A new Arizona bill aims to take on the entire media industry. House Bill 2660, which passed the state House of Representatives last month, aims to make a person "liable for damages if the person produces, publishes or distributes written, audio, video or digital material" that is deemed "dangerous or obscene." Such wording could apply to books, websites, video games, movies, TV shows and Numa Numa.
While the bill sounds ridiculous to the point of fiction, it is causing many to be concerned -- for example, who decides what is dangerous and obscene? The Video Game Voters Network has issued a call to action over the bill, and representatives for the MPAA and the Arizona Newspaper Associations have taken issue with it.
We at Joystiq aren't too worried. Should the bill pass, it would logically self-destruct, seeing as it is also dangerous and obscene written material.
[Via Game Politics]
Arizona bill would hold content creators liable
64 Comments by Ross Miller Apr 7th 2008 1:30PM
Filed under: Culture, Business, Politics
Tags: arizona, book-burning, censorship, content, hb-2660, hb2660, law, legal, mpaa
Related Stories
- LGJ: The PRO-IP Act and Gaming (4 days ago)
- Sony, Jaffe sued over alleged God of War copyright infringement (27 days ago)
- Law of the Game on Joystiq: Rare footage of the DRM in its natural habitat (25 days ago)














(Page 1) Reader Comments
The second amendment is there in case the first amendment fails us.
Reply
And yes, the first amendment is there, but nobody seems to give a shit about the second amendment anymore. People take it out of context so much and so far as to say that it only relegates to a 'state militia' and not an individual.
Sometimes I hate the way our government is run. Other times, I'm damn glad I'm an American.
Its actually a pretty good read, but I read legal crap all day, so others may disagree.
They are set to decide this issue around June.
Charles Manson was "inspired" by lyrics from The Beatles....
Under this law, the same group of people who financed an advertising campaign which said "Give peace a chance" would be found guilty of inspiring the deaths there.
Too awesome.
Reply
Am I right?
Good job Arizona, step in the right direction!
Reply
That being said since this bill could apply to books, and books have traditionally been THE single most protected media (even book stores have special legal exemptions from cooperating with law enforcement granted through courts and legislation) expect this legislation to fail quickly.
Reply
I apologize for Arizona's lawmakers being idiots. Not everyone here is a stone cold desert moron though.
we coo!?
Reply
Reply
My guess from left to right:
MGS3:SUBSISTENCE (obviously I'd get that ;D), LUIGI'S MANSION, ELECTRIC SIX (hilariously good rock CD), and I *think* that's IN FLAMES.
*Read book*
Ohhhh...nevermind.
Reply
Yahoo! Games has an article concerning all of the current candidate's views:
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/play-the-vote/1182822
Hillary is as always thinking of the children:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/20/clinton-and-other-senators-ask-esrb-for-review-over-manhunt-2/
http://www.joystiq.com/2005/11/30/clinton-legislation-goes-to-congress/
Reply
But voters don't care about the constitution. Its way to complicated to understand. But protecting the children? Even total morons have children.
More on the 10pm show.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I read Oliver Stone is rushing to get it finished before the next US president is inaugurated.
Reply
But seriously get these guys into Rock Band NOW!!!
Furthermore, John McCain voted against this and now regrets it, like the presidential wanna be bitch he is.
Reply
Fun fact: Arizona defeated a gay marriage ban in 2006's ballot, the first state to do so. We're not all hicks, thanks.
I redirect my comments to the legislature of the State of Arizona.
On the plus side, though, Arizona does ignore the stupidity of Daylight Savings Time
It was a book that was created out of some internet forums of a guy pretending to be a guy who was writing about a guy. Precursor and inspiration for the Blair Witch.
Reply
I...I was one of those people.... I'm sorry... it still hurts...
Reply
The best this bill has going for it is the definition of obscenity, which is the standard way it is defined. The criminal intent required in A3 will pretty much absolve any publisher of liability.
I wouldn't be surprised if this bill stuck because of the way it is written. Unfortunately for the state, it is pretty useless in policing video games. If it were applied to video game cases, those cases would probably be remanded on appeal.
Reply
The number of cases in which this would fly seems to be low. If Timmy is tried as an adult at 16 for murder, then his family comes with a civil suit against a video game publisher for liability, how's that going to look?
Anyway, it will probably get struck down on various grounds, especially due to the disconnect between the publisher and the offender. Notice that this bill applies to all forms of media, including newspapers and radio programs. I could see it used against a radio broadcast who says to attack a public figure in the streets, but not for publishers of static material that must be sought and purchased first.
Oh one more fact, if they censor sex, how will anyone know how to make babies let alone perform a Dirty Sanchez?
Reply
Reply
Oh wait, they all have a standard of morality. I guess you're just fucked then, aren't you.