Louisiana guv signs JT-penned bill into law
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jun 16th 2006 at 6:25PM }
... and we dance ...Just a couple days ago, the governor of Oklahoma signed a bill restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, effective November 1st. Today, Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco signed into law a bill written by outspoken anti-video game opportunist Jack Thompson that would essentially do the same thing. The only difference, the Louisiana bill is effective immediately. That means like, right now.
Game Politics points out the new law borrows language from the Miller Test for obscenity (I know it when I see it) to classify whether or not the level of violence in it is appropriate for children. These are in accordance with "prevailing standards in the adult community" and "contemporary community standards." This is always the problem with these laws: whose standards. I can guarantee you my standards (and I imagine most Joystiq readers) are radically different than Uncle Jack's.
GameDaily BIZ is reporting that the ESA has wasted no time in mounting a lawsuit against the bill. ESA chief Doug Lowenstein said, "Both parents and industry are working together to ensure that video games are purchased responsibly. The Federal Government has found that parents are involved in game purchases more than eight out of ten times. Retailers already have increasingly effective carding programs in place to prevent the sale of Mature or Adult Only games to minors. Legislators know full well that this bill is destined to meet the same fate as other failed efforts to ban video game sales."
Let's review:
St. LouisunconstitutionalIndianapolisunconstitutionalWashington StateunconstitutionalIllinoisunconstitutionalMichiganunconstitutional- Maryland (doesn't really count, so we'll let 'em have it)
- California (currently under review by Federal District Court Judge Ronald Whyte)
- Minnesota (lawsuit has been filed)
- Oklahoma (lawsuit has been filed)
- Louisiana (lawsuit has been filed)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
pennywise969 @ Jun 16th 2006 6:36PM
Louisiana state law is so different from other states that it wouldnt surprise me if this doesnt get overturned.
HotShotX @ Jun 16th 2006 6:39PM
I can see about 5-6 different unnatural colors in her face alone.....gross.
How about a bill that actually does something to better the lives of the people living there: Such as instituting a physical fitness program, you know, it just might get kids off of video games a tad.
Oh, and btw, anything proposed by Jack Thompson at this point in the game should be shot down ON PRINCIPLE ALONE.
~HotShotX
Sam @ Jun 16th 2006 6:45PM
I've heard that Jack Thompson reads this blog. If so, I've got a 'great' idea for another, similar campaign:
Most neglected and abused children are done so by their birth-parents. Make it a law that the government will seize and raise all children so that these tragedies will never happen again.
(I'm kidding. This should not happen. J.T., get a real job. Quit wasting eartime and taxpayer money.)
Silent @ Jun 16th 2006 6:46PM
soon the US will ban Free thought, Imagine what kind of Impact such as 'impure thoughts' would have on poor Timmy's Innocent mind?
1up_clock @ Jun 16th 2006 7:02PM
Reason #1 I like Nintendo's family-friendly nature:
Nintendo's games are unaffected by laws like this.
Reason #2 I like Nintendo's family-friendly nature:
They don't have to put up with the likes of Jack Thompson's bullying.
Yeah, that's exactly what Jacko is: A BULLY. And he's not a very good one at that.
SilentSpectre @ Jun 16th 2006 7:28PM
Unfortunately, Blanco thinks she's Louisiana's grandmother. And even though she looks like it, she's not. She's one of the main reasons the state is in shambles.
Oh well, I didn't vote for her.
haegen @ Jun 16th 2006 7:33PM
meh.
from the ESRB site: "Many major retailers currently implement their own store policies requiring age verification for the sale of games." assuming that posts in previous similar threads are true (and that the hollywood movie ratings system is voluntary) then game retailers who sell M-rated games to those under 17 would be like an Adult theater letting in middleschoolers, or a 15 year old kid going to the neighborhood video store and renting porn. That seems wrong, so why the ESA gets such a stick up its ass when this happens is beyond me. oh wait. $$$.
i TOTALLY support having parents make decisions for their own kids over having the government do it for us, but stores that sell M-rated games to minors are stripping parents of that ability. Everyone gets so uppity when laws like this happen, but they are forced into being because greed usually overcomes the honor system. It's like, "do it yourself or we'll do it for you." It seems like everyone says that the parents should be able to decide, but when their kid can just walk into a store and buy GTA, they can't.
