what isn’t?

Read the full article here (http://www.gamespot.com/news/2006/05/31/news_6152090.html?part=rss&tag=gs_&subj=6152090).

[Razorwire]

it will be struck down

[Giftmacher]

Ah Jack Thompson, he'd be good for a few laughs if he wasn't so intent on being taken seriously. :rolleyes:

WTH is with this anyway, games have ratings isn't that enough to dictate what games are suitable for what ages?

Gift.

[Skarlath]

Hahaha

"Prevailant standards" - since when have people held the some opinion on acceptable depictions of violence. I thought that was part of the issue! You can't set guidelines based on 'prevailant standards' if you have no way of accurately understanding what they are!

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." - As you said, what the heck is up with that?! Since when did we start controlling minors' entertainment to the point where they are only allowed to indulge in a form of entertainment if it hones their literary, artistic, political or scientific minds?!

What happened to all the other benefits games can bring, too? There's pleeeenty of them! Why state that games are only beneficial when relating to literature, art, politics or science?! What the heck is 'political value' doing in there whilst basic skills learnt from games like 'problem solving' aren't?!

What a load of crap. You'd think they would actually shoot for something that gives a bit of middle ground - how can they seriously expect that to be taken seriously?

[gwwfps]

It's sad Louisiana still finds time to come up with this kind of nonsense.

[Eshu]

I'm almost surprised that Oklahoma didn't come up with something like this first, but then I guess they lack Senators with a crusade to push it through.

As far as rating systems go, they are only as good as the parents who are buying/renting these games. Case point, my nephews (11 and 8) recently rented Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter; their dad didn't even look at the case since they knew they weren't supposed to be getting T games...mom saw me reading the manual and asked where it came from, and the solid waste hit the rotary cooling device. Meh.

[Severoth]

it will be struck down

Don't be too confident about that. Unfortunately, Louisiana, like the rest of the Southeast ("Bible Belt") and the Midwest, is very "backwardsly" conservative.

[Kirnack]

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." - As you said, what the heck is up with that?! Since when did we start controlling minors' entertainment to the point where they are only allowed to indulge in a form of entertainment if it hones their literary, artistic, political or scientific minds?!

Big Brother is watching you. Thank god I don't live in the U.S. not that it really matters in my case since I'm 34 years old LOL

Kirnack Estelan

[Sczen Diop]

Hmm... Needs more brown ( well, Grey area actually )

[AgentJ]

It's sad Louisiana still finds time to come up with this kind of nonsense.

What else is there to do out in those lonely back-roads? lol

[Razorwire]

Don't be too confident about that. Unfortunately, Louisiana, like the rest of the Southeast ("Bible Belt") and the Midwest, is very "backwardsly" conservative.
The ESA(is it now?) will pay for lawyers to take it to Federal Court and it will get blocked there. We already have the president. States can not over turn Constitutional law. How many other laws (and better than this one) have been struck down in the courts? This law has to much wiggle room, if they had said nipples or pelvis or red blood then they may have had a chance.

[Severoth]

Usually the federal court judges in those districts presiding in the Southeast and Midwest are predominantly very conservative. If it goes above them, to the Supreme Court, I'm afraid it's no better. The Supreme Court is now predominantly conservative, as well, willing to place religious beliefs into government law (whether it be censorship, gay marriage, or other issues).

[Arctic_Slicer]

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors." - As you said, what the heck is up with that?! Since when did we start controlling minors' entertainment to the point where they are only allowed to indulge in a form of entertainment if it hones their literary, artistic, political or scientific minds?!

What happened to all the other benefits games can bring, too? There's pleeeenty of them! Why state that games are only beneficial when relating to literature, art, politics or science?! What the heck is 'political value' doing in there whilst basic skills learnt from games like 'problem solving' aren't?!


In 1994 many children's shows were removed from television stations because the FCC decided that all children's shows should have an educational influence. It really sucked to wake up one saturday mourning and find that the usual shows, including the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", just disapeared.

Of course that was an FCC ruling as such it really isn't an equal comparison but it does answer your question. The whole purpose entities such as the FCC and the ESRB exists is because of the first ammendment. Seeing as how similar laws have been struck down accross the country for being unconstitutional it is expected for this one to be struck down as well.

[Navid]

you know what makes me laugh (or cry)?

They are all about stopping this gaming bill against violence, yet there are movies that come out that under age kids CAN see, they are far worse if not the same. Some one getting brutally murdered, sex, girls in few clothes, theft, etc.

