Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-16 08:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:democrats, hb1381, jack thompson, kathleen blanco, louisiana, miller test, roy burrell

BREAKING Louisiana Guv Signs Jack Thompson Video Game Bill Into Law - Industry Lawsuit Expected

As of today, there is a violent video game law in effect in Louisiana.

GamePolitics has confirmed with her staff that Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D, seen at left) signed HB1381 into law last night. Under terms of the legislation, it takes effect immediately. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Roy Burrell (D) and drafted by controversial Miami attorney and anti-game activist Jack Thompson, defines violent video games as "harmful to minors" in much the same way as pornography.

Using language from the well-known Miller test of obscenity, the new law prohibits sales or rentals to minors of games which a judge has determined meet these conditions:

"The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence."

"The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors."

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
"

The video game industry is expected to appeal on First Amendment grounds. GamePolitics is seeking comment from the ESA at this time.

Attorney Thompson circulated an e-mail on the new law this morning, calling the signing of the bill "personally gratifying" and alleging a harassment campaign against him on the part of the videogame industry.

"This law is constitutional," Thompson continued, "as it addresses all of the complaints raised by federal courts which have struck down other state video game laws. It is unique in its approach, as it borrows a time-tested three-prong approach approved by the US Supreme Court in obscenity cases."

With Gov. Blanco's signing of the measure, Louisiana becomes the third state this year - along with Minnesota and Oklahoma - to adopt sales restrictions on violent video games, thus equalling 2005's record setting total.

Want to talk about it? You can discuss this story via the "comments" feature (click below), or in the new GamePolitics Forums...




Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]ski309
2006-06-16 03:19 pm UTC (link)
shouldn't a remark like that from thompson show that he's personally biased towards such legislation and should have no part in it's creation?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]qft
2006-06-17 05:25 pm UTC (link)
No. Most everything is drafted with the supporter's and creator's interests in heart. It's the job of those who approve it to decide whether or not it's in the interest of the general public.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]raka
2006-06-16 03:25 pm UTC (link)
I am unsuprised. Not really the best state for "Good Decisions." Jack better hope the bill is as tight as he says it is because I don't think there's a doubt it's going up in the courts.

Honestly, I can see what the man wants to do, and would even agree that there are games that kids just simply don't need to have, but I think there are better ways to go about it. Plus, Jack's... well he's not a nice guy. I could go further with him being ranting, insulting and childish, but I'll just leave it at the "Not Nice" thing.

If nothing else, the next month or so should prove interesting at GP, no? Actually, how long does it take to send it to the courts and see if it holds water?

(Reply to this)


[info]zynth
2006-06-16 03:27 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I'm sure making it illegal will really prevent kids from playing violent games. Think McFly, think!

*CSSHHH*

This is squad 107. We've got a 1381 at 804 Timberland Road. Children playing Mortal Kombat. We're going to need back up on this one. They might be shooting up drugs and/or eating babies. Respond to backup.

*CSSHHH*

Yeah, 107, we were going to stop a bank robbery, or a rape, but you're right. Kids with Mortal Kombat needs an immediate response, Over.

*CSSHHH*

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kharne83
2006-06-16 06:50 pm UTC (link)
Would they even bother to bring it up? I doubt they'll be any cops haunting the malls to make sure hte law will be in effect.

Personally, I think the industry should let the law pass. Enforcement will fail miserably and the anti-gamers will be out of options for further attacks. Assuming of cource that they do not disband under the foolish belief that they've actually accomplished something.

To win is to loose, what a laugh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Kyles mom is a bitch the biggest bitch in the whole wide world
[info]penpaperprint
2006-06-16 03:35 pm UTC (link)
Games as bad as porn huh?

I can't believe this got past legislation. So, when people are saying "its for our children" do they even explain or ask their kids what they think. Or do they ignore them? I guess a parent that ignores their kid and support an unconstitutional bill is a good parent. Reminds me of south park. LOL, thats an awesome show.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Kyles mom is a bitch the biggest bitch in the whole wide world
[info]terminator44
2006-06-17 01:02 am UTC (link)
I just loved that song, espically in the South Park movie. It was the second best moment in the movie, right behind "Blame Canada".

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]te_alana
2006-06-16 03:37 pm UTC (link)
I love how he blames the industry for things done by private individuals.

