Anyone in Oklahoma: I feel sorry for you.

[Fighter Fei]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152609.html


Okla. game bill signed into law
Governor signs HB3004, making games with "inappropriate violence" harmful to minors; such titles will be subject to same restrictions as sexually explicit magazines, videos.
By Brendan Sinclair, GameSpot
Posted Jun 10, 2006 3:38 pm PT

Democratic Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry yesterday signed into law HB3004, which revises the state's definition of what is harmful to minors to include games with "inappropriate violence." Previously, the only content that would qualify something as harmful to minors involved sex or sadomasochistic abuse.

Henry criticized violence in games that he said had grown "to epic proportions" in a statement. He added, "While parents have the ultimate responsibility for what their children do and see, this legislation is another tool to ensure that our young people are not saturated in violence. This gives parents the power to more closely regulate which games their children play."

Under the law, no person, not even a minors' parents or guardians, would be allowed to give or show them an inappropriately violent game. Retailers would also not be able to have such games on display where minors could see them, unless the lower two-thirds of the boxes were hidden behind "blinder racks," of the sort commonly used for sexually explicit magazines.

The law defines "inappropriate violence" as any depiction in a game that, when taken as a whole, has the following characteristics:
"a. the average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the interactive video game or computer software is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors, and
b. the interactive video game or computer software lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:
(1) is glamorized or gratuitous,
(2) is graphic violence used to shock or stimulate,
(3) is graphic violence that is not contextually relevant to the material,
(4) is so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together,
(5) trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence,
(6) does not demonstrate the consequences or effects of realistic violence,
(7) uses brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage,
(8) endorses or glorifies torture or excessive weaponry, or
(9) depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely"

While the definition of inappropriate violence specifies that it must take place in a game, the new definition of "harmful to minors" specifies "any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form [emphasis added], of inappropriate violence." This means that video footage showing the violent gameplay, a review of the game in question, or even a newspaper editorial decrying the violence in the game would be classified as harmful to minors, according to a lawyer GameSpot consulted on the matter.

Several weeks ago, GameSpot interviewed the bill's co-author, Republican Representative Fred Morgan, and asked if that was the bill's original intent. At the time he said he needed to examine the language of the bill before answering, but later on commented that he did not agree with that interpretation.

Neither the state nor national branches of the American Civil Liberties Union returned GameSpot's phone calls regarding the law. The Entertainment Software Association was not available for comment, but is almost certain to file suit in this case, as it has in California, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, and other states where restrictive gaming legislation has been passed.

The law is slated to go into effect November 1.

And that's the kind of thing your state taxes are funding. Feels nice doesn't it :(

[The Heretic Azazel]

Awesome.

Christian tools unite!

[Terracosmo]

I

HATE

PEOPLE

(this said in a monotone and gigantic Juggernaut kind of way, followed up by me grabbing a mace and going berserk)

[BioAlien]

i hope such a crap law never arrive here in Canada...

what is so bad about violance in a GAME!, it's a game damn it, it is made to have fun and do thing we would never do in reality, that all the fault of those son of a bitch retarded moron that do crime in the real world and then accuse the games that made them to it.

what next? pokemon being illegal for having too much violance in it too?!


(also agree with what Terra just said lol)

[Terracosmo]

This is how I feel when I read things like this.

http://valethcosmo.free.fr/WTF/GS11.gif

(Well, progressively anyway.)

[RedX1z]

i think i speak for all of us, when i say "what the fuck?!". they can't blame this on games, violence is everywhere. i just hope it doesn't happen anywhere else, though i'm not a minor and shouldn't really care, but i feel the pain of the little people.

yet, i think most of the blame should go to movies, but not that it really matters now. but restricting that would be a pain in the ass as well.

[Kraco]

Hmm... When I look at the game cases I have lying around, there are those age limit markings already. Just like in movies. Some even have a figure of a fist next to the age limit symbolising the game contains explicit violence (I think that's what it's for). I think these marking are very good and relevant. Again just like in movies.

But treating them life porn magazines is just bizarre and inane. I bet the people designing and signing that law have never actually played games - most likely they have just been under pressure by some looney housewifes (or even spinsters).