Why are they putting higher standards here and not there?

[Skarlath]

Why are they putting higher standards here and not there?

Oh, did you not hear? Games are evil.

[Tazkven]

What else is there to do out in those lonely back-roads? lol

Reminds me of this old man I once met who shared the same last name as my wife, Now X wife, and lived a county away.

I asked him if he was related to her or knew her dad and he replied ..
"No, I dont recall them but there was no cars or real roads down there for a long, long time so I am sure we are all related ... somehow."
*You faintly here Dueling Banjos*


Back on topic ...

Hope this is not a higher rung on the ladder of snuffing out things that some people disagree with thinking they know whats best for all of us. Not to mention they believe they can raise our children better then we can.

Sure there are people who are not in sync with reality or parents who fail in raising thier children all together. But how does that give the government the right to pick and choose what all of us can or cannot do ?

Welcome to the New World Order ...

[Zastrick]

Why are they putting higher standards here and not there?

It is simply a case of scapegoating. It's easier to condemn videogames over television and movies because gaming is more niche in comparison.

[Pragmatica]

I watched "Grandma's Boy" for the first time over the weekend. This is a movie about the gaming industry where everyone does drugs and does not do any actual work. It is movies like that which give us real gamers a bad reputation. I am 29 years old have two kids, married (never devoiced), I am a Sunday school teacher at our local church and I mow my lawn.
When the government is passing laws to ban games, or restrict games to a strict rule that they must be enriching our lives in some way, they always point to people that are have ruined their life with video games. The fact of the matter is that people can let anything take over their life if they let it. I like video games, and I am a upstanding citizen. Am I a rare bread? Also, how does "Ice Age 2" or "Cars" educate our youth?

[Nargroth]

I support this bill.

Why? Because anything that can keep WoW'ified, pre-teen little duel-spamming, whining and moaning kids away from my gaming experience is a god-sent gift.

Thumbs up!

[Skarlath]

Considering those kids playing WoW needed to get their parents to enter credit card details, i'm sure they can convince their parents to purchase the box as well. ;)

[reefus88]

it seems the OP didnt even read what he was linking:


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:


Note, it didnt say ONE of the following 3, it said it has to meet the following three.

IMO, i could care less. You can't buy porno, you cant get into R movies, you can't buy cigarettes.

If YOU as a parent feels ok with your kid playing an M game, you can go buy it for him, if you're NOT ok with it, the kid can't just go out and buy it anyways (which does happen)

[Labyrrinth]

it seems the OP didnt even read what he was linking:


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:


Note, it didnt say ONE of the following 3, it said it has to meet the following three.

IMO, i could care less. You can't buy porno, you cant get into R movies, you can't buy cigarettes.

If YOU as a parent feels ok with your kid playing an M game, you can go buy it for him, if you're NOT ok with it, the kid can't just go out and buy it anyways (which does happen)

First of all, the OP is a she :)

Second, what exactly are you saying that wasn't already said in the original post and in what was linked? Where did I post, say, or link that the criteria was 1 of the 3 listed? I have read and re-read it and I'm at a loss as to what you're referring to. At this point I'm pretty sure it's not the OP who has a problem with reading. ;)

Third, it's unfortunate that you "could care less" but at the same time it's definitely within your rights to do so :)

[Nishua]

I hate how society and the our dictatorship ran government uses gaming as a scapegoat to violence and other problems. Of course, your going to have kids shooting other people and people trying to solve their problem with violence when you have a president and other (supposedly) elected officials using violence as means to create peace. HYPOCRISY !!!

[reefus88]

First of all, the OP is a she :)

Second, what exactly are you saying that wasn't already said in the original post and in what was linked? Where did I post, say, or link that the criteria was 1 of the 3 listed? I have read and re-read it and I'm at a loss as to what you're referring to. At this point I'm pretty sure it's not the OP who has a problem with reading. ;)

Third, it's unfortunate that you "could care less" but at the same time it's definitely within your rights to do so :)

Will every game then be open for interpretation as to its “value” to minors and better yet, who will be responsible for defining what is valuable and what isn’t?