(Reply to this)

This won't take long...
[info]sabin_blitz
2006-06-16 03:38 pm UTC (link)
It will be brought to the court, the court will label the bill unconstitutional and we'll all get on with our happy, game-filled lives

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: This won't take long...
[info]joemag
2006-06-16 03:58 pm UTC (link)
and the people of Louisiana foot the bill for pointless legislation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: This won't take long... - [info]xlorep_darkhelm, 2006-06-16 07:07 pm UTC

[info]cecil475
2006-06-16 03:42 pm UTC (link)
I am so making fun of this idiot when it is struck down.
to him.
In his face.

Ha, Ha! LOSER!!!

- Warren Lewis

(Reply to this)


[info]cecil475
2006-06-16 03:56 pm UTC (link)
Thompson will gloat about this from now till the time the bill is struck down. Then he will just cry and sulk about it. I'll bet you anything (within reason that is) that Thompson litreally wetting himself to come on here and gloat. Hey Dennis, was this "email" sent to you? Wonder what his attitude will be like when the bill gets shot down. This will be pretty interesting.

- Warren Lewis



My image archive
http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/Cecil475/
cecil475@earthlink.net

(Reply to this)

Wait, what does this appy to?
[info]gamereviewgod
2006-06-16 04:17 pm UTC (link)
Why does she keep saying "THE game?" Shouldn't it be video games in general, or does she have no idea what she's talking about?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Wait, what does this appy to?
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-16 04:23 pm UTC (link)
Actually, those lines are lifted directly from the legislation.

It takes games on a case-by-case basis. So, a prosecutor would need to bring a case against, say, San Andreas, and a judge would rule on that game, not games in general.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Wait, what does this appy to? - [info]kharne83, 2006-06-16 06:55 pm UTC
Re: Wait, what does this appy to? - [info]terminator44, 2006-06-16 08:57 pm UTC

[info]muhammed
2006-06-16 04:26 pm UTC (link)
I'm fairly sure this one will get struck down just like all the others. Its sad that LA politicians think that this is what they need to be spending their time on. I'd be furious right now if I lived in LA. I'm sure everyone who voted for this thought that this would be a way to get votes, but don't you think politicians who focused more on the rebuilding would be the ones to get more votes.

Anyway, even if by some freak chance it doesn't get struck down it won't do what Thompson wants it do, specifically because of how its worded.

"The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence."

Contemporary. Community. Standards. Obviously Thompson wrote those words down without thinking about their meaning. Its obvious to us all that his community standards are those of the 1950's, but the rest of society is different.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]penpaperprint
2006-06-16 05:07 pm UTC (link)
Well, it starts small and moves up. If by some chance this bill doesn't get shot down, they will pass another to restrict games that much more. Its a progressive sort of thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ianc14
2006-06-16 04:38 pm UTC (link)
and alleging a harassment campaign against him on the part of the videogame industry.
*laughs*

Sure Jack, sure.

Did he say anything else on that fact, or was it just another baseless JT comment.

Oh and im amazed i didnt get his email, since i seem to be in his address book now.

(Reply to this)


[info]larpguide
2006-06-16 04:39 pm UTC (link)
Personally gratifying?

Harassment campaign against him?

Isn't this where someone points out that this is no longer about the children or the community as a whole. It is about him. I believe this is where many attorneys are asked to remove themselves from a case because they have become 'too personal' with the case.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gabrielcelesta
2006-06-17 02:41 am UTC (link)
Isn't this where someone points out that this is no longer about the children or the community as a whole. It is about him. I believe this is where many attorneys are asked to remove themselves from a case because they have become 'too personal' with the case.

Yeah, I think you're right. In fact, I've been thinking lately... It seems to me that what truly matters to Jack Thompson is all about himself and getting what he wants. I think JT basically wants the world to revolve around him. He's nothing but a self-centered egomaniac, as far as I can tell.... I don't know what else to say about him.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

supreme court snafu
[info]jabrwock
2006-06-16 04:39 pm UTC (link)
it borrows a time-tested three-prong approach approved by the US Supreme Court in obscenity cases

Except SCOTUS ruled that the three-prong approach can only apply to depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct. Violent conduct is exempt from this form of test.

