Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets Sexually-Explicit Content

Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets Sexually-Explicit Content

June 11, 2009

By a 35-0 vote yesteday, the Louisiana Senate passed SB 152, a bill which would make a pattern of distributing sexually explicit material to children a deceptive trade practice under state law.

GamePolitics readers may recall that in its original form, SB 152 was drafted by disbarred Miami attorney Jack Thompson as a back-door means of enforcing ESRB content ratings. The original SB 152 mirrored Thompson's Utah bill, which was vetoed by Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) in March. However, bill sponsor Sen. A.G. Crowe (R, at left) subsequently gutted Thompson's focus on age ratings from the bill, amending it instead to its new focus on the distribution of sexually explicit material to minors. It should be noted that distributing such material to minors is already an offense under Louisiana's criminal statutes.

Unlike the Utah bill, SB 152 doesn't make reference to video games, advertising, age ratings or any specific product, for that matter. However, Sen. Crowe did mention video games as an example during yesterday's session:

This body has over the years passed numerous laws to protect our children... And with the growth of...  the market of materials that would be considered by most of us here objectionable as it relates to obscenity such as that is found... in video games either rented or purchased, could fall again into the hands of some of our children. So it is a step in the direction of moving, passing legislation that would allow for, again, protecting our children from this type of thing...

Oddly enough, SB 152 specifically excludes the Internet from its provisions. These days the online world would seem the most likely source for a child to stumble upon sexually explicit material. 

The nature of sexually-explicit conduct defined in the bill would seem to exclude any ESRB-rated video game published to date. It seems clear that a game meeting the standard defined in the bill would have already been rated Adults Only (AO) by the ESRB. Curiously, the bill does not relate its provision for sexually-explicit conduct to the legal definition of obscenity. Should the bill eventually be signed into law, this could prove to be a fatal flaw from a constitutional sense.

Now that it has been passed by the Senate, the next stop for SB 152 is the Louisiana House of Representatives.

GamePolitics readers can watch yesterday's debate on SB 152 by clicking here. Scroll down to "Chamber" for June 10th. The SB 152 segment begins at 4:01:39.

UPDATE: A knowledgeable video game industry source criticized SB 152 in comments to GamePolitics:

The bill as passed by the Senate is clearly unconstitutional. It would penalize the sale of sexually oriented material to minors, but does not require that the material be legally obscene for minors, referred to in Louisiana as 'harmful to minors,' or 'obscene,' as U.S. Supreme Court precedents mandate. This was the same flaw that doomed the Illinois 'sexually explicit video games' law.
 
While it might seem that mainstream retailers have little to fear from the amended bill, as they don't carry pornography, the fact that a single depiction in an otherwise unobjectionable video game, DVD, or other material could open a retailer to liability is of grave concern.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

It almost certainly is going to prove a fatal flaw, state laws still have to comport with the Federal Constitution, there's that annoying little doctrine called "incorporation." First Amendment applies to the states.

 

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

Feh. What's sexy or sexually-explicit? A double-entredre? Tube tops? Boob bouncing, grinding pixelation? How big is the potential gap between what's stated and what people think they see?

 

 

If there are no widely-avaliable games that fall into the already-defined standards of 'obscenity', why bother? Unless they plan on changing the standards afterwards.

 

I dunno. The whole thing sounds more alarmist than useful.

 

 

---- hc svnt dracones

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

I'll bet a dollar against a donut that Crowe has absolutely no idea that given the definition in his legislation, 99.999% of all videogames will fall beyond the law's scope. That's what he gets for listening to Jack "Bunny Porn" Thompson.

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

... So... no more Soul Calibur? No more Ivy?

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

mikedo2007

If that is true, then that means:

no more Dead or Alive: Noooooooo!! My precious Kasumi, Ayane, Hitomi, and all the other girls.

no more Street Fighter series sexy outfit DLC: I want it to satisfy my fetishes.

 

oh boy, this bill will fail.  Yep this bill and Jack Thompson will fail once again.  Jack is a coward, he couldn't face the Utah's legislator and threaten them with conspiracy.

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

No more Stripes starring Bill Murray either.  Man, I watched that with my wife last night, and I was taken aback by how much nudity there was.  I didn't remember there being quite that much.  Fantastic movie though.

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

 

There's a unrated version of that movie.  Was that the one you watch or the R-rated version??

 

mikedo2007

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

Ugh, stupid monkies. Keep hurling bricks at a wall hoping one sticks.

Stupid Bill 152 will die like all the rest and just waste more moeny i na state that really needs it.

Seriously, are they just praying that it gets to where the industry takes mercy and doesn't sue?

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

so let me get this straight

in practice the law punishes people for selling sexually explicite material to children, but then doesn't proporly define what sexually explicite means.

and in theory, all that the law does is tack a civil charge on top of the criminal charges that would normally be served for selling sexually explicite material to children

so the law is a double fail?

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

 So it passed but it really had nothing to do with Thompson's original bill. Watch him tote this as a triumph anyway. 

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

Silly Senator.....


Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

This bill accomplishes nothing that isn't already stated by other laws, and is of course restricting free speech by punishing sale of non-obscene content to minors.

Good work on that bill boys.

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

Unless it follows the obscene for minors standard set out in Ginsberg/Miller, This bill is fatally flawed and unconstitutional.

 "No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

Cue the law being unconstitutional AGAIN.

When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

I want to believe that the reason the internet is exempt from this bill because they're smart enough to know that trying to ban stuff on the internet is near impossible...

I WANT to...

---You are likely to be eaten by a Grue.

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

I hate to dash your hopes against the rocks, but it more likely has to do with the impossibility of age-identifying minors making credit card purchasers on the Internet. As the FTC has found, the mere fact that someone has a credit card with which to make the purchase most likely means either: (a) they are adult or (b) they make the purchase with consent of an adult.  

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

So essentially they passed a toothless bill?  And one that's patently unconstitutional at that?  And one that doesn't even remotely resemble what Jack initially drafted?  Wow.  Yeah, way to go.  It's a stunning victory to be sure.

Let's face it, Jack's nothing now.  On some level even he must realize this.  His lack of a message to Dennis or anyone else is telling.  His last hurrah was in Utah.  That the law he drafted was essentially gutted here just to pass muster in the LA senate doesn't bode well for any future endeavors.  His crusade's over, he's lost and no one of any consequence will listen to him anymore as he's been disbarred and he's alienated all his allies.  Sure, he can still resort to his usual puffery and empty threats, but it's all he's got now.

The only thing that could possibly be of any concern is that thanks to a couple of high-profile shooting incidents perpetrated by ultra right-wing whackjobs, that the possibilty of JT going on a shooting rampage of his own is becoming that much more likely.

Re: Passed By Louisiana Senate, SB 152 Targets ...

Passed a toothless bill, and therefore not going to affect the Videogame Industry because stores don't allow AO rated games.

All this will do is just banning the sale of Hentai games in that state, but that is all.

Plus people can get around it via the internet because it is not sold within the state at all, online sale is completely different compared to commercial sale.

At least that is how I understand it.

Oh and first admendment issues aside, this was a complete waste of tax payers money,

People can believe all the want if the politicians tell them, but they will be having egg on their faces when the people of that state realize that the bill was needless.

GamePolitics ShoutBox

Posted 02/09/10 at 01:18pm
Valdearg: I do agree that it shouldn't be legal. That's for sure.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:14pm
Valdearg: @AE: Doubtful. Again, it's perfectly legal.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Login or register to post shouts