Sabre @ Jun 16th 2006 7:35PM
So first she puts ALL the of the Katrina aftermath on someone else (she took no responsibility for her lack of action following Katrina) and now agrees that violent video games are bad for you 100% if you are a minor.
Funny...if thats the case then I should be a ragging maniac from playing MK1,2 and 3 for so long when I was in 7th, 8th and 9th grade.
Sabre @ Jun 16th 2006 7:41PM
"It seems like everyone says that the parents should be able to decide, but when their kid can just walk into a store and buy GTA, they can't."
Umm...well if a kid walks in by himself or herself to guy a game like GTA (without a parent) then the store has every right not to sell the kid the game. Parents nowadays are so braindead its not even funny. They don't like to take responsibility for their lack of good parenting and then blame others.
Oh and last time I checked...all stores in general have the RIGHT to NOT sell you something if they don't wish to. Ever seen the very common "We have the right to refuse service" signs?
thatbox @ Jun 16th 2006 7:51PM
SilentSpectre: I didn't vote for her either. Bobby Jindal all the way!
haegen @ Jun 16th 2006 7:56PM
#9
the store absolutely has every right not to sell them the game. but i guess that's where the problem is, because if they didn't, then i don't think people would be so up in arms about this. the law is prohibits the sale or rental of videogames to minors, not the minor's ability to play them if an adult purchases it for them (ie makes the choice as a parent).
however, if retailers ARE sticking by ESRB ratings (and of course i don't know what each and every store is up to) then it is an entirely different problem and the issue is indeed government interferance.
jOEfRO @ Jun 16th 2006 7:56PM
Hey number 2, i live in louisiana and only stupid ignorant people in new orleans are fat, so dont say things you dont know
jOEfRO @ Jun 16th 2006 8:03PM
Wow Mrs. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, worrying about violent video games when today in New Orleans they had a lottery to get into one of the only charter schools open next year, shouldn't you be worried about the education of children in New Orleans other than something that should be the choice of childten's parents, rather than the government?
Haha, I liked the comment about the Grandmother thing, but personally I think she is our Grandfather.
vidGuy @ Jun 16th 2006 8:40PM
The average videogame has about the same amount of violence and "adult themes" as an hour of cable television. I feel that parents should monitor video game purchases just as they should monitor tv programs, internet use, and other such things.
I do think you should have to be 18 to purchase Mature games, and in many stores you do. Most stores won't sell a M-rated game to a minor, and most rental places won't rent M-s to minors. The law is circumvented, as has been discussed countless times, by parents who don't take the time to become involved with what their kids are doing. If they would sit down with their kid to start a new game of GTA: SA, they may be taking the game away after the opening sequences filled with b!tch, f**k, and all sorts of other language, let alone sticking around to find out what the game actually entails.
The problem I have is where LAWs against these things cause censorship. If video games are going to become an accepted part of everyday culture, they need to get past their "for kids" image. With the drones of gamers getting older by the day, and their kids soon to replace them at the bottom of the gamer food-chain, it seems inevitable that a majority of people will be playing video games casually within the next 30 years. This will help end the BS that we hear from the early baby-boomer crowd and their fear of video games. Movies influenced them at a young age more than any generation before them... did they all turn into raging lunatics?
If developers can't make a game targeted at adults and reach that target while protecting the young gamers, then there won't be games available and the market will fail. Just like any other media with heavy censorship.
I say protect the kids. But give older games what they want, too. And don't censor our media just because you don't respect it. After all, in 20 or 30 years time, the video-game activists will definitely be in the minority.
And for what its worth, Jack Thompson can't make it more than five minutes in an argument without resorting to low-brow name calling and pull "statistics" out of his ass. His your run-of-the-mill attention whore, and he's even worse in my eyes than Tom Cruise has been this past 18 months.
Sabre @ Jun 16th 2006 8:52PM
5 minutes? HAHA! You're being to generous man.
Geo @ Jun 16th 2006 9:26PM
Yea Louisiana is backwards and thats typical for Blanco. Its a tactic thats been used for years epscailly down here in the south. Deterring detention from the real problems and blaming it on someone else. There is no game you can blame for what happened with Katrina. If anything you can blame people for not playing Simcity...or SimLouisiana...its completely different.
obo @ Jun 16th 2006 11:58PM
thatbox: If Jindal had won, this only would've happened sooner.