Besides, while the Miller test is designed to provide the framework for what is considered obscene, local laws must clarify what "sexual conduct" actually means, because otherwise how do you know what's "patently offensive" or not? Look it up in Oklahoma law, they use the 3 prong test to identify why sexual conduct is obscene, but then they actually define what sexual conduct means:

"Sexual conduct" means and includes any of the following:
a. acts of sexual intercourse including any intercourse which is normal or perverted, actual or simulated,
b. acts of deviate sexual conduct, including oral and anal sodomy,
c. acts of masturbation,
d. acts of sadomasochistic abuse including but not limited to:
(1) flagellation or torture by or upon any person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in a costume which is of a revealing nature, or
(2) the condition of being fettered, bound, or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one who is nude or so clothed,
e. acts of excretion in a sexual context, or
f. acts of exhibiting human genitals or pubic areas;


Without this, you cannot effectively restrict depictions of sexual conduct, because you have no reference to work from.

And since HB1381 doesn't actually define what "violence" is, then a court has no basis to judge what the lawmakers felt "violence" meant. Is cartoons ok? Is Itchy cutting Scratchy's head off and draining the blood out "violence"? How about man-on-alien violence? The guy filling the alien bugs full of holes in Starship Troopers, is that offensive? Or man-on-beast? If I show an image of a cow being slaughtered, is that "patently offensive", because it certainly is violent, especially if I'm spraying blood everywhere. I'm sure I could round up enough wussy city folk who could find that offensive.

Oh wait, I just listed movie/tv references, and those are ok to be as violent as they want to be. It's only when you are being gratified with pleasurable vibrations that you learn to be violent. /sarcasm

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: supreme court snafu
[info]dustin1986
2006-06-16 10:24 pm UTC (link)
Is Itchy cutting Scratchy's head off and draining the blood out "violence"?

I use the Itchy and Scratchy excuse all the time. It's considered acceptable because it's on The Simpsons and everyone loves that show.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bringoutyurdead
2006-06-16 04:46 pm UTC (link)
one step closer to a Fahrenheit 451 society

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gray17
2006-06-16 10:06 pm UTC (link)
For it to be one step closer to that, I'd have to have a prayer of surviving.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]terminator44, 2006-06-17 01:06 am UTC

[info]crimson_mage
2006-06-16 04:49 pm UTC (link)
Jack, Jack, Jack ... I'm amazed he can't see what everyone else seems to see, or get his facts straight for that matter.

"This law is constitutional," Thompson continued, "as it addresses all of the complaints raised by federal courts which have struck down other state video game laws. It is unique in its approach, as it borrows a time-tested three-prong approach approved by the US Supreme Court in obscenity cases."

Erroneous! Erroneous on both counts! The use of the Miller test is a guaranteed failure in two ways. Not only is the third prong guaranteed unfilfillable for all but the basest interactive media (i.e., anything with more gameplay and plot sophistication than that loathsome "Border Patrol" passes the serious value test - and even that excuse for a game might qualify), but the first prong's "taken as a whole" clause provides an extra measure of defense.

And it's not unique in its approach. Lawmakers have tried to extend the definition of obscenity to violence (in video games) in several previous cases and failed on Constitutional grounds.

For a man practicing law, you'd think Thompson would learn to familiarize himself with the existing body of case law, or at least to respect the spirit of the First Amendment.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]illspirit
2006-06-16 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Not only is the third prong guaranteed unfilfillable for all but the basest interactive media (i.e., anything with more gameplay and plot sophistication than that loathsome "Border Patrol" passes the serious value test

Border Patrol would pass the test because it's obviously a political statement of some sort. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance.
[info]nightwng2000
2006-06-16 04:53 pm UTC (link)
Actions speak louder than words ever will.

This legislation was passed by way of fraudulent evidence. Lies and deceit were clearly prevelant during any and all hearings regarding this legislation. Certainly not the least of which were the references to media (games sold ONLY online) that would not even be governed by said bill. And the references to not showing evidence that certain playable capabilities (most notably the claim that players can "rape" virtual characters within the GTA games) exist when they actually do not, thereby commiting fraud for the personal gain of having a bill passed without merit. And these are merely two such events that occured during the hearings of this particular bill. There many similar cases of lies and deceit in the passing of other bills, as have been pointed out over the months.