[Yukimura]

Oh a perfect topic for a 350th post! This is Grade A bullshit, I've been bitching about things like this for a few years but I never imagined someone would tak it this far...treating violent games like pornography...wraping up the games in paper so 'kids' can't see them. What is this supposed to solve, other than giving kids even less outlets for anger rage and frustration. For some reason America is starting to accept the idea that violence and sexuality aren't normal parts of human nature and they think that if they eliminate as much overt violence as possible all the problems of the world will go away.

Somehow we're forgetting that long before video games, TV, and movies people still raped, they still murdered, and they still did it just because they felt like doing it at the time. We can blame whatever we want, but if you take a perfectly good person, and put them under enough pressure, they'll react with violence. They don't need to have seen it on a video game either, it's just in us. Maybe someday this country will accept that and try educate kids well. Instead of ignoring them and trying to make a world where kids can just figure everything in life out on their own in perfect safety, with no supervision needed from adults. This world can't be lived in by adults, because the adult world isn't safe, and tossing kids into it defenseless is as good as societal suicide.

That's where I think this country is headed, toward the dream that everyone will be exactly the same, never do anything but work and consume and there will be no need to waste time or attention on little things like children because the work and consume world will be so safe and peaceful that the kids can just train themselves

:::::NEWSFLASH::::::
This isn't the fucking garden of Eden! Innocence was lost a long time ago, and no amount of repression or denial can ever bring it back.

[Ryllharu]

I'm pretty sick of video games being blamed for violence and other bad behavior in children or teens. I'm really happy to see that the parents of every school-shooting asshole punk shithead are so quick to blame what their dumbass kid did on the next fps or GTA. For what? To avoid blame for their child's behavior! Do they not understand that they are responsible for their offspring's well being and raising? It's never the fault of video games. Its either a mental problem, a behavior problem, or some other emotional disturbance the kid has! Yet, we've got our old buddy Jack Thompson so quick to find out exactly what the dumbasses were playing last so he can continue his rediculous crusade against video games. Violence in children and teens is the lowest now it has ever been, and the decline started around the advent of video games (the Atari I believe). This is by no means definitive proof that they reduce violence, but that fact and correspondence in years cannot be overlooked.

Okay, enough rant. This law really seems like a huge overreaction to what really has to be done. The ESRB ratings are on there for a reason. What really needs to be done is better parenting and actually making an attempt to enforce them. Kids can't get into an R rated movie by themselves, so it is the responsibility of the parents to watch that no ill behaviors arise if they take their 8 year old to an R rated movie. If the kid starts dropping F-bombs everywhere, you know who's fault it is? Not the movie makers, the parents. I don't mean require ID to buy an M rated game, I mean the parents are the ones who have to have a better handle on what they are buying. That's what the ESRB ratings are FOR. Was I allowed to play Mortal Kombat when I was 8? Nope. My parents wouldn't let me. I can blow up heads in SiN:Episodes all I want now, but I wasn't allowed to rip Raiden's spine out of his chest when I was eight. That's called parenting.

There's no need for a law to restrict violent games like porn. Do the boxes usually display intense violence on the cover? Look at and random copy of any GTA game you own. Is there an overabundance of bloody violence on the cover? Vice City, the most violent thing on the package is someone holding a gun or katana. What does a censorship cover make a child or teen think when they see it? "Wow, I wonder what's in that?" Its the same as it has always been for the porn section of the video store, or any 18 ONLY store (smoke shops included). The mystery incites their curiosity. Because its hidden, the kids are obviously going to want to know what its all about and why it was hidden behind paper wrappers. I know what the law states, but we'll still see parents and older brothers/sisters buying the game for the kids by themselves and passing it off to them in the house. What are the cops going to do, raid someone's house for showing inappropriate games to their little brother/sister?

I can see it now. "News at 11: That's right Cindy, this was the largest game bust EVER. This is a community literally terrified by violence and child mistreatment. The police confiscated nearly 20 inappropriate video games from this Tulsa home Tuesday afternoon after school. The victim, age nine, was being shown a game rated "T" for bloodless violence when the police raided this suburban home. They also found over 15 titles that were rated "M." The police have not yet identified the victim, but the assailant was a 19 year old male that claimed to be her brother. A local politician had this to say: 'I hope they put sick **** like this man in prison. What they do to children is absolutely horrible.' A dark day for this suburb, paralyzed by violence. Back to you Cindy."