THIS is why I say they didn't read or understand what they posted. so at this point I'm pretty sure it is the OP who has a problem with reading ;)

every game will have to be based on ALL THREE, not just it's "value" to minors.

let's take a Spiderman video game for example, it may not have any scientific, artistic or educational value, but since it deosn't appeal to the minor's morbid interest in violence and doesn't depict violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors, it doesn't matter what "value" it has for minors. therefore it wont be open for interpretation as to its “value”. more then likely NOT an M game, therefore NOT subject to this.

Now lets look at GTA. it doens't have any scientific, artistic or educational value. it does appeal to the minor's morbid interest in violence and does depict violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors. this is more then likely an M game and therefor subject to this.

which is why I said what I said:
Note, it didnt say ONE of the following 3, it said it has to meet the following three

get it?

now who judges what is offensive and what not is up to deabte, but I'm hoping raional heads will prevail.

[reefus88]

I hate how society and the our dictatorship ran government uses gaming as a scapegoat to violence and other problems. Of course, your going to have kids shooting other people and people trying to solve their problem with violence when you have a president and other (supposedly) elected officials using violence as means to create peace. HYPOCRISY !!!

they did this WAY back when with movies, they did this not too long ago with music (see Ghetto Boys, NWA......), but whatever.

bush sucks and so does our government!!!!

happy now??? :rolleyes:

[Labyrrinth]

Will every game then be open for interpretation as to its “value” to minors and better yet, who will be responsible for defining what is valuable and what isn’t?

THIS is why I say they didn't read or understand what they posted. so at this point I'm pretty sure it is the OP who has a problem with reading ;)

every game will have to be based on ALL THREE, not just it's "value" to minors.



The part you quoted was from a paragraph that was specifically talking and referencing item 3. It wasn't talking about all 3 items listed. Had I referenced all 3 in that particular paragraph, you might have had a point :)

[reefus88]

The part you quoted was from a paragraph that was specifically talking and referencing item 3. It wasn't talking about all 3 items listed. Had I referenced all 3 in that particular paragraph, you might have had a point :)

but thats exactly my point.

you can't just reference one of them without refrencing the others.

you can't say the bolded part:
The whole bill, in and of itself is amazing and sufficiently blurred to begin with, but what really stuck out was item number 3, “The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.” Will every game then be open for interpretation as to its “value” to minors and better yet, who will be responsible for defining what is valuable and what isn’t?


becuase it implies it can be based on just that. It can't, it has to be based on all three.

my whole point is your last paragraph is alot of worrying for nothing because it won't be solely based on its "value". and while yes, they may look at a games "value" they also have to look at #1 and 2 also-see my Spiderman-GTA example.

get it yet???

[Labyrrinth]

but thats exactly my point.

you can't just reference one of them without refrencing the others.



Sure I can.

If there is 1 rule out of 10 that really stick out, people talk about that 1 rule. It's the same thing as in my post, there was 1 item (#3) that stuck out, that was the most incongruous. That's the one I chose to comment on. The comments were direct and to the point. There was nothing implied. Apparently you read it differently. That is a problem with messageboards sometimes.

I'm done arguing with you over this. You read it your way, misunderstood, and I explained.

Have a good day

[reefus88]

Sure I can.

If there is 1 rule out of 10 that really stick out, people talk about that 1 rule. It's the same thing as in my post, there was 1 item (#3) that stuck out, that was the most incongruous. That's the one I chose to comment on. The comments were direct and to the point. There was nothing implied. Apparently you read it differently. That is a problem with messageboards sometimes.

I'm done arguing with you over this. You read it your way, misunderstood, and I explained.

Have a good day

you still don't get it and your analogy makes it quite clear.

you can talk about the rules all you want, but when you go around saying:
Will every game then be open for interpretation as to its “value” to minors
but fail to include the other rules, whether you'd like to admit it or not, you ARE implying it can be baed on just that one rule.

you see this is much different then most rules. most rules work like this:
Be home by 11:00p.m.
No smoking
No drinking

and breaking ANY of them will result in punishment. This works where you have to break all three to be punished, you'd have to show up at 1:00a.m. drunk smoking a cigarette.

so by questioning whether every game will be open to interpretation for it's value and failing to say/realize that it must also meet the other two, you ARE implying it can meet just that one.

I understand admitting when you're wrong can be tough to do sometimes, so I'll accept your "I'm taking my ball and going home" argument.

[Razorwire]

/edit it wasn't nice and now it is gone

[reefus88]

/edit it wasn't nice and now it is gone

what'd ya come and flame me because I disagree with you in the another thread or something???

LOL