And yet we still hear how great this country is. We hear it is supposedly the best in the world. Most nations that are dishonorable and unethical in their actions do so openly. They have no problem telling other nations and citizens that how they do things is their business and no one else has the right to tell them how to act. Yet, the US puts on a front of how great it is, denying any injustice against its own citizens, let along against others. But here, we have proof positive that the government of the US has abused its position, against its own citizens no less.

We send our military overseas, with the patriotic chant that they are their to protect our freedoms. And so many feel that they are.

Yet, what freedoms are they protecting? Self-appointed Experts who lie and deceive US citizens and US government officials? US government officials who lie to and deceive US citizens as well as other government officials? Self-appointed Experts who claim certain media isn't protected by the First Amendment, while out the other side of their mouths they give interviews stating that they wish to create legislation against such media that will circumvent the First Amendment. Government officials running for office (most notably and recently the NY AG) clearly stating that the government should DECIDE FOR parents what is or is not appropriate for their children, thereby knowingly and intentionally setting out to violate and, in effect, revoke Parental Rights.

And what of need for government officials to lie and deceive everyone, even during a hearing on the Administration of Criminal Justice, making one wonder just what the US's, let alone Louisiana's, idea of Criminal Justice really is.

Actions speak louder than words. And such actions degrade the ideals of what the US was supposed to stand for to such a low that there may actually be no comparison to any other corrupt unethical country's government's actions.

And what type of response is appropriate? In days gone by, it would have been to mutilate the US flag in some manner. And yet, the actions of those previously mentioned have been to such a degree of disrespect to the the Flag and even to those who feel they are fighting for the freedom of US citizens. There is no appropriate response to such individuals who would dishonor the citizens and Constitution of the US.

But if you think this rant is all about "protecting video games", then you have sorely missed the point. Because, in all honesty, if such individuals would take such actions to create these video game legislations, what other legislations would they commit such acts to pass? How many other bills have been passed through lies, deceit, and fraud?

nightwng2000

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance.
[info]gray17
2006-06-16 10:26 pm UTC (link)
You act like this will survive. It won't. It passed not because the legislature that voted for it was cynically trying to suppress people's rights, but because a few twisted people took advantage of their ignorance, and their fear of being portrayed as against family values. It will die, because it surviving would require amending the Bill of Rights, and probably a couple other parts of the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is difficult in the first place, and any politician that suggests touching the Bill of Rights will be killing their career, and placing their life at risk.

So kindly stop with the prophecies of doom. This is just more of the same that's already been passed and killed. It will die and fade away.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance. - [info]nightwng2000, 2006-06-17 12:57 am UTC
Re: Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance. - [info]gray17, 2006-06-17 04:21 am UTC
Re: Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance. - [info]nightwng2000, 2006-06-17 02:32 pm UTC
Re: Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance. - [info]karmakin, 2006-06-17 01:18 pm UTC
Re: Breaking News: USA most corrupt nation in existance. - [info]ss_ebonclaw, 2006-06-17 11:46 pm UTC
Noooo!
[info]kickassgamer
2006-06-16 05:13 pm UTC (link)
Noooo! I live in Louisiana, and I am a minor. This sucks, help ESA!

(Reply to this)


[info]viridiscervus
2006-06-16 05:17 pm UTC (link)
Lost my vote...

(Reply to this)


[info]finaleve
2006-06-16 05:32 pm UTC (link)
It will most likely be found unconstitutional. Reason 1 is because it's been found unconstitutional several times already by similar bills. Reason 2, because it affects all forms of gaming by the description. Not only will it harm the ones that are on retail, but also the ones that are made from real people who do it for fun and not get paid for it. You are now talking about thousands of people who enjoy making fine flash games (and not so fine). Now they will have to add "Are you over 18? [yes][no]".

When you purchase something, they should be given a form just before selling the game, where they will sign it. It would say something around the lines of "I, the consumer, hereby state that I am 18 or older, and legally allowed to purchase this product." So that way, when they are found that they are arent over 18, they are screwed because that document is signed.

ime consuming, butdefinately worth a few bucks at the xerox machine.

