Oklahoma guv signs violent games bill into law
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jun 12th 2006 at 9:27AM }
GamePolitics broke the news over the weekend that Oklahoma governor Brad Henry (D) threw his John Hancock on HB3004, a little piece of legislation by Rep. Fred Morgan (R) that, by classifying them as "harmful to minors," would restrict the sale or rental of violent videogames to minors effective November 1st. Now, I understand that Oklahoma is sort of flat, but that's one slippery slope they've gotten themselves on. In a short statement, the governor wrote, "The violence in videogames has grown to epic proportions. Some video games glorify violence to a degree seldom seen in even the bloodiest movies. 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."
But that's not even the best part! The Oklahoma Senate took the opportunity to tack on some "unrelated language ... regarding signage around strip clubs and porn shops." Cause they're all the same thing right? How long before some pol tries to pass laws regarding gaming retailers? GTA in brown wrap? "I'll take, uh, that one ... on the top shelf. No, the tooop shelf. Yeah, with the hookers in it."
While no lawsuit has been filed by the ESA, an "industry source" told GP, "ESA and EMA have vigorously responded to each of these laws that has been enacted, and they have been successful in every case. No one should expect a different course of action or result in this instance." Let's review:
St. LouisunconstitutionalIndianapolisunconstitutionalWashington StateunconstitutionalIllinoisunconstitutionalMichiganunconstitutional- Maryland (doesn't really count, so we'll let you have it)
- California (currently under review by Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte)
- Minnesota (lawsuit has been filed following passage of the law)
- Oklahoma (lawsuit anticipated)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JodyAnthony @ Jun 12th 2006 9:41AM
i thought mature games were already supposed to be restricted from being sold to those under 17?
jeremiads @ Jun 12th 2006 9:44AM
Don't forget about the Lousiana bill.
DarrenJ @ Jun 12th 2006 9:44AM
1.
There's no legal requirement for that, just a rating system that suggests it. I believe that's the same as movie theaters (a.k.a. R-rating isn't a legal requirement, just an industry rule).
32_Footsteps @ Jun 12th 2006 9:45AM
Corporate policy is the only thing keeping video games out of the hands of minors. Any retailer that doesn't have a policy against selling M or AO games to minors won't face any criminal charges (civil ones, that's another story).
Just like to note, this is obviously a very bi-partisan move on the behalf of Oklahoma - note how the bill was written by a Republican, passed through a heavily Republican legislature, and was signed by a Democrat. Let's see if we can avoid lionizing a major American political party when they obviously both don't give a damn about gamers.
C. Grant @ Jun 12th 2006 9:58AM
My sentiments exactly 32_Footsteps. =)
Yehuda Berlinger @ Jun 12th 2006 10:06AM
OK, hystrionics aside, I don't see how a law preventing the sale of adult content to minors should be considered a bad thing, or any worse of a thing then restricting any other adult content to minors.
IF GTA is adult content. Which everyone seems to agree with, I think. Or do we disagree on that? I thought the argument was that adult content in video games is no worse than adult content in movies, not that adult content in video games is ok for minors but adult content in movies isn't.
And, sorry, I don't see how this is harmful to gamers. Banning their production would be egregious and harmful to gamers. Restricting their sale to minors isn't.
Yehuda
avery @ Jun 12th 2006 10:07AM
Couldn't kids in those states get their hands on a credit card and order M games online?
Andrew @ Jun 12th 2006 10:11AM
I don't see this necessarily as a bad thing as I am 23. This means there's less chance of having to deal with screaming 11 year old punks while playing Halo.
