Arizona's 'blame the media' bill dies in committee

by Alexander Sliwinski { Apr 8th 2008 at 3:00PM }

Arizona's Senate Judiciary Committee killed House Bill 2660 in a 4-2 vote; the legislation would have held media content producers liable for violent acts committed by consumers of video games, movies, TV and books. GamePolitics reports that the sponsor of the bill, Rep. Warde Nichols (R), says he will reintroduce a more concisely-written version in 2009. 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."

The bill was written by attorney Keith Perkins, who runs the Never Again Foundation, and represents rape victims in civil suits. Perkins states under Arizona's current law victims can only sue attackers, but that the money they would collect is minimal -- media groups have much deeper pockets for victims (and their lawyers who get a cut of the settlement). It looks like Nichols' bill bit off way more than it could chew. Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D) put it best when he said the bill was too broad and passing it might have unintended consequences.

Tags: arizona, book-burning, censorship, content, failed, hb-2660, hb2660, law

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

J @ Apr 8th 2008 3:04PM

Cooler heads prevailed. Awesome.

Ryoga Vee @ Apr 8th 2008 3:07PM

Dammit.. I was looking forward to filing class action suit against the King James Version of the Bible!

Shagittarius @ Apr 8th 2008 3:19PM

I'd settle for a warning sticker on each bible.

Tiptup300 @ Apr 8th 2008 8:24PM

I just wanted to know where this raping game is. Sounds fun! ^_^

Phranctoast @ Apr 8th 2008 3:08PM

Lord of the Flies made me hit my fat friend in the head with a rock ;P

Raikage (LDF CRAB BATTLE!!!) @ Apr 8th 2008 4:14PM

MGS made me eat a snake at the zoo!

theturtle363 @ Apr 8th 2008 3:08PM

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

FailedNinja @ Apr 8th 2008 3:18PM

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.

CB @ Apr 8th 2008 3:25PM

So they can look good come re-election.

Shmil (Brawl Code 2621-2310-1994) @ Apr 8th 2008 3:10PM

buh duh dun dun dun
another bites the dust

robert @ Apr 8th 2008 3:10PM

i stepped on broken glass once... can i sue Bruce Willis?

DangerMouse @ Apr 8th 2008 4:55PM

THINK GODDAMMIT, THINK!!

Zertoss @ Apr 8th 2008 3:11PM

'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'.

andyg8180 @ Apr 8th 2008 3:11PM

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!!

StrangeBum @ Apr 8th 2008 3:13PM

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!!!

Sidebuster @ Apr 8th 2008 3:13PM

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

t_m @ Apr 8th 2008 3:41PM

Hating violent rape porn you mean?

Yeah, darn them and their hatin'.

J @ Apr 8th 2008 4:23PM

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.

r-deezy @ Apr 8th 2008 3:14PM

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.

Super Bleeder @ Apr 8th 2008 6:39PM

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.

Shagittarius @ Apr 8th 2008 3:15PM

"...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).

Kweli @ Apr 8th 2008 3:16PM

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

Ryoga Vee @ Apr 8th 2008 3:29PM

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.

Shagittarius @ Apr 8th 2008 3:17PM

I'd settle for a warning sticker on each bible.

gumby @ Apr 8th 2008 3:20PM

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

Levi @ Apr 8th 2008 3:25PM

Yes! E6 is safe!

Sundermania @ Apr 8th 2008 4:24PM

Dance Epidemic Tonight!

Ignatius @ Apr 8th 2008 3:26PM

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

Probably.. none?

BPM [SSBB: 5026 4120 1186] @ Apr 8th 2008 3:32PM

Pretty much. This isn't Japan, after all.

Ignatius @ Apr 8th 2008 3:37PM

Perhaps besides Custer's Revenge.. but come on. That was like, 1986?

t_m @ Apr 8th 2008 3:44PM

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.

Vcize @ Apr 8th 2008 5:37PM

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.

iFester @ Apr 8th 2008 3:28PM

I am NOT a committee! :D

RabanastreRat @ Apr 8th 2008 3:29PM

Burn, Luigi's Mansion! Burrrrrrrrn!

napkinG @ Apr 8th 2008 3:32PM

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'.

t_m @ Apr 8th 2008 3:47PM

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.

t_m @ Apr 8th 2008 3:52PM

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.

FrankTheCrank @ Apr 8th 2008 3:35PM

Wow...Arizonians are OK after all. Thumbs up!

Juan @ Apr 8th 2008 3:36PM

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.

t_m @ Apr 8th 2008 3:49PM

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.

Synner @ Apr 8th 2008 4:16PM

Just another joystiq twisting the actual meaning of a story for cheap hits post.

nothing to see here, move along

Gurei @ Apr 8th 2008 4:36PM

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.

Poisoned Al @ Apr 8th 2008 4:40PM

I bet Perkins thinks that this is doubleplusungood.

vidGuy @ Apr 8th 2008 4:45PM

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.

Corbo @ Apr 8th 2008 5:49PM

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.

Callum Ponton @ Apr 8th 2008 6:50PM

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.

Callum Ponton @ Apr 8th 2008 6:54PM

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.

MRBlue @ Apr 8th 2008 9:16PM

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!!!