Besides that, you forgot to mention the unanimous passages through both the state House and Senate. 137 votes in favor between the two chambers, none against. Even if Blanco vetoed this thing, there's more than enough legislative support to overrule her.
omgwhut @ Jun 17th 2006 1:29AM
Some of you need to just settle down about this. Why does everyone feel like any piece of legislation whatsoever involving video games needs to be made such an issue of?
I know game blogs have slow news days sometimes, but come on.
If I'm right in saying that this act essentially restricts the sale of violent (aka M and AO-rated) videogames to minors -- which is basically the way it should and has been for the most part anyways -- this is only a smart and right move to make.
I don't get it, you guys bitch about free speech and constitutional hooey, but will you just chill out and stop lamenting little Jimmy because now he legally needs his mom or dad to stand at the checkout with him when he wants to pick up a copy of Doom 3?
omgwhut @ Jun 17th 2006 1:31AM
fyi, I see so many of you asserting that it should be the PARENTS' rightful duty to govern their childs' purchases.
Yeah, well, now that's the case.
vidGuy @ Jun 17th 2006 2:28AM
It is their right, omgwhut. There shouldn't need to be a law on the books and constitutional questions brought to the US Supreme Court for parents to take part in their kids' lives.
The good thing that could come of it is that if no kid can buy the next "ultra-violent" videogame legally without an adult, we shouldn't have any more of this "the teenage shooters played [insert video game scapegoat here]... a murder simulator, which caused them to shoot up [location]." Maybe then the media will start to point the finger at the parents, who should be getting scrutinized all along.
On second thought, I don't expect the media to change its bandwagon-esque opinion anytime soon.
dotun.o @ Jun 17th 2006 11:57AM
Now wait a minute here: exactly what is wrong in a law against selling mature-rated games to the underage? Is this not what it SHOULD have been in the first place? No offense, but it's such rash reaction to anything seemingly against gaming that fuels the thought of gamers being... brain-dead.
And people need to stop raising this whole "It's censorship! The man is trying to control what you have access to!" Would you really love to live in a society without laws and restrictions? Freedom, yes, within the limits of proper law; the idea of absolute, unrestrained freedom is foolish delusion (just consider - if it were allowed to the letter then anyone is free to slander or even kill anyone else if they feel like and consider it their freedom of "expression")
As some have stated, this law would not be necessary if parents could perfectly monitor what their kids use (not just games but also movies, music, etc.) but we all know this seldom happens.
The1 @ Jun 17th 2006 12:03PM
If law makers spent more time to fund our schools; and idiot parents would take time to raise their children, this BS would never come to light.
Jack Thompson @ Jun 17th 2006 2:28PM
Wow, the level of comments here indicates why it is a good thing that gamers' standards are not the community's standards for discourse and entertainment.
Looks like the profanity in GTA has filtered into the pixelante subculture.
Anyway, we got the law passed unanimously in Louisiana and Video Game Nation got nothing passed, so is this a great country or what?!
I'm working with the Louisiana AG's office, and we expect to have the law held constitutional as it is not like the other laws that have been passed. But you all here wouldn't know, because you haven't read the federal court rulings, I have, and then I drafted the law, which deals with the rulings.
God bless Louisiana! Hooah!
Jack Thompson
Sabre @ Jun 17th 2006 3:35PM
Wow you must be blind AND stupid Jack...you are excited about ONE LAW being passed when:
- St. Louis: unconstitutional
- Indianapolis; unconstitutional
- Washington State: unconstitutional
- Illinois: unconstitutional
- Michigan: unconstitutional
...5 states have overturned attempts to try and make UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws. Show us ONE legit study Jack where video games are the ONLY thing that have 'violent' content that appeal to 'violent tendencies.' Oh wait...that's right...kids have been like that FOREVER! It's human nature you jackass.
Toys for Rob @ Jun 17th 2006 4:04PM
"Looks like the profanity in GTA has filtered into the pixelante subculture."
Huh?
