Seer

its really creepy?

well, maybe the fact that your spouse might divorce you afterwards.

the artwork

I've always wanted my own ocean.

...

What do you mean the shipping's $100 million ????

I desperately need a new phone.

Some Wagner, most likely.

Well, technically cruising around at 17,500 mph feels the same as standing still, thanks to relativity. Maybe you meant accelerating to that speed? :P

I don't see what the fuss is about; this bill is harmless. Can you honestly find any game that meets ALL of the following:

"(1) describes or represents nudity, sexual conduct or sexual excitement, so as to appeal predominantly to the prurient interest of minors;
(2) depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, so as to appeal predominantly to the morbid interest in violence of minors;
(3) is patently contrary to prevailing standards of adults in the county where the offense was committed as to suitable material for such minors; and
(4) lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."

I challenge you to show me a game that is morbidly violent and pruriently sexual that you think a minor should be able to buy (not use, buy).

"unconstitutionally overbroad" You realize that the broadness is in FAVOR of the video games? Also, it is worded precisely like the Miller test, which is the Supreme Court's PREVAILING STANDARD on whether or not a work should be allowed on sale. In this case, however, they have added a FOURTH category that must be met in order for the sale to be stopped! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

Summary of ways that this bill is less restrictive than the Miller test:

-applies to minors only, who have less rights than legal adults
-applies only to the sale of items, not their use or dissemination
-applies only to games
-has added a fourth category, morbid violence

The idea that this bill is unconstitutional is laughable.

Caveat: This bill is unnecessary. I do not feel that there are any games out there being sold to minors that merit this attention. However, what I do not like is that, if say 50 years from now, our youth are REALLY revolting and DO watch ultra-ultra violent media, that a rather sensible bill like this will be shouted down.

Wait...are you implying that Rootbeer Tapper and Paper Boy are bad games?? Blasphemy!!

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this law's similarity to the Miller test, which was set forth by the SCOTUS in 1973 in Miller v California. For a work to be declared obscene, and therefore censorable, it must meet ALL three of the following conditions:

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions [1] specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Prurient basically means carnally sexual, BTW.

So, there are only two difference between the Miller test, WHICH IS CONSTITUTIONAL, and this proposed legislation:

1) This legislation applies only to minors buying certain material, which makes it LESS RESTRICTIVE and therefore MORE LIKELY TO PASS, and
2) It replaced prurient (ie lustfully sexual) with violent.

Those are the only differences. Believe it or not, this bill has a very good chance of passing and being ruled constitutional.

Now, if it were to pass, there's a very small chance it would actually cause any games to be censored. This is mainly because of the third requirement. AFAIK, all games have an art team, so they should all pretty much pass.