(Reply to this)


[info]gdex86
2006-06-16 06:08 pm UTC (link)
Count me in the pile that thinks this is even worse. First of alll its using a prsicutors person beliefs on a game and a judges opinion. Taking out the fact that unless you get the same people every time you aren't going to get uniform effect on the law, but the fact that its a massive waste of money and time. Again to have this work every time a case is brought forth you have a judge who will need to take time out to finish the game to judge if the violence is acceptable in the artistic content of the game cause that whole "Lacks artistic merit," thing isn't going to be held up in court even if he wins there. They've got I think 6 judges currently who say it does which looks better then one law getting passed. More feel good legislation that got passed cause its a legislation year.

(Reply to this)

Don't start your celebration yet, Jacko
[info]mnementh2230
2006-06-16 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Don't buy anything for your party yet, Jack. The vast majority of legal precident points to a retro-active abortion for your baby law.

I'm not even a lawyer and I know a lot of cases prosecution could cite for their side. Learn your profession, jack-ass.

(Reply to this)


[info]sir_bissel
2006-06-16 06:52 pm UTC (link)
" scientific value for minors."

So we just have to have a half hour section in every video game (HEY! It could be a hidden section, blocked off a la Hot Coffee!) explaining evolution or long division or a lecture dealing with James Joyce...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Either that or...
[info]terminator44
2006-06-16 09:04 pm UTC (link)
There would be cutscenes to "scientifically" explain the events in the game. You just know how stupid that will be. For example, imagine a cutscene in Halo 3 that trys to explain how those Halo rings work *shudders*.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Either that or... - [info]sabin_blitz, 2006-06-16 09:48 pm UTC
Re: Either that or... - [info]terminator44, 2006-06-16 10:26 pm UTC
Re: Either that or... - [info]monte924, 2006-06-16 09:53 pm UTC
Re: Either that or... - [info]terminator44, 2006-06-16 10:28 pm UTC
So when this is found unconstitutional...
[info]dog_welder
2006-06-16 07:14 pm UTC (link)
I have a few questions on my mind about what will happen when this is found unconstitutional:

1) Will Jack still feel that it's "personally gratifying" when he sees the bill get shot down?

2) Will Jack still continue to feel that this is constitutional when the courts say otherwise?

3) Can Louisiana turn around and send Jack a bill for the court costs because of the obvioulsy crappy legal advice they received? (I already know the answer is "no," but you'd think they'd be able to.)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: So when this is found unconstitutional...
[info]gray17
2006-06-16 10:13 pm UTC (link)
1) Will Jack still feel that it's "personally gratifying" when he sees the bill get shot down?

2) Will Jack still continue to feel that this is constitutional when the courts say otherwise?


Judging by past behavior, he'll rant and rail conspiracy theories about how the game industry is bribing everyone, impunge the integrity of those involved in striking it down, and in general make a fool of himself. So yeah, he'll still find it "personally gratifying" as it did get passed, and he'll likely still feel it's constitutional, because in his mind anyone that says otherwise is being payed off by Take-Two.

3) Can Louisiana turn around and send Jack a bill for the court costs because of the obvioulsy crappy legal advice they received? (I already know the answer is "no," but you'd think they'd be able to.)

No, but on the up side, it's not like he'd be getting payed much for it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kincyr
2006-06-16 07:18 pm UTC (link)
The legislature finds that children are the most precious resource of this state

Yeah right. There's an overabundance of children in the USA, and as for protecting them, I don't see anything making rap or movies depicting violence against cops illegal.

And Thompson, if you are reading this, as Jabrwock said: the three-prong approach only applies to sexual conduct, not violence. If you want to debate with me Jack, you can reach me at jdo0131@wowmail.com

(Reply to this)

Law creates a burden on the courts
[info]dog_welder
2006-06-16 07:33 pm UTC (link)
Okay, so now we have a law (I know it's going to get shot down, but bear with me here) where it will be up to the courts to weigh in on any suspect game. Great idea! Let's bog down our legal system even more! Now the lawyers can line up and defend or prosecute a game!

You know what this legislation sounds like? It sounds like something written by an out-of-work lawyer looking for a pay day.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Law creates a burden on the courts
[info]dustin1986
2006-06-16 10:39 pm UTC (link)
Other than Thompson, who's going to start bitching about some random game? This isn't practical by any sretch of the imaginationnow what, I'll. Maybe Jack will get the ball rolling? I'll bet if there isn't an injunction soon, Jack will stroll into court and try to get Grand Theft Auto declared obscene!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Law creates a burden on the courts - [info]ianc14, 2006-06-17 09:19 pm UTC

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…