[Deadfire]

I’ve never been one to harp on the issue of videogame violence, a topic that has been beaten to death. After observing the recent media witch-hunt over the last few years it just makes me shake my head

A couple months ago, there was a headline story in the newspaper about Grand Theft Auto and how it encourages gun violence against the police. The story was littered with statistics that “proved” this argument. Gun violence against cops is on the rise, as are sales of mature and/or violent videogames. Logically, you can deduce that games therefore cause violence. Right?

With that Recently I picked up my paper to read that this time, there was a story that accused some games, including SOCOM, of promoting and glamorizing terrorist activities; this argument has forced the removal of certain locales from some games to prevent legal action. The story included a sidebar stating that the family of a murder victim had filed a $250 million lawsuit against Rockstar because two kids cited GTA as the reason they randomly shot a man. Of course, despite millions of copies of the game being sold, one random act proves that GTA kills people.

I might go insane with rage at this shit they feed us, and it's not in the paper either. One of the rare times I do watch T.V was to look at the weather for the day, I"m not sure how long ago it was but I watched as a journalist reporting cluelessly on the violence in "Manhunt" (which is a really bad game), shaking his head in disappointment that such a horrific thing could ever be conceived of and released to “unwitting consumers and children.” Not once did he mention the game’s ESRB rating; instead, he used the airtime to reflect on Columbine before switching gears to promote Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, (Yes this was awhile ago) which was illustrated by a series of gory shots before being interrupted to go live to Haiti to show a dead man in the street. All this was at 7 a.m., when plenty of kids are cartoon surfing. But if you watch/read/listen to the news, you might believe they are playing videogames and thinking of ways to kill you.

This is simply stupid..

[BioAlien]

The story included a sidebar stating that the family of a murder victim had filed a $250 million lawsuit against Rockstar because two kids cited GTA as the reason they randomly shot a man. Of course, despite millions of copies of the game being sold, one random act proves that GTA kills people.

i bet those 2 little bastard were paid by jack thompson to say that.

Video Games don't kill people ! People kill people and then blame all that on video games.

i bet you 5$ that in less than 10 year, some fucking retarded kid will blame Pokemon for having killed many animal by hiting them with rocks to death (Park Safari in pokemon, you get to throw rocks/bait/pokeball at wild pokemon)
and then pokemon will become for 18+ ONLY

and if you realy want "free" Violance, go play the Postal games!
www.gopostal.com

[samsonlonghair]

I think that this recent article (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008463) is very relevant to this discussion.


"Yet the critics of video games are not only conjuring up a threat where none exists; they're ignoring the positive moral lessons and cognitive benefits that many of today's sophisticated games offer."

[Kraco]

Although Ryllharu's post was far too long, I totally agree with him. All this fuss is nothing but stupid people trying to blame somebody else for their own mistakes. Games are an ideal target, since there still are a great deal of old people in positions of power who have little personal experience of them, and thus they can be made to believe any kind of lies and hollow statistics.

[ChaosK]

Oklahoma....that better not spread over here to NY. Keep it in Oklahoma.

[Lefty]

I doubt this shit will spread to far and if does tough shit foir kids under 18. Then, god forbid parents have to take resposiblty of chooseing to buy the game or not based on weather they think their child is old enough. In a way this law mkes paretns once again responsible for the kids. It's long over due.

[Cloud 9]

Sounds like the "anti-gaming" movement is starting to hit harder now. Hopefully that just stays in Oklahoma, otherwise more people all over will be using games as an excuse for killing people and get off easier than normal on murder / assault charges.

[dragonrage]

that is some messed up shit, talk about bring back memories of the 1980 well i was just a toddler at the time. But that is some really messed up stuff, see what happens when self righteous people run things, that fun is sucked outa life.

[Raven]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13191962/

[Lefty]

I knew that was goiong to happen, but so quick. It is true lawyers travel at the speed darkness.

[mage]

it makes me want to flee to another country when i think about who makes the laws in the usa.

[Genma]

I blame video games for the problems with today's society. I regret ever picking up Super Mario for Nintendo when I was six.

It has turned me into a ruthless, sociapathic lunatic, because it portrays death and killing as something fun and exciting.

If you don't see the sarcasm here... well, you're dumb :[

[Deadfire]

I blame video games for the problems with today's society. I regret ever picking up Super Mario for Nintendo when I was six.

It has turned me into a ruthless, sociapathic lunatic, because it portrays death and killing as something fun and exciting.

If you don't see the sarcasm here... well, you're dumb :[

You think thats bad, Think of what Pong and Pac-man did to me.....