Jack, you may want to re-read this thread, as you are sorely mistaken. In fact you just slighted the people who were defending you.
The grand total of three (3) profane words used before your post were all written by people defending your position, not the "pixelantes" who oppose this draconian measure. Not only that, but two of those words were sited as examples of what a parent would see if they bothered to actually be a parent and not expect the government to do their job for them. One also has to take the subtext into consideration when determining if the usage is an actual profanity, for example Bono was able to use the "F" word during the 2003 Golden Globes without being fined.
So there was a grand total of zero (0) profanities by the "pixelantes". Way to paint with a broad stroke there buddy.
I hope Jack doesn't use the same logic and insist we pass a law to start arresting all black/white/mexican people because one of them committed a crime (or in this case, zero).
I guess Jack just sees what he wants to see... again.
Art Guy @ Jun 17th 2006 4:15PM
1up_clock - You seem to be ignoring the fact that Nintendo publishes Mature rated games as well.
More selective memory from the Nintendo corner...
1up_clock @ Jun 17th 2006 5:24PM
"1up_clock - You seem to be ignoring the fact that Nintendo publishes Mature rated games as well.
More selective memory from the Nintendo corner..."
I prefer the term, "Trying really hard to forget about Geist And Eternal Darkness, and wishing a game with the same cool concepts would be made, but better, and then you wouldn't whine about ripping Nintendo off, which you wouldn't do because you forgot about it."
Oh, and Jack, nice reading comprehension skills there.
anti-fanboy @ Jun 17th 2006 7:12PM
I thought that the state of Louisiana had more important things to do instead of banning video games. Last time I checked New Orleans still has not been rebuilt, another hurricane season is on the way and they are not prepared for it. So instead of solving their problems they waste tax payer money and time the state congress of Louisiana time on banning the scurge of video games.
MasterGameze @ Jun 17th 2006 8:58PM
Jack Jack Jack. Hate to tell you buddy, but you law will be ruled a violation of not only the 1st, but 14 amendment, not to mention a violation of equal protection. So, yeah, don't get your hopes up.
I have to admit, it was a good effort, using the miller test. Sadly, you forgot one of your own statements of over a year ago.
The miller test applies only to sexual conent, not violence. That has been standing case law for well over 30 years. I guess you forgot that. But then again, as old and senile as your are, I can understand that.
Just remember when your bill gets struck down, it's not the end of the world. Though I have to admit if you through yourself off a cliff I wouldn't care. It'd remove one more imbecile from the world.
Sabre @ Jun 17th 2006 8:58PM
Ummm...Eternal Darkness wasn't made by Nintendo but even then it was a pretty damn good game. Geist on the other hand was "ehh" (and it also wasn't made by Nintendo.)
BearDogg-X @ Jun 17th 2006 9:45PM
First off, Jacky Boy, it wasn't completely unanimous(there are 105 members of the House and 39 members of the Senate).
Second, you're the one who didn't read or willfully ignoring the federal court rulings.
Third, it will be ruled unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment(several reasons: the three-prong Miller test can only be applied to sexual content; standing precedent of the Federal court rulings) and the Fourteenth Amendment(bill only applies to video games, not the other media, violating the video game industry's due process rights).
Thanks, Jack, for wasting Louisiana taxpayers' money on defending a blatantly unconstitutional "law" when it could have gone done towards repairing the increasingly eroding coastline and building new hurricane protection levees and floodgates.
revolverrb @ Jun 17th 2006 11:30PM
When the people of Louisiana collectively decided to put such an incompetent imbecile in the state capital, I too made a choice: to move to Texas. At least if a hurricane hits Houston, we can rely on public officials to adequately carry out the very tasks which they were ELECTED to perform. Blanco did great things as Lieutenant Governor of Louisiana, but unfortunately another inspired surge in tourism won't help rebuild New Orleans--nor will it save Louisiana from its downward spiral.
Shame on you, Jack Thompson, for taking advantage of the situation. May God SAVE Louisiana.
Wild Homes @ Jun 18th 2006 8:53AM
we shouldn't demonise Jack Thompson so much, unless he directly hurts us. he's just clueless, and time will prove it so. every time a gamer publicly bristles about this litigious self-promoter, it has just the effect we don't want: it sustains his publicity. it's like Uwe Boll-- the more we talk about how awful his films are, the more famous Uwe Boll is, even if he's only famously bad.
