| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (49)

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:04PM Jude said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Cooler heads prevailed. Awesome.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:07PM RyogaVee said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Dammit.. I was looking forward to filing class action suit against the King James Version of the Bible!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:19PM Shagittarius said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'd settle for a warning sticker on each bible.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 8:24PM Tiptup300 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just wanted to know where this raping game is. Sounds fun! ^_^
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Lord of the Flies made me hit my fat friend in the head with a rock ;P
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:14PM D3m0sthenes said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
MGS made me eat a snake at the zoo!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why do they even bother? These stupid laws always get killed, too bad it's only the bill and not the people pushing it
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:18PM failedninja said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I totally agree. This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. This flies in the face of the 1st Amendment and should have been voted down 6-0.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:25PM CB said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
So they can look good come re-election.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:10PM Shmil said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
buh duh dun dun dun
another bites the dust
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would like to know who the 2 people who voted YES to this??

Should they be able to remain in the committee?

I dont even know them, but i can already assume they are old men who dont know how to handle the changes in the world
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:29PM RyogaVee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Public information, wont take long to find out. I say we investigate, and make it "more" public. If my representative voted for something like that he would NOT get my vote in the future.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:10PM prime8 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
i stepped on broken glass once... can i sue Bruce Willis?
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
THINK GODDAMMIT, THINK!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:11PM andyg8180 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
4-2? Thats a close one... GTA tells me i should violently offend the two people who voted... That will show the world that those two people are correct!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:11PM Zertoss said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
'He believes, "At the end of the day, companies will have to stand before their customers and shareholders and explain why they are OK with the production and distribution of violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts."'

Admit it, you lifted that right from an ultra-conservative sermon, replacing 'God' with 'customers and shareholders'.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
As long as there are people hating what they don't understand, stuff like this will never cease to exist.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:41PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hating violent rape porn you mean?

Yeah, darn them and their hatin'.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:23PM Jude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So t_m,

Which do you believe came first? Violent rape, or its portrayal in media?

Do movies make you go out and do bad things? If so, you should be locked up and punished, not the creators or the millions of other responsible individuals who know the difference between fact and fantasy.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:13PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
YAY!!! Not that I thought this was going to pass, no chance in hell of that, but it's still a relief considering what I do and where I live (film/Arizona).

So again, YAY!!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dumb d-d-d-dumb. Even if the bill were passed, i'd like to see someone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific video game/movie/tv/book is to blame for a crime.

And for the record, "beyond a reasonable doubt" does NOT equal: Billy owns and enjoys playing GTA.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 6:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Unfortunately when you are suing you just have to convince the jury or judge that you are "more right" than the other person and they can award whatever they feel is appropriate. It is only in a criminal trial that there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:15PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"...and explain why they are OK with the production and distribution of violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts."

I'm only ok with those when they involve representations of Rep. Warde Nichols (R).
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:17PM Shagittarius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd settle for a warning sticker on each bible.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Kweli -- exactly what I was thinking. I'm saddened that 2 out of the 6 people actually voted for this.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:25PM Levi Partridge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes! E6 is safe!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dance Epidemic Tonight!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:26PM Ignatius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow. Um. What company has produced violent, forced, non-consensual acts to date in the US?

Probably.. none?
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:32PM BPMOmega XBL PSN Steam said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty much. This isn't Japan, after all.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:37PM Ignatius said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Perhaps besides Custer's Revenge.. but come on. That was like, 1986?
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The bill was designed to target violent rape porn. It wasn't aimed at movies or video games at all.

From the sound of it it was badly drafted and, just possibly, could have been misused to target them, but that wasn't it's intention. (and according to the guy that drafted it there was no way it could have ever been used against video games anyway).

