Oregon attempts game bill because Timmy broke Mary's arm
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Apr 10th 2007 at 8:55AM }
GamePolitics reports the Oregon House of Reps. is trying to blaze new trails by introducing a law making it unlawful to sell "ultra-violent" video games to people of the great state under 18 years of age. The bill was introduced by Rep. Arnie Roblan (D) and has no provision on what punishment would be given for those breaking the law, it also grants exception for parents who choose to purchase the game for their child. So, what's the point of this thing again?Anyway, best part of the bill is the definition of "ultra-violent." The bill states, "'Ultra-violent video game' means a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." So, killing an alien, smearing its blood all over your avatar and then eating its entrails would be fine -- it's not a "human." That's quite speciesist, I hope the great state of Oregon has an excuse set up when the aliens arrive.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Diamondxp @ Apr 10th 2007 9:17AM
Department of Redundancy Department
Zertoss @ Apr 10th 2007 9:02AM
Nevermind the aliens, the cows are ALREADY HERE!
32_Footsteps @ Apr 10th 2007 9:10AM
They're banning ultraviolent games? Well, I suppose little Timmy was hanging out at the milk bar with his droogs too much before he did that to poor Mary's arm.
Todd @ Apr 10th 2007 9:31AM
I think the game development team would first have to define what race said alien is and that said alien is in no way related to the humanoid race, in order to NOT be covered under this bill.
Robert @ Apr 10th 2007 9:35AM
Haven't they read ANY of the previous cases on this stuff? At the moment, "ultra-violent" won't make it past the first amendment in any court (unless it gets all the way to the supreme court and they ad a new exception). Way to waste taxpayer money, Oregon! Wait a minute... that's my money!
Anni @ Apr 10th 2007 9:39AM
32_Footsteps is my new favorite person.
This bill makes me feel a lot better about knifing all those dogs in Resident Evil.
SuperSneaky @ Apr 10th 2007 9:43AM
Honestly, why don't they just impose exactly the same limits you have in place when you go to see a film ? Make R, NC-17, et al aplicable to video games and enforcable by law so people treat these things in the same way as movies and know exactly what they're getting. Job done.
hegemonyhog @ Apr 10th 2007 9:50AM
Parent A: "Why'd you sell my kid this game??? I had to come all the way in here to take care of this - there should be a law!"
Parent B: "Why didn't you sell my kid this game??? I had to come all the way in here to take care of this - there should be a law!"
Parents A and B at the PTA Meeting: "Kids these days just don't make sense. It's all the confused messages they're getting from popular culture."
Pixelantes Anonymous @ Apr 10th 2007 10:03AM
I'd like to see lawyers argue in court whether zombies are human or not. I think I would laugh.
Ferior @ Apr 10th 2007 10:21AM
This is a posture made by a relative unknown in the Oregon Legislature to get a soundbyte, a couple of minutes on the news, and a way of saying "I support families and abhor violence" without actually doing anything important.
I love Oregon. Freakin' hippies.
Todd @ Apr 10th 2007 10:06AM
When I worked at Blockbuster, way back when, and could not rent video games to kids under age due to the "mature" rating, parents would sometimes get irate at having to park the car and come inside. There is this huge split of parents, and parenting, in which some are too lazy to take responsibility for their kid's actions and some are being responsible enough. These laws really do hurt the lazy parents.
Anonymous @ Apr 10th 2007 10:11AM
I predict this bill will try and ford the first amendment, lose 20 pounds of clauses, then die of dysentery before it gets to the legislature.
DC @ Apr 10th 2007 10:29AM
5,
What needs to be understood is that what is really going on here is a lot of political posturing. These politicians pass the game bills knowing they will get struck down, but it allows them to say "Re-elect me, I was thinking of the children. I supported this game bill." They already know how it will play out, but it an easy political chop to put on their resume. It is just a huge waste of taxpayer money.
hmd13 @ Apr 10th 2007 10:10AM
Never ceases to amaze me what lengths government officials will go to mess with people's lives. Well, there is a bright side, I guess, since Halo and Gears of War are not really in any danger, according to their guidelines.
Field Anony-mouse @ Apr 10th 2007 10:14AM
"So, killing an alien, smearing its blood all over your avatar and then eating its entrails would be fine -- it's not a "human.""
It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, and the work around is extremely easy. Carmageddon was banned in Germany because you can run people down in cars. The developers 'fixed' it be changing the sprites to be zombies. House of the Dead 2 does it too, but even less. They just change the blood color from red to green (or blue, or yellow if you have access to the arcade machine's internals.)
Dan K. @ Apr 10th 2007 10:20AM
I live in Oregon! Oregon news! Woo hoo!!!!
SuperSneaky @ Apr 10th 2007 10:25AM
Todd
Very, very true. My other half's Mom recently grounded her 15 year old son for not letting his 10 year old brother play his copy of Gears of War, because it was cauing her too much ear ache.
A 15 year old looking out for his little bro and being more mature about it than his 40+ year old mother ? Beggars belief.
32_Footsteps @ Apr 10th 2007 10:56AM
I'm glad at least one person caught the reference.
As for your suggestion, SuperSneaky, the government already regulates video game purchases the same way they regulate movies - namely, they don't due to First Amendment protections. The government usually doesn't do such laws anymore against movies because the MPAA and its allies have repeatedly shown in the past that they're extraordinarily good at getting those laws thrown out.
Granted, the ESA has shown a similar track record, but it's still too "fresh" to actually stick in the minds of politicians. Also, most of those laws are at the state level, and very few state legislatures pay attention to what other legislatures do.
Exick @ Apr 10th 2007 11:13AM
"Make R, NC-17, et al aplicable to video games and enforcable by law so people treat these things in the same way as movies and know exactly what they're getting. Job done."
Because movies aren't treated this way and the video game industry would fight (and have fought) any effort to make such laws. The movie ratings are not enforceable by law and they have likewise fought government efforts to enforce their ratings.
ToyCommando @ Apr 12th 2007 12:03PM
I worked at a Best Buy for a year, and laughed when parents would try to return games saying they were "too violent." I'd just say that they have a rating, and they bought them for the kid. So whats the real problem? Retarded, uncaring parents who don't really care about anything until they see the effects.
SuperSneaky @ Apr 10th 2007 12:18PM
32_Footsteps
Can I just check, am I right in thinking that if a Theater allows a 12 year old kid to into an MPAA sanctoned NC-17 Movie all on his lonesome, the theater gets royally screwed in the ass for it, as opposed to video game retailers who can either choose to support ESA regulations, but don't neccecerilly "have" to ?
It just seems to me that there's a certain degree of disparity between the regulation of these two mediums, meaning that the video game industry has to endure the likes of Jack Thompson, while the movie industry does not.
thefunkyone @ Apr 10th 2007 11:35AM
Americans should just adopt a similar law enforced age ratings board like the U.K has for movies and games.....
It would stop all these constant "Generic state to ban game sales to minors" stories !!! :D
Get with the times america, or would it "violate your first admendment rights" !!! ha ha ha ha ha
Brandon @ Apr 10th 2007 12:10PM
As someone who lives in Oregon I can say that it's just common here to try to regulate to hell every perceived vice. Selling liquor here requires 18 miles of red tape.
SuperSneaky @ Apr 10th 2007 12:18PM
thefunkeyone
Oh hell, is that how it works in the US ? Shit, sorry guys, I now see why my comments were coming accross as half baked. I figured these things were enforcable, like, "in-the-uk" enforcable.
So with this first amendment stuff:
If you're unable to watch Vampire Vixens Un-Chained while paying Mega Super Head Crack 7 because you're only 6 years old, and you feel it's unconstitutional and violating your rights.... Can you just contest it ? How does that work ?
What about drinking/driving/buying guns ? How do you put an age limit on that without it infringing peoples "rights" ?
I'm confused.
Exick @ Apr 10th 2007 12:37PM
@22. The theater would get screwed in the ass by the MPAA (maybe) and possibly law enforcement as well. The reason is that theaters seemingly have a much more close-knit relationship with the MPAA because of how much power the group wields. The ESA doesn't seem to have as tight a relationship with game retailers. They continue to try to enforce their ratings through various fines and penalties, but I can't say how well it's working. As for trouble with law enforcement, NC-17 is one of those gray areas. If you're talking about pornography and minors, then obviously the rules change.
@23. If you're 6 and want to play violent video games or watch porn, that's something you should take up with your parents. The rights that people are talking about are the rights of people to sell their "art" without government interference. That's basically all this is about. As for guns, I've never heard of an age restriction for owning/purchasing/shooting one. If someone suggested one, believe me, a stink would be made. And an age limit on drinking (which is made on a per-state basis) doesn't violate any Constitutional rights, so it's not part of the discussion.
Covarr @ Apr 10th 2007 12:40PM
I don't like this law, but at least it's better than others, because it actually defines "ultra-violent" instead of just an ambiguous "violent". Not only that, but the array of games it bans is much smaller (Halo, Call of Duty, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur are all okay by this definition, Mortal Kombat and GTA are not).