I'm not against a law making businesses criminally liable if they sell an M-rated game to someone under a certain age. all it would do is force parents to be involved, and it would actually be good for the industry's image if they cooperated wholly. after the latest ESRB debacle ("even though Bethesda totally told us what was in Oblivion and we didn't listen, and then tried to call them out on it and proceeded to get pwned by the truth, we're going to get tough and steal lots of money from developers if they don't disclose the full contents of their games, GRR"), videogames should fear trouble from the inside, rather than from abroad.
I do wonder if this will have a trickle-down effect. right now video games are produced with sales goals in mind. just like a film, the amount of money invested into a game's development is directly proportionate to how much revenue that title can be expected to generate. if an M-rated title's potential audience is ten million, and one in twenty people in that audience plays it, the game will sell half a million copies and has done OK, but not great. if a law exists to directly splinter that audience of ten million into maybe six million people who buy the game legally and four million who can't, the same game will see much smaller returns, and will be far less likely to be profitable, or even recoup the money it cost to develop and market.
will laws like this, if upheld, produce a decline in the sales figures for M-rated games significant enough to effectively cause the industry to allocate smaller amounts of money to develop hard-M titles like GTA, True Crime and Manhunt? I hope not, even though the last two games I mentioned totally fellated donkeys.
kurisu7885 @ Jun 18th 2006 10:55AM
I saw your comment on Alternet saying you were ihnvoled in civil right Thompson, I bet those firehoses were hard to control.
Max Ash @ Jun 18th 2006 11:18AM
Do any other British people think that she looks like Margory Dawes from Little Britain? I think that the resemblance is uncanny
vidGuy @ Jun 18th 2006 1:19PM
I'm sorry I gave JT any credit... his post consisted only of derogatory statements against a growing community that he does not understand. He provided no information of any value. His ignorance of the gaming community leads to fear, which has led to his crusade which is better understood as a witch hunt.
There are numerous problems with JT's proposed law. First, the Miller test requires identification of a community standard. In a practical sense, the law becomes ineffective if town A bans a game from store shelves but town B, 15 miles away, does not. A quick ride to town B and the game lands in little Timmy's hands. Also, the law will be sidestepped, as many of us know, by parents who purchase "violent" video games for their kids without a second thought. Programs for parental awareness would be much more effective than any law in keeping such games out of minors' hands.
Second, the Miller test requires that the work in question lacks any artistic, literary, political, or scientific value. Entertainment has for a long time been considered to have artistic value; in this day and age video games should and will probably be covered.
Third, and most importantly, JT's attempt to get the bill passed by avoiding definitions of violence may be its very downfall. It makes the bill unconstitutionally overly broad. If Louisiana is going to ban "violent" video games, are they banning only the level of GTA violence, or are they banning Mario because he punches or head-stomps a baddie? Laws have very strict language as to what constitutes an offense. Those that avoid definitions risk being overturned. This approach attempts to give judges the discretion to name "violence" in a common (judge-made) law sense, but the constitutional question is of arbitrary application.
This also ties into the fact that, to be found guilty of most offenses, a defendant must know that the act was illegal. There are some strict liability offenses that do not require mens rea, such as drunk driving, but this law does not deal with such an offense. If the law does not classify what types of games are going to be held as violent, then a sales clerk does not know if he commits an offense when he sells a T-rated James Bond game to a minor. Is that "violent" enough to be an offense under the law?
Lastly, without evidence that video game violence leads to real life violence, the government does not have a legal interest in banning "violent" video games from minors. This is a private matter to be dealt with by parents, not by the ruling hand of the Louisiana state government.
Thus the law will be ruled unconstitutional, not in violation of freedom of speech guarantees of the 1st amendment like other laws, but in violation of 6th and 14th amendment guarantees.
Santino the Conquerer @ Jun 18th 2006 8:07PM
I have also heard that Jack Thompson reads this blog, and, in my opinion, he can go to hell.
Violent video games fill a need, and therefore should be openly sold. In games where violence is not the only concern, it should be up to parents. Also, who is to say that age determines maturity. I am 15 and many adults that I know are immature, and also stupid (Jack Thompson being one). The respective governors of Louisiana and Oklahoma were probably paid off anyway, as they probably don't give a rat's ass about video games.