MTigerV @ Jun 12th 2006 10:23AM
You forgot Louisiana in your list. Bill passed about to be signed by gov.
frostyelf @ Jun 12th 2006 10:51AM
I agree with Yahuda. WHy do people get so angry when laws are signed preventing minors from buying M or AO video games. I think this would be good for video games. People couldn't say that violent games are ruining kids, because by law they shouldn't even have them. If kids really want these games and their parents think it is okay their parents could by video games for them.
dvddesign @ Jun 12th 2006 11:06AM
I had asked my mother at one point what made her decide to allow me to participate in video games. She said she knew I was a pretty stable kid, who knew right from wrong. She said I could differentiate right from wrong, and that had she seen any violent tendencies from me in playing games, I wouldn't be allowed to play anymore.
Today, I can still sit down, enjoy playing some GTA, and never want to touch a gun in real life. I've seen some of the most disturbing crap in the world (Ask me about Salo!) in movies and TV, but I have never wanted to kill someone, harm someone, or purposely destroy anything of value as a result of what I've seen and experienced in my life.
So, where's the correlation in media influencing minds? I agree that there's kids out there who do need to be watched, but they're already messed up to begin with. We'd have a million serial killers on our hands if we all followed through with what GTA shows us.
STD rates would rise due to consensual sex with hookers.
Carjackings would rise.
There's no correlation that this plays out enmasse.
It's totally isolated, and there are ALWAYS other contributing factors. And lately, the news is more disturbing, violent, and influential than any game I've ever played.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 12th 2006 11:23AM
Well, you have to consider, first off, that video gamers are inherently libertarian about their passion. In general, we don't want anyone governmental telling anyone else what should or should not be in video games.
Plus, there's the fact that the consequence of such laws will be that manufacturers will self-censor in order to prevent running afoul of the law. When a content producer self-censors to make something accessible to a wider audience, they risk losing something in the game.
Sex in video gaming is the perfect example. Despite how ridiculous certain characters are, video gaming is fraught with an astounding number of virgins. Beyond anyone from a GTA game, Cloud & Tifa, and Golgo 13 (but man, between those two games, he got enough tail to make up for the entire 8-bit and 16-bit eras), nobody is getting laid.
Hot Coffee demonstrated this admirably. Commit grand larceny and murder a whole bunch of people? No problem. Try to bring a woman to orgasm? It's the death of the Republic! Consequently, the companies will self-censor any sexuality (most of which would be two consenting adults of opposite genders) out of fear that they'll get an AO.
Which, of course, is silly. I mean, let's compare games to the first Terminator movie. Your average Mature game isn't containing anything that wasn't in Ah-nuld's breakout role - except I got to see Linda Hamilton's breasts in the movie. You try to throw in the scene where John Connor is conceived into a game version, and hello, AO. Despite, of course, the movie getting an R.
herman_munsters_stunt_double @ Jun 12th 2006 11:47AM
I agree that games with 'adult content' should mean that minors should be prevented from getting their hands on them, but the one thing that riles me is the thought of that arsebrain Jack Thompson sitting there rubbing his hands with smug satisfaction.
Besides, it's still not going to prevent little Timmy's gran going into a gamestore and buying him the latest murderpornfest because it's what he asked her to get him for his 13th birthday.
Yehuda Berlinger @ Jun 12th 2006 11:53AM
Both dvddesign and 32_Footsteps compare video games to movies and tv.
There are governmental restrictions on what a minor may access personally for movies and tv. These materials are made available only under the guidance or approval of a parent. The same laws should apply to video games.
Now, if you are arguing that these laws shouldn't apply to movies and tv, then we have a different discussion. It seems to me that that is what you're suggesting.
But if you are suggesting that the current laws are ok for movies and tv, but should not be applied to video games, then I don't follow your logic.
I don't understand the argument that "these kids have seen this in movies and tv". If they have, they weren't supposed to - the movies were rated R and the tv shows were either on pay-per-view or broadcast in the evenings with parental warnings.
If you think that kids should see all of them, that's your right as a parent. If you think they shouldn't that's your right as parent. If you think that goverment should not disallow children from making their own decisions, that's your right to lobby as a taxpayer.
But it seems crystal clear to me that if there is a law that prohibits minors from deciding to watch graphic violence or sex, then all the more so there should be a law that prohibits minors from deciding to both watch and virtually participate in graphic violence or sex.
Yehuda
P.S. And the line "there were other contributing factors" is not an argument. One less contributing factor is always better.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 12th 2006 12:06PM
Yehuda, you're in error. There are no laws that restrict access to movies beyond very general "obscenity" laws that are very difficult to enforce. The only reason why there are laws restricting the content of broadcast (note: not cable) television is because the airwaves are considered public property and thus the networks have to pay consequences of placing potentially obscene material on public property. Movies do not suffer from this because everything about the movie-watching experience (either in the theater or at home) is private property and thus protected from most regulations.
Now, you might not be in America, which would explain the disconnect. But in the United States, movies and video games are awfully alike in the fact that since the entire experience utilizes private property, there are precious few laws (and even then, only very general ones) that could pass Constitutional muster.
In other words, laws regarding movies and youth access to them don't exist. So your argument is entirely moot.
Gonzo @ Jun 12th 2006 12:08PM
Given that violence amongst American youth has been in a sharp decline over the past 8 years, is this really necessary? Most educated people realize that these games do more to sublimate violent tendencies rather than instigate them. Idiot politicians and whiny censorship groups like the PTC are the ones that make me want to go out and kill.
One thing that this does show is that it's about time the video game companies start getting some lobbyists in there. I think they've proven that no matter how many times a judge says that putting the clamps on games is wrong, the politicians (on the right and the left)are going to keep trying to pass these laws until the companies start throwing obscene amounts of money at them like every other successful American industry.
inteal @ Jun 12th 2006 12:19PM
Since some people want limits set for kids, and some don't, it's reasonable to assume we can't have it strictly one way or the other. A balance that can be agreed with by all would satisfy, at least, both parties on this issue.
The limits on videogames for kids need to exist, because many parents have undertaken the descision to have hold of their kids' will of choice. When done healthfuly, this role provides new people in the world, some who have little frame of reference with which to experience this world's wide range of possibility, a "standard" to build upon and someday weild.
But saying we need a resolution to the issue we can all agree on is not to say that legislation is the place to begin - especialy when solid social definitions for sexual content and violence haven't even been defined.
At least some level of intent has been revealed. And the action in attempt to link sex in games to pr0no shops' overt promo graphics is not only overtly subversive, it's humourous (but still pretty lame.)
JoeLake @ Jun 12th 2006 12:54PM
I wonder if anyone ever considered that such bills might increase teh rate of software piracy.
For instance, take the following scenario.
Some under the age kid wants GTA 5(or whatever is next)
The retailer says, um, no, your too young
Under age kid goes home, finds that someone has uploaded an iso of the game to a website
Under age kid downloads iso and either plays in on his PC or mods his console so that the iso will work on it
Under age kid decides, you know that was easy and it was a hell of a lot cheaper. I might as well do that for all games
Rinse and repeat for all underage gamers
zach @ Jun 12th 2006 12:59PM
When I was growing up I didn't play violent video games as a young child. Why? Because my parents said 'no'. And because I respect my parents (notice the plural in the word), I did as they said. After a short while they let me play whatever I wanted and watch whatever movies I wanted (short of porn). They took part in my life, played the games I played, watched the movies I watched. And answered all of my questions with complete honesty. They didn't try to protect me by sheltering me from LIFE. They protected me by educating me about the things I saw and encountered. I grew up on the internet, both its light and dark sides. There is little I haven't been exposed to. But does any of it make me want to kill, steal, rape, pillage, cheat, torture, or do otherwise terrible things? No. My parents raised me to understand that these things are wrong. That I wouldn't want them done to me. Basic concepts of acceptable behavior and the difference between right and wrong.
