Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-06-23 12:40:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:james david cain, kathleen babineaux blanco, sb340, sex games

Louisiana Guv Signs Sex Games Law with Industry Blessing

Not unexpectedly, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D) has signed into law SB340, a bill making it unlawful to distribute sexually-explicit video games to minors.

The bill was proposed by Sen. James David Cain (R), and was passed unanimously by both the Senate and House in Louisiana.

Because the provisions of SB340 essentially duplicate existing obscenity statutes, the video game industry has actively supported the bill.

For more on SB340 see GP's previous coverage of the bill.

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


(Post a new comment)


[info]terminator44
2006-06-23 05:14 pm UTC (link)
Well, at least they're not completly retarded. Good move. Now get back to fixing New Orleans, you lazy bastards!

(Reply to this)

Well, duh
[info]mrg0ne
2006-06-23 05:20 pm UTC (link)
Sigh, I really hate repeatative legislation. I just hope they aren't trying to sneak in some silly crap in the background.

(Reply to this)


[info]crimson_mage
2006-06-23 05:31 pm UTC (link)
I'm still uncomfortable about precedent issues and constitutionality gray-areas ... but it looks like I'm the only one, so I guess I should let it be ...

(Reply to this)

This one will hold
[info]trenthowell
2006-06-23 05:51 pm UTC (link)
This particular law will hold up unlike the last one. This one is basically porn laws except it applies to video games. But still, they should be worrying about fixing/guarding lousiana from hurricanes, not video games

(Reply to this)

Difference
[info]johnhummel
2006-06-23 05:57 pm UTC (link)
I don't think that anyone has had a problem with AO rated games not being sold to minors - the problem has been with the extra bits of "if a game contains violence against a police officer, then it should never be seen by a child".

We don't mind applying community standards to computer games - we just mind when they are applied *only* to computer games, and all other forms of entertainment/speech is left alone.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Difference
[info]kincyr
2006-06-24 04:34 am UTC (link)
Exactly. There are movies that contain violence against police officers, and chances are some are rated PG-13, the MPAA equivelant of a T rating.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dudelovenext
2006-06-23 06:00 pm UTC (link)
Wow, I'm so glad that the government fixed this problem! Because, you know, all the major retailers sell sexually-explicit video games!

Such a damn waste of time and money. :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]trenthowell
2006-06-23 06:25 pm UTC (link)
you got a point, I dont really think any game falls under sexually-explicit. Closest ones I can come up with is Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude and the gawdawful Guy Game.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gray17
2006-06-23 10:28 pm UTC (link)
They exist. They're just not the sort of thing that goes to the ESRB then gets sold at retail.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]synabetic
2006-06-23 07:16 pm UTC (link)
Agreed.

It's just an action to make voters happy.

Of course AO and such games should be kept from kids.
But I have a very hard time thinking that all this wasn't just a grab for votes and $$$.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-23 07:31 pm UTC (link)
actually the bill started out with violence regulation components as well, but those were dropped along the way, apparently with some suggestion from the ESA.

Although it's odd that the LA Senate wouldn't approve this bill from one of their own members regarding violence but unanimously voted for Roy Burrell's House bill when that came before them...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]synabetic
2006-06-23 08:05 pm UTC (link)
Ah, okay.

I had forgotten about that (long week).

And yeah, that is pretty odd. Any idea why?

(Reply to this) (Parent)
um...
[info]vansau
2006-06-23 06:48 pm UTC (link)
Just out of curiosity, which games are sexually explicit? I don't think I've ever seen one sold in a major electronics store (and don't point out the hentai games sold in comic stores, they aren't mainstream enough for this question).

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: um...
[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-23 06:51 pm UTC (link)
there really aren't any, at least not any that a game retailer would carry.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Enjoy the law (suckers)
[info]kharne83
2006-06-23 06:58 pm UTC (link)
We stopped the sex games
Our mission is now complete
If they only knew...

(Reply to this)


[info]blackmanta
2006-06-23 09:49 pm UTC (link)
Great, now they've got two almost contradictory gaming laws on the books. I've said it before and I'll say it again; hey Kathleen! "Dee-Dee-Dee!" ;P

(Reply to this)


[info]ianc14
2006-06-23 10:17 pm UTC (link)
I wonder what JT has to say about this, has he spammed anyone about it yet?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-24 02:51 am UTC (link)
don't take this the wrong way, but who cares?

I'd rather not drag Thompson into every conversation. this bill has nothing to do with him.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]trenthowell
2006-06-24 03:19 am UTC (link)
GP is right, hes not involved in this one, at least i hope not. But regardless this law is legit, only an adding games to a list of things that if sexually explicit then it should be kept away from the kids. Which is all right cept theres no sexually explicit games that are publicly available, hence the contradiction.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]automancer
2006-06-24 04:18 am UTC (link)
Very true. The most I see Thompson doing is perhaps claiming that THIS bill is the one he drew up while his real bill gets torn to shreds by the court. (Oh dear, I hope I didn't give him any ideas)

-Auto
automancer@cox.net

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gamepolitics
2006-06-24 01:18 pm UTC (link)
to be honest, I wouldn't see him doing that.

Besides, his issue is game violence and this bill as passed doesn't address that at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]automancer
2006-06-24 06:07 pm UTC (link)
You're right. Now that I think about it, it doesn't make much sense for him to just abandon his bill like that. It's just that he seems so confident that his bill will make it past constitutional scrutiny from the courts, when we are sitting here, arms crossed, saying, "Uh, no it won't."

For some reason it sounded like something he would do out of desparation, but like you said, his beef is with violent games, which this particular bill doesn't address.

-Auto
automancer@cox.net

(Reply to this)

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