April 7, 2008
A piece of legislation under consideration today by the Arizona State Senate has video game industry representatives concerned.HB 2660, which was passed by a 36-23 vote in the Arizona House of Representatives last month, would make content producers, publishers and distributors liable for monetary damages if any written, audio, visual or digital material from which they profited was judged to have been "dangerous" or obscene and motivated someone to commit a felony or an act of terrorism.
The Arizona Daily Star reports that Keith Perkins, an attorney who runs the victims advocacy group Never Again Foundation, said that those who profit from such material should be held responsible. Perkins wrote the measure, which is sponsored by Republican Warde Nichols (left).
Representatives for content creators, however, say the measure goes too far:
A representative for the Motion Picture Association of America, Wendy Briggs, said House Bill 2660 is overly broad. She said the legislation... could result in lawsuits against people involved in mainstream movies. Briggs, who also represents video game producers, said they, too, could be liable for items she would consider harmless.
Briggs used a flight simulator game as an example:
Should I now be reasonably sure that that's going to incite somebody to commit an act of terror? What about a movie, or a book, that teaches you how to shoot a gun straight?
The Video Game Voters Network, operated by the Entertainment Software Association, which represents U.S. video game publishers, has issued an alert to members, urging them to contact their elected officials about the bill.
GP: The industry is legitimately concerned about this bill, which would have a chilling effect, certainly on game developers. Who gets to decide, for example, whether content is "dangerous"? What does that mean, exactly? Does violent content make media dangerous? Is Manhunt 2 dangerous? Call of Duty 4? Saving Private Ryan? Beowulf? The Bible?
Comments
Where the hell do they grown these pod like humans? I can't believe this passed in America. This country ios going straight down the shitter I swear.
I'm not too surprised as politicians, from both parties, often go with such lazy legislation as it makes it appear that they are "doing something" about the social ills. But it's only appearences. Even if this bill were to pass (and it doesn't have a snow ball's chance in hell) it would achieve nothing except tying up the Arizona courts in a plethora of though crime-esque legal battles.
If you really want to cut-back on felonies and crime, promote legislation that would have a tangible effect on society. Attract jobs to your state as an area with a good economy has less crime due to people not feeling so desperate. Promote electives in schools such as art and music so kids, especially teens, have an outlet of their angst. Ensure that the gun laws on the books are enforced properly so that psychos like Cho never get their hands on weapons in the first place. Make sure there are enough polic on the street to curb crime.
Of course, to do all that requires actual effort and time and politicians these days only care about getting elected so we end up having crap like this. And for the record I deplore these massacre chaster lawyers as they exploit a tragedy for money and face time.
Ok, I'm done ranting.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken about the wording:
"3. The person knew, should have known or recklessly disregarded a significant risk that the material would substantially assist, encourage or result in another person committing terrorism or a felony offense."
It's not simply "inspiring" the person to commit the crime, it could be providing the means to commit it. Which again brings us back to events like suing an automaker because a loved one was killed in a hit and run.
The manufacturer provided the "assist" to the crime, and a car is a dangerous object, and the manufacturers do know that.
So, it seems that this bill is trying to open up the way to pretty much sue everything in existence. Not that it will stand up to scrutiny as it is so f****** vague that it makes me ill. Go solve a real problem, guys.
An exceptional piece of legal garbage that not only enables the "GTA made me do it!" excuse, but it *rewards* it.
Don't want to be responsible for something? Play a video game and blame that afterward! Then you'll get off scott-free and you'll be able to litigate against the video game makers!
Now then, suppose this ridiculous law passes, and it so enrages some nutjob that he decides to commit acts of violence against the Arizona legislature or some of its members. Could the AZ legislature then be sued for creating "written material" (the law itself) which "motivated someone to commit a felony?"
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that they haven't really thought it through, but you'd think they'd at least be aware of the abject failure of all similar laws in otehr states.
Little Johnny went to school one day with a gun in his back pack. Little Johnny shot eight of his classmates as well as three faculty members before turning the weapon on himself. The police looked into Little Johnny's background. They found that he came from a broken home, was on anti-depressants, and he often went hunting with his father. His step-father had been arrested for domestic abuse of Little Johnny twice. Little Johnny had stacks of nazi propaganda in his room and all of his victims were minorities. The police found a copy of Grand Theft Auto in the room next to a rather offensive suicide note, denoting the various ethnic groups he thought were destroying the planet.
What do you think the media is going to talk about?
Ok, story time is over. I am quite sick of all of these attempts at legislating free speech. The fact of the matter is that the KKK can march down the street in broad daylight, but video games are constantly being attacked by politicians as what is wrong with kids today. You want to know what is wrong with kids today? They are still kids. Eventually, every generation takes the next step. I just hope when the current powers that be fade into obscurity, the next ones will remember what we have dealt with.
Among many many other things, including philosophies he learned through studying Scientology (which would explain a lot IMO but I digress).
If I jump on a turtle and the turtle dies, Nintendo is culpable of cruelty to animals. If I then kick the dead turtle into something and it breaks, Nintendo is charged with vandalism as well.
The Muppet Babies cartoon encouraged the audience to use their imagination. I can imagine a lot of things, and I can use my imagination to plan out my actions. Therefore, Jim Henson Productions is liable for anything I do.