I find it troubling that parent(s) these day's have stopped parenting their children. They use the TV as a baby sitter and wonder why their brat's won't behave and show no respect for them. They seem to think that raising their children is the governments job and that they need laws in place to protect their children from a subject that they don't want to cover with their kids. They also aren't perfect, they forgot what it was like to be a child and the things they did growing up. Kids need somebody to be there for them, not to pretend the situation doesn't exist. Parents need to prepare their kids for life. Educate them. Be there for them. Be honest with them.
Don't want to parent your kids? It wasn't the governments fault you had sex. Maybe if your parent(s) had prepared you better, you might have used a condom.
Take some responsibility for your life, and for futures sake, the lives of your kids.
Raikage @ Jun 12th 2006 1:08PM
I think gamers are mad because they are doing this ONLY to video games. Music, Books, and Movies have no laws about this so it's just about being fair and nonbias.
P.S. Once I asked this annoying kid on Halo if he was twelve and he answered in a solom......yes...........lol it was so funny....
The Raikage
Yehuda Berlinger @ Jun 12th 2006 1:12PM
32_Footsteps,
I was under the impression that movies theaters were required, either by state or federal laws, to restrict access to movies based on their motion picture rating. A quick check of Wikipedia reveals that you are correct, and I was in error. My particular argument is certainly moot.
I still have an argument, albeit a weaker one. Video games are more problematic than movies, since the participant is active rather than passive, and I could see them requiring more restrictive laws than movies. In other words, using movies as a yardstick for video games doesn't hold up.
If graphic violence were legally acceptable in video games, then there is no reason that they should not be acceptable in movies. The reverse does not appear to be true.
Yehuda
Joe @ Jun 12th 2006 1:31PM
Well, maybe they should focus on... more pressing matters right now. If I went to my local shopping mall, I could buy a ticket for Cars, X3, etc. and easily, without anyone caring, sneak into The Omen, See No Evil, etc. This March I snuck into V for Vendetta. The workers knew; they didn't care.
Then I could go into my local Newbury Comics in the mall and pick up Sin City and The Devil's Rejects (unrated of course) along with The Strokes' and nine inch nails' new CDs. But try to waltz into Eb Games and grab a copy of PDZ for my 360-owning friend, or Hitman for myself, and I'm fudged.
Reform please.
Joe @ Jun 12th 2006 1:39PM
Note to above: I am 15 years old.
The only guns I shoot are the occasional rifles owned by the Boy Scout Camp I go to in the summer, along with one of a friend's father's rifle.
C. Grant @ Jun 12th 2006 1:39PM
The Louisiana bill hasn't been passed yet. It's still just a flicker in the eye of their legislators. As soon as their guv signs on the line which is dotted, we'll add it up.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 12th 2006 2:02PM
Yehuda, you're still running afoul of the First Amendment. Government regulation of speech can only happen if you can prove it is clearly to the greater good of society to regulate said speech, as various levels of the judicial system in the U.S. have ruled repeatedly.
In this case, you would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only are video games more influential on youth than other forms of entertainment (movies, comics, etc.), but that this influence is a clear negative impact on society at large.
As others point out, you actually have a better argument that the reverse is true. Violent crime, particularly amongst the target demographics for video gaming, is down. If anything, the numbers suggest that an unregulated video game industry actually helps inhibit violence in society as a whole. The actual calculus on how much affect it might have is much more complex (we don't know for certain if video gaming does directly impact the drop in violence or if it's merely a coincidal effect), but you'd need at least an increase in violence in order to begin to credibly make an argument that society is negatively impacted by video game violence.
Barring such evidence (which would take quite an amount of evidence even if it were there), video games should be treated on par with any other entertainment that does not require the usage of public resources. Thus, video games and movies should be treated equally until someone produces evidence (and not just assumptions, like "Video games are more interactive so they naturally influence people more") to the contrary.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 12th 2006 2:23PM
To further clarify my previous comment...
