Video game legislation which failed to pass the Utah legislature in 2006 appears on its way to a second chance in 2007.
As reported last year by GamePolitics, HB257, sponsored by former Rep. David Hogue (R) passed Utah's House overwhelmingly, but was never voted on by the Senate. Controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson had a hand in drafting the bill.
Hogue, who made a failed bid for election as a state senator, is now out of politics. His bill, however, lives on after being revived by Rep. Scott Wyatt (R, seen at left).
Now known as HB50, the bill was turned over yesterday to the Chief Clerk of the Utah House by general counsel. The measure seeks to define video game violence as "harmful to minors." Language in the bill defines "inappropriate violence" in video games as that which:
- appeals to the morbid interest of minors in violence
- is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors; and
- does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
All in all, the Utah language is quite similar to that which GamePolitics reported on in yesterday's exclusive story on Massachusetts' upcoming bill.
The language is also quite similar to Louisiana's failed 2006 video game law, which was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal District Court judge in November. The following is from Louisiana's bill, also written by Jack Thompson:
- 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.
- The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.
- The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
Comments
What he should have put was 'in the opinion of Jack Thompson', and believe me, that falls a fair bit short even of 'average'.
So I think they should stop trying, after all, these guys don't seem like thinking adults at all, you know what they seem like? They seem like kindergardeners in a man's body.
How much younger? Daniel says he's 20.
Incidentally, your post to Daniel looks a lot like what I used to write to him until just recently.
American Heritage Dictionary
ex·tor·tion (?k-stôr'sh?n) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted.
NOw for the webster legal definition.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: ex·tor·tion
Pronunciation: ik-'stor-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act or practice of extorting esp. money or other property; specifically : the act or practice of extorting by a public official acting under color of office
2 : the crime of extorting —ex·tor·tion·ate /-sh&-n&t/ adjective —ex·tor·tion·er noun —ex·tor·tion·ist /-sh&-nist/ noun
Nope. No extortion there, not by the layman's definition. Not by the (simple) law definition. In fact, I don't even think there was blackmail there.
The only crime that specific protest contained was the exploitation of children by adults with an agenda who needed more protesters. Some of the people who were there really had no idea why they were there. Some of them had no idea what bully was really about. I'm not even sure they were protesting at the right place.
Ignorance is not a crime.
You know what though. He gives a fuck what jack Thompson calls you. Guess what. He used to call us pixelantes. He stopped because many people to took it up as a mark of pride. He is an insignificant lawyer, who will fade into memory without having any long lasting impact on the earth with the exception of some tee shirts that say I hate jack Thompson.
"Dumba–es and me with a baseball bat?"
You see, that's the sort of retort that makes politicians THINK that we are all violence-crazed...
@Daniel
Daniel in essence most of us agree with you, Jack Thompson is a moron, violent video games are not harmful for minors (well at least older minors and teenagers), and anti-gaming legislation sucks but the way you act seems fanatical and over the top, sort of like a 180 of Jack Thompson. You got to calm yourself down a little and read through other people posts more throughly and think it through before you post a response. I hope you understand.
Not sure which law your refering too exactly, but if the ESA thought it was a good idea, then 10 to 1 says that it was a law against explicit sex, not violence. In that case, the law is really just reflecting the same pronograpghy laws that exists for other forms of media and appling it to games. Bascially, its kinda of a law against porn video games (which the game industry doesn't make anyway...)... This law is meant for violence not sex, thus making this one unconstituional and the maryland law consitiutional.
I believe you are correct. Despite whether or not the AG approves of a law, it's his job to do everything he can to defend it should it be challanged in court. However, he can still try to discourage the law getting passed in the first place. Unless i'm mixing up legislations and states, the AG was against the utah law last time and his doubt in the bill passing may have helped greatly in making the politicans think twice about the law before approving it, leading to the law never getting passed... though i could be a bit mistaken
This was bothering me so I looked it up. It isn't a new law to begin with. It was an amendment to maryland criminal obscenity law. If you don't look at it carefully, it looks like carte blanche to just say: this is obscene, let's throw somebody in jail. I find the obscenity law to be very vague, but the current precedent is genitals, breasts, and sexual acts. It actually doesn't prevent nudity in medical documentaries or works of art that are not intended as porn, like in Schindler's List or the statue of David (those are examples, not equals). Ironically, a game like Trauma center could have nudity if it was educational and not something "they could get away with." I personally consider Trauma center non-educational, because we don't have "heal-all" spray, for example. The obscenity law should be a little more specific, but when you add VIDEO GAME to the list of things that could have obscene covers or content, it would have to be compared with porn.