Murders and Terrorism caused by the Bible - 10,000,000 +
Millions upon millions....upon millions have killed, assaulted and have committed suicide over it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
By that same reasoning the pilot instructors who taught terrorists how to fly planes should be liable for damages due to the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York.
Good story. Sad but too true these days. Personal responsibility is out the window and means all most nothing now to most Americans from what I can see. What a sad state of affairs.
I'm really grateful we don't have to go through this nonsense in Canada.
Oh no.
GP: Vinnie, change your user name - final warning....
The Supreme Court likes specificity, it would, in fact, have a BETTER chance of passing if it did explicitly ban video games or something like that. But this bill basically punishes everything and anything that "inspires" bad thoughts/actions.
This is just ridiculous, whoever proposed this bill should be thrown out for wasting time.
All fundamentalist groups suck. Not just Christians. Extremists of any color or stripe are just illogical and lame. That is the nature of the world. There will always be some group of asshats that think they know what is best for everyone.
BTW, I am a spiritual anarchist. ;) (I am not a political anarchist.)
Then go kill yourself, because you can't escape Christianity. It's also stupid to think that a Christian belief is behind all of this. Christ said three things applicable here: "turn the other cheek", "you who is without sin, cast the first stone", and "before removing the speck from your brother's eye, remove the plank from your own".
@ vinniethewop - Right on brotha. My shrink kept telling me that everything that happened bad to me was the fault of my depression. Turns out if I just get off my ass and fix the problem, the problem goes away. Incidentally, paying for the shrink was one of those problems that went away too :)
Remember when people said "this lawsuit will never win" back when that fellow sued McDonalds because 'his coffee was hot' making millions? Obviously this is different in context, but there are similiarities:
All it takes is one.
All it takes is one of these anti-videogame laws to pass, and then there is more, and more, and more, until the USA is destroyed.
I'm not saying this one will pass.. but one day, god forbid, one might. And that's all it takes.
25. Bills of attainder; ex post facto laws; impairment of contract obligations
"Section 25. No bill of attainder, ex-post-facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall ever be enacted."
Except with that lawsuit it had nothing to do with the constiution, while this has everything to do with it. you're compairing apples and oranges. true, it only takes one to win, but they all failed under the same exact reasons. and we have qoutes of those politicians saying they knew it would fail. they are in no way planning these things to pass, they just want good fluff to add to their campaigns later.
Blaming the Christian doctrine is different than blaming certain Christians. And while some of the Christians are making the laws, other Christians are fighting it. The difference is, the defenders don't make as big a stink about their Christianity. Frankly, it's not good to bring up "Christians" as a negative at all, since without clarification it paints all of us in the bad light.
Who are these politicians? Where are their heads?
It's frightening to me how inept our elected officials are.
I refer back to Yuki's comment to summarize my position; enough is enough. The industry needs to stop being concerned about these bills and go on the offensive. Go start some shit. Educate these morons on those rights they're supposedly sworn to protect.
And as Yuki suggests, maybe end a few careers while you're at it.
The whole blaming Christians thing... ya know, it's easy to just say it's all because of Christians, but we all know that's not really the case. But to you fellas getting upset at someone blaming all Christians or Christianity in general..
Look, I know that a majority of the country is Christian, but we don't see the normal everyday Christian guy just going about his life. No one finds that interesting. What people do find interesting is the Jack Thompsons, spouting hellfire and brimstone. The nutjobs. So, that's where this is all coming from.
Not that it's okay, mind you. For example, black people were/are shown in a negative light more often than not, specifically on the news, and on shows like Cops. (don't hate on cops too much though, I love that freaking show) It's not the sole reason for rascism, but it doesn't help. The same can be said with any group of people that can be put into a group, whether it be by age, skin color, religious belief. Media portrayal of gamers is much the same way.
I'd also like to point out that the only time I ever know that I'm talking to a Christian is when I'm talking to a nutjob Christian who is hassling me about my Fuck Censorship CBLDF shirt, my long hair, the music I'm listening to, etc.. Christians that are normal reasonable people tend not to tell me that I'm going to hell, or whip out bibles at me.
Anyway, I'm sure this was rambling, but I just wanted to put it out there.
Did Microsoft Flight Simulator inspire 9-11? You could make the argument...and as such Flight Simulator, FLIGHT SIMULATOR for crying out loud would be banned under this law.
"I know whats best for you, trust me."
that is what I'm getting from all these anti-video game activists these days, they THINK they have the children's best interests at heart but they dont.
You have no private right of action under the First Amendment. You cannot sue because a law is passed that you think violates your rights.
The video game industry could only sue if they were actually harmed. So if this law passed and a game was banned or say EA fined. THEN EA could sue, but they can't sue until the law is actually used against them.
If they try to sue earlier than that the case will be dismissed for lack of "ripeness." It's this idea that the courts will not issue "advisory opinions." They won't issue decisions on laws until those laws are actually employed against someone so that the legislature doesn't slam the courts with hypothetical laws just to see if they'll pass.
It would do two things:
1) Gum up the court system even more than it already is
2) Make the courts the lawmakers, not the legislatures, since no law would pass without first being run by the courts for an "o.k."
Sent my form letter in.
Surprised this passed the house.
Confused that an Arizona law was recently passed which allows adults to carry concealed weapons (with permit) onto school campuses.
You can carry an object invented with violence as its purpose onto a populated area, and if you fire that weapon, the media you have experienced can be blamed for your choice of action.