Johnny @ Jun 18th 2006 10:52PM
Am i missing something, but why would you want to let minors play violent videogames? This is a perfectly reasonable law. Are these games being banned or just illegal to be sold to minors. Personally i like gta and doom but for an eleven year old, i dont think so.
vidGuy @ Jun 18th 2006 11:34PM
Johnny (and others),
You'll find very few people in opposition to banning sales of M-rated games to minors... after all, it is an effort to protect children from 'harmful' material. I myself, at 20, feel that games such as GTA shouldn't be played by anyone under 15. Do they have to be an "adult" to play these games? No. Who should make the decision? The parents.
The problem lies in the wording of the law and the possible applications. Like I posted earlier, how does a sales clerk know if a video game is "violent" based on "community standards"? If the law banned just the sale of M-rated games to minors, that would be fine. Sales clerks would have a clear distinction between something they could sell and something they couldn't. But are you going to throw Joe Schmo in jail for a year or fine him heavily for selling a T-rated game because the character uses guns? That is entirely possible within the law as I read it. I don't expect it to be used that way, but it's not out of the range of possibility.
Second, if a stores' core customer base is 17 and under, the store would do best to stock the shelves with games that can be sold to minors, regulating "violent" games - regardless of ESRB rating - to the counter. "Violent" games would thus be treated as smut, something to hide.
My biggest concern is that the state of Louisiana has no legal right to be involved. They have no legal interest in keeping video games out of kids' hands. Seat belt laws can be enforced because they have been shown to be effective in saving lives. Show me concrete proof that video games lead to real life violence, and the state would have a reasonable legal interest.
In other words, what is on the top layer very noble and "right" is very dangerous underneath. The laws brought so far in the US against violent video games have all had major constitutional issues. JT's proud that he avoid the issue brought up by other states' bills, but he forgot about some other very important constitutional guarantees.
The legal graveyard, so to speak, is full of bills made into laws that were shortly overturned on being overly broad and inviting arbitray application. I fully expect this law to join the ranks in due time.
Ben @ Jun 18th 2006 11:41PM
Note to JT: stupidity goes hand in hand with pride.
I'll maybe frown if the law is actually enforced. until then you've won nothing.
martin @ Jun 19th 2006 8:10AM
I swear!! If it weren't for the kids that work at EB and are scared that some little 13 year old punk will call them uncool for not selling them Grand Theft Auto: Gummybear Ship! and will tell their friends that they are major losers....
Well we wouldn't have these problems.
And I have witnessed it many times. I kind of hate going to EB and Gamestop and whatnot now because I go in there and some little tween is saying, "come on man, I thought you were cool" and the clerk gets the sad little face and says, "well just show me your ID so it looks like I checked it" blah blah blah!!!!
I would work for nothing to be able to sit behind that counter and dissappoint all those kids as they come along trying to look cool after begining algebra!
Peter7898m @ Jun 19th 2006 10:06AM
This Bill seems pathetic and clearly shows incompetence in their governments as they are trying to tackle such trivial matters just concerning games. They should be dealing with matters more important than restricting an entertainment market. It’s embarrassing.
Realistic Violent games are necessary. People can let off steam by blowing things up in a virtual world instead.
Alex D @ Jun 21st 2006 11:29AM
The thing people seem to forget, is that not that many teenagers (even more valid for pre-teens) have the 50+ dollars to lay down on a game (maybe they do, but they generally have other things to do with their money). if your kid DOES get have that money to throw away, cut the pocket money down NOW!
Now, say your kid comes home and tells you(Gaming-unconscious person you are) "Hey Daddy (or Mummy), look what i bought myself.! GTA SA!", your kid will instanlty jam it into the PS2 in the living room (a PS2 has NOTHING to do in a bedroom) and start playing. once you, parent have notices GTA=aimless killins swearing, etc... if you have any common sense you will snatch the game out of the console and return it.
If your 8-year-old is allowed to play GTA SA @ home, you need to do some serious thinking
Sabre @ Jun 21st 2006 3:42PM
...except you can't return games that have already been opened for a full refund. ;-)