[Paulyboy]

You think thats bad, Think of what Pong and Pac-man did to me.....


LMFAO nice one, but jeeze the people who blame video games because their children are becoming violent. Well think about it, its the F****** surrounding and environment that changes them. DAMNIT!!!!!!!!! I blame the KKK for their christianity

*LINK REMOVED* - MOD

I repeat not being racist!!! they actually talk about christianity lol.

[masamuneehs]

*sighs*...

at least i don't live in Oklahoma. And besides, kids will skate around this thing, just like they do to sneak into R rated movies and to buy booze. The conservatives can try to put off kids seeing material like this for as long as they want to, but if it's there it will be bought, played, viewed, whatever.

I just can't believe they're going to use people's tax dollars on this...

[BioAlien]

well, 1 thing is for sure, more young people from Oklahoma will start downloading they games, and after that they tell us to stop pirating games... why don't they start by not doing stupid laws like this one

[RedX1z]

i can see it now, instead of giving those game characters swords or guns, it'll be replaced with carrots and sling shots. yeah, the gaming world is going to start looking better and better.

[darkmetal505]

haha, thats funny, I live in OK. Stupid Brad Henry.

[masamuneehs]

anybody have any further follow-up news on this subject?

or is Oklahoma just as slow at addressing/passing these laws as everywhere else in the union?

[darkmetal505]

anybody have any further follow-up news on this subject?

or is Oklahoma just as slow at addressing/passing these laws as everywhere else in the union?


I haven't heard any hype about it at all here. Nothing on the news either. I probably wouldn't have even known if Fighter_Fei hadn't posted the news.

[Fighter Fei]

I haven't heard anything else about it myself. But on an unrelated note, I had a little faith in our justice system renewed today when they overturned the proposition to ban flag-burning.

[Yukimura]

Lol, by one vote too, and anyway that was the legislative system, the justice system said that it was unconstitutional to take away that right...so they tried to change the constitution. Those Checks and Balances sure are working well...constitutional amendments are supposed to be things that fundamentally alter out society for the better by establishing or widening the parameters of our republic.

I would have been outraged to see either a ban on gay marriage or an amendment that said it was okay to criminalize burning the flag next to the amendment that banned slavery or gave women the right to vote. The only other amendment that took something away from the people was prohibition, and we all know how that worked out. (well if you don't, it was repealed...the only amendment to ever be repealed) anyway here's a site with several other failed amendments (http://www.usconstitution.net/constamprop.html) some are quite interesting.

[Kraco]

But on an unrelated note, I had a little faith in our justice system renewed today when they overturned the proposition to ban flag-burning.

Hmm... Reading that produced a spark of interest in me, and I did a little research, and found out that in Finland you can in theory be fined for that (not burning the US flag but ours). There's a law that says: "anyone damaging the flag, treating it disrespectfully, removing it from its proper place without permission or selling Finnish flags with incorrect colours or dimensions, can be punished with a fine."

Well, on the other hand it hardly matters because there really aren't people with any reason to do it... It's a different thing than with the flag of the only superpower.

[complich8]

Support for a flag-burning amendment is quite a telling barometer on the public's evaluation of free speech versus its sense of patriotism.

Anyone who's fought for the country (and there's a lot of people who have, the US has been in a lot of conflicts since world war 2) would eagerly stand up and punch you in the face for desecrating the symbol of the nation they've put their life on the line for. But exactly the same people would sit right back down, knowing that your ability to so flagrantly object to the nation's behavior and projected values is precisely what they fought to protect.

I, too, am proud that our legislature has once again done the right thing, by continuing to protect the values that make our nation great -- even if it was by a frighteningly slim margin.

However, I'm very worried that the balance has tipped so far. We're on a cusp, where people are placing less value in their more philosophical liberties and more on luxuries. After all, If you've got an SUV parked in the driveway and four feet of high-def plasma hanging on your wall, you don't want to lay your life on the line for stupid useless little things like freedom of speech, or the fostering of democracy. You want to watch TV, and enjoy your comfortable ride to work, and feel good about living the very life that God wants you to lead and you have more of the same waiting for you in the afterlife, only with better programming and lower gas prices.

*points to sig, as a final thought*

[darkmetal505]

Wait, new development in this story. I was watching the news last night, and apparently two companies are sueing the state. They called it violating the Constitution. I can't find an article, but I'm sure its up somewhere.