So, yes, I agree that any law that equates violence as porn by lifting porn legalese off of most state's books, is wrong. It's almost as if they "copied" the wrong thing. Also, violence in a game is not real and doesn't make people commit it, no matter how influential. These are the things worth fighting.
I will keep an eye open for "creative interpretation" of the obscenity law on video games, though.
Regardless of whether it's defensible in his legal opinion?
I really couldn't care less what your sexual orientation is, but for the record my comment was more about the fact that it's annoying to me the way you kiss Jotun's ass than about you being "queer" or not, because I don't have a problem with "queers".
Basically Daniel, I'm through playing nice with you. I've had it. Go back to my earlier responses to your posts, even as recent as a few days ago; you'll see that I've been respectful and patient. I've tried to get you to see, in a constructive way, how ineffectual and tiresome your constant repetition and warped interpretations are. I've tried to get you to understand how many of the things you say and how you say them paint the rest of us in a negative light. But like the efforts of so many others on this site, it all just seems to bounce off you because a day or two later, you're back to your old ways.
If you thought my remark was tasteless, it was nothing compared to your generalization of gays as anti-gamers and "pussies". I know you retracted it, but it further proves my point of how you post before you think. If you thought my remark was uncalled for, I could say the same thing about 95% of what you repeat to us over and over and over again day after day after day.
If I thought you were harmless, I would leave you alone to blah blah to your heart's content. Unfortunately, I believe that the things you write here are the same as the things you are sending to judges, politicians, reporters, etc, and I believe your lack of subtlety and finesse loses us credibility with the very people we're trying to win over. I'll say it again: no one out there will take you seriously if you can't even get us to.
Honestly, right now I don't see you as an ally, I see you as an enemy. Maybe not of the caliber of a Jack Thompson, but I definitely believe you do more harm than good, and I'd bet the farm I'm not the only one who feels that way. Of course, everything I said will probably just fly straight over your head like everything else, with your response ending with how much you hate Jack Thompson while simultaneously thanking me for some compliment that I never paid you. Whatever.
Honestly, these politicians are so transparent, its just because they are too scared to go after an industry that could hurt them like the gun industry, alcohol industry, or tobacco industry. Instead, they choose to put pressure on what could easily be considered the weakest societal detriment, and they put all the pressure they can on it because the game industry is constantly villified by the media. Politicians need to learn how to actually focus on the REAL problems in our society such as crime, lack of education, drugs, or the wide availability of guns. How much money have they wasted on these worthless, unconstitutional bills that could have gone to better causes such as teachers' salaries or better equipment/funding for the police? Jack Thompson needs to learn how to grow up and stop wasting taxpayers money and time.
Or better yet, we should all vote, attend neighborhood caucus meetings, attend bill hearings, even run for office, and make a difference instead of just complaining that SOMEONE should do something.
A morbid interest in violence? What does that even mean? Is that the same thing as watching WWE or Football or Hockey? Is it the same as playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians with toy guns? Should we be getting rid of the plastic lightsabers and inflatable punching bags that are sold at Toys R Us? What is so morbid about violence? It's not like a 7 year old comes home after school and tells his mom, "Mother, I've decided that I want to be an torturer and executioner when I grow up. I want to peel the skin off of innocent civilians and break every bone in their body before dipping them in acid until they die." Now THAT is a morbid interest in violence.
If only. Either that, or Utah voters need to get off their rockers and get someone with actual Intelligence in office, 'cause the boneheads there right now obviously can't fathom common logic.
I've found if you just lay across the table, you win every time.
Now if we could only find a big fatass to sit on Jack till he starts coughing up tickets.....
While it's a good idea "in principle" (although it can also be argued that it sets dangerous precedents in terms of delegating freedom to the government), the US Constitution is pretty clear that it's not allowed, both in terms of freedom of speech, and equality before the law (even when it comes to minors). In countries where "Freedom of Speech" is a little more flexible (like say, Canada), it's perfectly legal (up here, minors have fewer rights than their US counterparts).