Personally, I think it's be better for the government to require stores to inform parents of the ratings system and to sponsor TV commercials explaining it to parents. Just having explanations posted on the walls of game stores isn't necessarily enough for parents to make informed decisions because many parents won't notice these signs.
The fact is, the majority of violent video games owned by kids aren't sold directly to the kids, they're sold to parents who are buying them at their kids request for holidays and birthdays. Educating the parents would be much more useful and much more constitutional at the same time.
point09micron @ Apr 10th 2007 12:43PM
"What about drinking/driving/buying guns ? How do you put an age limit on that without it infringing peoples "rights" ? "
The difference is that the MPAA and ESA have the resources to sue when their rights are infringed, but the average citizen doesn't.
Overall: a technical contradiction, but nobody really cares because it's not an outright ban.
SuperSneaky @ Apr 10th 2007 1:01PM
"As for guns, I've never heard of an age restriction for owning/purchasing/shooting one."
Totally off topic, but SERIOUSLY ?!! Oh my gosh. That kinda scares me.
I didn't realise how much in favour of enforceable age limits on things I was, including video games.... must be getting old, lol.
My kids are gonna hate me ;o)
Covarr @ Apr 10th 2007 1:16PM
"What about drinking/driving/buying guns ? How do you put an age limit on that without it infringing peoples "rights" ?"
Putting an age limit on games doesn't interfere with citizens' rights, it interferes with the Developer/Publisher's first amendment right to freedom of expression.
Putting age limits on Alcohol, Driving, and Guns does not limit anybody's freedom of expression.
It's not a simple matter of "rights", and being allowed to do whatever you want at any age. It's a matter of disallowing the developer's message to be spread to willing audiences.
How angry would you be if the government decided that magazines that specialize in hunting could not be sold to minors? It is constitutionally illegal for the government to do that, because it limits the freedom of expression of the publishers of the magazine; it has nothing to do with the consumers' rights. It's the exact same thing when it comes to banning the sale of certain types of video games.
Note that there is nothing illegal when an individual store does this, just that the government itself is not allowed to.
point09micron @ Apr 10th 2007 1:19PM
"Totally off topic, but SERIOUSLY ?!! Oh my gosh. That kinda scares me.
I didn't realise how much in favour of enforceable age limits on things I was, including video games.... must be getting old, lol. "
Guns are perfectly safe when handled properly. There's no reason to have an age limit. The only potential problem is that little kids aren't physically strong enough to hold a gun steady.
Exick @ Apr 10th 2007 1:34PM
@29. "Guns are perfectly safe when handled properly. There's no reason to have an age limit. The only potential problem is that little kids aren't physically strong enough to hold a gun steady."
While that might be true, it can also be said about pretty much everything. You're going to have a hard time convincing people that age restrictions on everything should be eliminated.
polly @ Apr 10th 2007 2:09PM
God forbid a 9 year old play Gears of War. What a bunch of freedom hating coddlers this country has become.
Remember back when Lazer Tag was the punching bag of the day?
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
X GATECRASHER X @ Apr 10th 2007 4:31PM
A law banning offensive material for minors will keep free speech alive and well for the rest of us. Parents don't want their ten-year-old to be able to buy what equates to an 'R' rated game, and I can understand that.
mushiking @ Apr 10th 2007 4:50PM
HAHAHAHAHA that picture goes perfect with the article. god i miss the Oregon Trail.
Ken Seang @ Apr 10th 2007 5:39PM
Oregon Trail FTW!
NoHitHair @ Apr 10th 2007 5:42PM
Oh good - Oregon's decided to waste more of my tax dollars.
Between rampant ODOT corruption, mass transit monopolization and this small slice of legislative irresponsibility from a much bigger pie, I'm surprised I have a paycheck at all.
http://blog.myspace.com/nohithair
reppy @ Apr 10th 2007 6:36PM
I don't understand some of the arguments in here. So, it should be illegal under the Constitution to prevent a minor from purchasing a violent video game? What about hardcore pornography? Do you have a problem with your 10 year old brother going to the store and picking up a copy of Dumb Bimbos #538?
If you're going to use the free speech argument, then both of these scenarios should be legal. Why is sex, a natural act, require you be 18 years of age to view it? Yet some here want anyone to be able to pick up a copy of GTA4.
Methinks it's because most of the people saying it are children themselves. Or they're corporate shills. ;)
prmckinney @ Apr 10th 2007 7:18PM
@24/27:
FYI, There certainly is an age limit for purchasing guns. Per federal law you have to be 18 to buy a long gun, and 21 to buy a handgun.
http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=60