Probably a good thing it didn't pass, at least in it's current form... but the intentions weren't as crazy as you might initially think.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 5:37PM Vcize said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, because for the poor souls that do get off on this kind of stuff, it'd be much better if we took that away from them so that instead of watching an internet video their only option was to actually go out and violently rape someone.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:28PM iFester said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am NOT a committee! :D
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Burn, Luigi's Mansion! Burrrrrrrrn!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love how the whole reason for this guy pursuing this bill is so that victims can sue companies for more money. It seems this Perkins guy had no intention of properly controlling or monitoring these forms of media but was just content to rake in more dough for him, edit: 'his clients'.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Unlike most of the other bills, this wasn't actually aimed at video games at all. Just FYI as the original Joystiq post didn't really make that clear.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
doh.. that wasn't meant to be a reply to you. Sorry. Anyway, nn an attempt not to make this totally pointless:

The kind of violent porn the bill was aimed at can't be banned... several agencies have tried and always lost on 1st amendment grounds. I'd imagine it MIGHT be easier to target them for damages... though i guess the 1st amendment might protect them from that too.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:36PM chronowing said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All they really care about is the money. You cant just blame the specific video game/movie/tv/book for everything dumb people do. the only one u can blams is the dumb person just, cuz they dont have deeper pocket like the media dosent mean lets blams them cuz they have more money.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:35PM FrankTheCrank said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow...Arizonians are OK after all. Thumbs up!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 3:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Unlike most of the other bills, this wasn't actually aimed at video games at all. Just FYI as the original Joystiq post didn't really make that clear.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:36PM Gwr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Forced? Lawl no ones forcing you to buy that stuff.

Damn all these political system makes me sick,its so wrong.IDC if they leave games alone,politicians will find another poor thing to turn into "the bad guy" and get votes from the mindles mobs they terrorize.

I was kinda scared tho,that law was so relative and open,and also big(wasnt just games) that would have limited a lot of things,very unscontitutional IMO.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:40PM PoisonedAl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I bet Perkins thinks that this is doubleplusungood.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 4:45PM vidguy said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn, I hope that is a misquote. Otherwise Rep Nichols just stated that companies are producing and distributing forcible rape acts.

I have to laugh, though; customers and investors DO know what their companies are producing and they love it. Customers want those products and investors want the money they bring in.

And for those claiming that Joystiq was twisting this, go back and read the original post. The bill covers all media content, including video games, and the post makes that clear. It never said that this was a video games bill, just that they could be affected by it.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 5:49PM Withad said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Leaving aside the usual stuff about civil rights and so on, how on earth are you meant to prove that violent media caused a violent act in court? Sure, some studies may say that violent media causes aggressive behaviour (and at least as many say otherwise), but a specific case?

So, I've played both GTA and Mortal Kombat. Then I commit a violent crime. Who should my victims sue, Rockstar or Midway? Or my parents? Or the geographical area in which I was raised? Or any one of dozens of other factors which could have affected my psychological development and led to the crime?

This is ridiculously vague and I'm glad it got shot down. The only thing that worries me is that it wasn't unanimous. And that those behind it clearly haven't learned their lesson.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 6:50PM SecretMeeting said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like Warde Nichols is only worried about the new Sims 2: Rape expansion pack, not even the usual Sims 2: Bondage Fun Party Pack.
Seriously though, since when has the portrayal of rape been a major criticism of gaming? (with the exception of some GTA inclusion). It really sounds like they are just trying to drag further emotive ideas into the debate.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 6:54PM SecretMeeting said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
On a second note all opponents of video games (like Jack Thompson) do is establish a link (that serial killers play violent video games), not cause and effect (I have played a video game, therefore I will go out and kill people).
Really all they are suggesting is that we remove all forms of entertainment that a serial killer may enjoy in their life before they kill people.
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 9:16PM incredibilistic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Even if the bill passed and someone brought Rockstar to trial what kind of people would be in the jury? Thanks to the Wii you can't even get senior citizens to agree that videogames are bad.

Not to mention that it's the dumbest bill ever conceived. Before the videogame companies I'd start with suing the morning/afternoon/evening news for causing me to kill someone after seeing REAL PEOPLE getting killed by other REAL PEOPLE!!!
Reply

Posted: Apr 8th 2008 11:23PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I AM the commitee.
Reply

Posted: Apr 9th 2008 4:53AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Luigi's Mansion should be burned, but this has nothing to do with the bill.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

WRUP: All the Reckoning

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 11:45PM

Xbox Live Indie Gems: Nyan Cat Adventure

Posted on Feb 10th 2012 10:15PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW