April 8, 2008 -
As GamePolitics detailed yesterday, the Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on HB2660, a measure which would potentially hold media content producers liable for violent acts committed by consumers of books, movies, video games and the like.According to a report in this morning's Arizona Republic, the measure, which was approved by the Arizona State House in March, was defeated in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 4-2 vote. From the newspaper account:
Saying they had too many unanswered questions, members of a state legislative panel on Monday snuffed out a proposal that would make companies financially liable for creating or distributing books, movies and other media that eventually led to a serious crime.
Bill sponsor, Rep. Warde Nichols (R), said that he planned to reintroduce a more concisely-written version of HB2660 in 2009. He told the Arizona Republic:
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.
Wendy Briggs (left), a lobbyist representing various entertainment industries - including the video game sector - at the hearing, said:
The First Amendment is not a defense, it's a right. It is a right to have the freedom to speak and to not have that speech chilled in any way because of your fear of the collection of civil penalties.
Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D) explained his vote against the measure:
[Makers of movies depicting rape] are atrocious in what they create. But at the same time this bill is so broad based, we have to be careful about unintended consequences.
The Arizona Daily Star has more on the story...
UPDATE: Click here to watch video of the hearing (approximately two hours long). Click on HB2660 below the video window to jump directly to the hearing on the media content bill.
Comments
Just because you think some form of media is bad doesn’t mean you can stop other people from accessing it. Sooner or later these politicians are going to have to face this and quit wasting time trying to crush free speech."
I don't think it's meant to stop people from accessing it. Rather, it seems meant to scare the companies into not producing it. Which I guess is sort of the same thing, depending on how you look at it. But if the companies don't fear the backlash, they can produce whatever they want and we can buy whatever they want. The bill only holds them responsible if someone commits an act as the result of the media. It's a liability bill, not a "forbidden from production" law.
4-2 on the Anti-christ of media censorship?
... What companies are these? I mean, I know Microsoft has occasionally raped my wallet, but that's it. You've gotta love these non-specific examples. I'd bet he can't name a single one.
The bill was about 'violent acts' which could be anything, including Jerry hitting tom with a pie. But the people acted as if it only covered rape.
Ex1: "OK with the production and distribution of violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts."
Ex2: "[Makers of movies depicting rape] are atrocious in what they create."
Yes, rape is a violent act, but not all violent acts are rape. If they did pass this law, even just against rape, half of the Lifetime channel would have to blocked, as a lot of those stories are about the rape victim standing up for herself; but they depict rape. Did he just call the Lifetime channel (and a handful of After School Specials about date rape) attrocious? Perhaps you didn't think this law through all the way before you wated a lot of tax payers money.
Next thing you know, they will pass a law pulling all copies of Custers Last Stand (or whatever the title was) off the shelves, which could impact the sales of the Atarii 2600...
Excuse, is that person serious here?
Since when do you distribute "violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts", its not as if companies are selling "instant-rape-in-a-can" here, they're works of art in a way, sure they may be violent, or otherwise disturbing, but that doesn't mean companies should be liable for what a crazy person does after "consuming" one of their products.
That person made a choice, and nothing a company does will change what a person may possibly do. (except perhaps medication).
Would have been a better and more realistic quote given the whole movie rape thing considering that the major opponent was video games.
I really hope change is coming and we'll return to personal accountability instead of finding scapegoats so we can let truly screwed up people free. This way they can kill/rape/rob/etc. again. Genius. Just further tells me that both parties have lost their way. I can only hope that both candidates can pull their parties from the brink of insanity.
NOTE: I'm assuming that by April 22 there will only be one Democratic Candidate, no matter what the other one thinks.
Would any number of comedies be banned if someone organized a cream pie fighting contest?
Unless you call AWPing a line of three terrorists in Counterstrike with one shot rape, yeah. You're right.
These people need a nice hard smack upside the head. Oh waitaminnit, thats rape in their book.
I can see it now: "I was like, listening to this song right? and like it said 'I dont like the way you sound (when you scream at me)' and I so totally felt like you know, like suffocating someone so that they would like you know, not make an annoying sound you know? Im going to sue Pink Bunnie Band for 1 billion dollars for making me kill that old lady!"
Yes thats right kids, Its not the devil anymore, Media made me do it, Ill bet 5 dollars ole JT had something to do with this one too.
You might just be farming some free-range truth over there. It certainly sounds plausible to me.
Why do the keep bringing up rape?
"with the production and distribution of violent, forced, non-consensual sex acts."
"[Makers of movies depicting rape] are atrocious in what they create."
Well...at least this explains why steven king came out against it,its geared twords books too
Translation:
"We gotta make sure bigotry and hate espoused by religion is Protected because 'Protecting our religion' is of higher import than 'Protecting the children'."
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS SPAGHETTI, LAY OFF THE RAPE. It just makes you look even less informed than you already are.
I await 2009 - when this bill comes back stronger than ever - with utter terror.
I suspect you'd have to get into some pretty specific subgenre of porn to even find something that truly glorifies rape. Maybe that tells you something about those politicians...
I wonder if AA (America's Army) will be exempt.
I seriously doubt the bill will be any stronger than it was. It's still too beard of a question to pass a law on this. Even the best lawyer in the world cannot find a way to not make this bill unconstitutional.
If the First Amendment is still there in 2009, then there's nothing to worry about. What he wants is just too vague to be acceptable. The only way he can do it (in my opinion) is to post several small bills, but eventually, they'll contradict each other (if they ever happen to pass the First Amendment).
OK Massachusetts, time to stop this bullshit right now and just raise the white flag on the whole "games as porn" nonsense.
What kind of f-ed up games are they playing? There's never been a rape scene in any game I've ever played.
Exactly. 4-2 is an absolute defeat. This is basically the Anti-Christ of Media... Wtf is 4-2..
These guys are just going to keep putting more and more make-up on the pig until something works. They let the whistle-blowers have their victory... then quietly push it again with different language, all while we feel like the threat is gone.
If it wasn't 4-2, it could have been 3-3 if one person changed their mind.
I'm very concerned that 2 of the 6 Senate Judiciary Committee members thought this would be good enough to go on. It's not an absolute victory, especially depending on how elections turn out this coming year. I don't live in Arizona, but Rep. Warde Nichols might be waiting for a demographic shift within the committee which might come this election year?
While it's good news that it didn't pass, this isn't fantastic news... it feels more like a stay of execution.
Japanese text games, maybe?
Just because you think some form of media is bad doesn't mean you can stop other people from accessing it. Sooner or later these politicians are going to have to face this and quit wasting time trying to crush free speech.
Oh, and kudos to the Senate Judiciary Committee; you upheld free speech AND saved your taxpayers thousands or millions of dollars that would have been spent defending this bill when it came under fire.
Nothing like making a law and then having it come bite you in the ass. You KNOW those politicians have a stake in the entertainment industry or their own religions at some level.
I'm betting the new "revised" bill simply targets games.
one bloody day
This prick would censor art.
*nods* niche erotica is the biggest area where you will see rape glorified. Though there are plenty of non-adult books that are interpreted as 'glorifying rape',.. i.e. non-erotica kink related books (since many people view kink==rape, even though the similarities between DS and conservative christian gender relations are nearly identical minus the fun sex)
Imagine if someone who's heart was broken over a failed relationship successfully sued a book company over their romance novels, which featured betrayal and heartbreak.
Imagine if someone jumped of a building to their death because they read a Superman comic and the family succeeded in suing the comics industry.
This bill, if ever successful (and I have every reason to believe it won't) will be damning to the 1st Amendment.
Where would it have ended? This was basically an attempt to imprison or fine the entire american populace!