The Supreme Court established, in 1919's Schenck v. United States, that there must be a "clear and present danger" (in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.) before the government can act to restrict free speech. This standard was further refined and restricted in 1969's Brandenburg v. Ohio (which further introduced the 14th Amendment to affirm that the states themselves must abide by the 1st Amendment), in which the court ruled that the speech in question must cite "imminent lawless action" (in the words of the per curiam decision) in order for the government to be allowed to restrict it.
Given that the C&PD and ILA tests cannot be met by video game opponents, there is no basis for regulating and/or restricting the content of video games.
polly @ Jun 12th 2006 2:31PM
I'd be more worried about TV turning kids into superficial, materialistic, promiscuous, yuppie assholes than video games turning kids into killers. That is, I would be, if I wasn't so busy killing hookers on my Playstation.
Yehuda Berlinger @ Jun 12th 2006 2:47PM
Thank you, 32_Footsteps. You summed it up pretty clearly.
So I suppose the proponents of this law would be trying to prove that these games are similar to already banned obscene material? That would obviate the need to demonstrate any particular statistics, I would think.
Yehuda
Adam S @ Jun 12th 2006 2:52PM
32_Footsteps:
Oklahoma's legislature is Democratic. The state may vote Bush, but locally the rural areas vote Democrat. Even though Oklahoma Democrats are more conservative than say a Massachusetts Republican, they are still Democrats.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 12th 2006 3:16PM
Ah, my mistake. Still, the bill was written by a Republican, and from all I can tell about the same proportion of each party's state legislative contingent voted in favor of the bill - still looks pretty bipartisan to me.
Though I'd watch what you'd assume about Massachusetts Republicans. I live just north of Boston, and I know quite a few of the state's Republican operatives. Also, our governor is a Republican, Mitt Romney. He's currently making the rounds amongst Republican donors, trying to build up a war chest for a 2008 presidential run while badmouthing everything that the state does and running on his record of... well... apparently failing at everything he's tried to do in the state.
In general, the state's Republicans are very committed to the national platform... it's just that they have absurdly little pull in the state (where about 80% of our elected officials are Democrats). Most conservatives in New England either run for Connecticut (if they're economically liberal), New Hampshire, or Maine.
They may be trying for that, Yehuda. However, for instructive purposes, actually read the circumstances of the Brandenburg case (a good writeup is on Wikipedia). In that case, a Klansman was video taped discussing gathering forces for a violent overthrow of the government. That was certainly a clear danger, although how present that danger actually was became the central issue. That's why the court came up with the ILA test - if it was present, it would be naturally imminent.
Really, if the Supreme Court recognizes a member of the KKK talking about armed rebellion against the United States government while on television as utilizing protected speech, then I think anything on a widely-available commercial video game would also fall under First Amendment protection.
Ahms @ Jun 12th 2006 4:06PM
"But that's not even the best part! The Oklahoma Senate took the opportunity to tack on some "unrelated language ... regarding signage around strip clubs and porn shops." Cause they're all the same thing right? How long before some pol tries to pass laws regarding gaming retailers? GTA in brown wrap? "I'll take, uh, that one ... on the top shelf. No, the tooop shelf. Yeah, with the hookers in it.""
Speaking of slipper slopes...I think you slipped :)
Ben @ Jun 12th 2006 6:28PM
I hope(with all the intent in my heart) that that bill will be fought and defeated. I am 16 and live in OK, and that bill will really suck for me.. So does that mean I won't be able to get Halo 3 when it comes out? No, no, no. I won't let it happen. Let them throw me in jail, I don't care. My rights as a citizen and a person are being over run. I pray everyday that the game industry will fight that freakin bill and that they will win.
That being said, I probably am not as worried as I could be. They can't stop me from getting it off of ebay. But, it still sucks. There are some stores here in OK called game x change and vintage stock. They sell used games for cash or other games. I love going there, looking thru the games for a good deal, and alot of the time, I trade my games for some other game. It is one of the FEW things here in OK that I can do.. Here in OK there is NOTHING to do. It is a very boring place to live, especially if you are a teen. And, now, I(and everyone else) has one last thing to do.
I hope this is all clear, I am not really thinking straight due to all the crying and such...
The NotWelshMan @ Jun 12th 2006 7:17PM
Just to add my support for the general "what's the problem" POV...
I'm British, GTA is classified as an 18. Same as films in this country, it's illegal to sell an 18 game to kids of 17 and under. Illegal, as in, big fines or prison sentences.
When I went in to the store to buy GTA on its first day of release, I watched a bunch of kids trying to buy it get turned down by the store clerk, and then a parent being advised by the clerk that there was inappropriate content (ie, violence) in the game. She was buying the game for a kid who looked no older than nine or ten.
And you know what? She bought it anyway.
This was the PS2 launch, so no Hot Coffee mods at that point. But she felt that her child was old enough to play GTA.
Seriously, any kid who wants a restricted game enough will get their hands on it by hook or by crook. I don't care, because I personally don't think crime and computer games are linked in any meaningful fashion. As long as the games themselves don't suffer, I'm happy.
Andrew @ Jun 12th 2006 9:14PM
Well, It's official our Governor is as big a Jackass as everyone thinks he is. He hasn't done crap for this state, and I'm still glad that I voted for his competition.
Mark in Austin @ Jun 13th 2006 12:08AM
Predictions for when one of these cases reaches the U.S. Supreme Court:
- the conservatives on the court will vote to uphold the laws restricting free speech in the name of "morals" (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas)
- the liberals on the court will strike-down the laws, declaring that they restrict of art/speech and that they are too vague (Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens)
- the one remaining moderate swing vote will decide the case (Kennedy)
Right now, we have enough liberals on the lower courts to stop this kind of bullshit. But if we keep voting for the GOP, we're going to see a chorus line of Scalia-clones giving this type of law the thumbs-up. Democratic lawmakers and executives might be cowardly enough to pass this kind of tripe, but they do so knowing that their court appointees will knock this shit out down the line. Republicans? Not so much.
There is a difference.
32_Footsteps @ Jun 14th 2006 12:32PM
Actually, though I'm not fond of him on other issues, Antonin Scalia has been a notable proponent of a wide range of protections granted by the First Amendment. He takes a very classically conservative view of it, which would limit the government's power in that regard as much as possible.
If you want proof, look at the issue of flag burning - Scalia has voted against flag-burning laws whenever they've been challenged in the Supreme Court, due to interference with the First Amendment. If he's willing to say that issue is protected by the First Amendment, I think Scalia would be easy to sway in favor of video gaming.
Nicolas Redfern @ Jun 15th 2006 7:52AM
I'm in favour of enforced ratings. I would have thought that someone could sue for providing questionable content.
I live in Britain and here films and some video games have ratings that are enforced by law. This should be the same in the US for games and films, I don' get how it is unconstitutional to stop people of a certain age from buying violent games. It is NOT a matter of free speech- they are not presenting an idea.
Nicolas Redfern @ Jun 15th 2006 7:56AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
-It doesn't seem to break any of that.-
Austin @ Jun 15th 2006 9:21AM
Sweet another day of first amendment discussions. 32_Footsteps you are killing me with this corporate censorship argument again. They already self censor to reach a wider audience just like in movies going for a PG13 rating by editing the film after the first review by the ratings board. You had it right with the supreme courts support of our view but after yesterday i think if the states defense argues for the imminent test they have little to no chance(with out a sympathetic judge). I have to say i think your application of brandenburg is incorrect. The court did not protect the klansmen's speech under the first amendment for a failure of imminent lawlessness. They overturned the law because it failed to address the two prong test, much like the secondary effects doctrine (see yesterday) that i still think is more likely to be used by the defense but I have not read the law so I don’t know what approach they used.