Violent video game bill passes Utah House

[JenaRey]

Rep David Hogue, of Riverton, has successfully taken a bill (HB257) through the Utah House that would make the knowing distribution of video games with violent content to a minor a third-degree felony.  This is the same punishment as for distribution of porn to a minor.

Some of the problems with this little bill is that the definition of violent content is very broad and can be interpreted under any of the following:

* is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors;
* taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors;
* is glamorized or gratuitous;
* is graphic violence used to shock or stimulate;
* is graphic violence that is not contextually relevant to the material;
* is so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together;
* trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence;
* does not demonstrate the consequences or effects of realistic violence;
* uses brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage;
* endorses or glorifies torture or excessive weaponry or . .
* depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely.

Under those rules MOST games could be defined as being violent, and anyone hosting such games on their webserver, or in a store where it might be purchased by someone and shown to a minor can be prosecuted as well as parents that allow such viewing.  Add to this that the basis of the bill is that video game violence leads to violent children, a fact that has still NOT been proven in any reputable study, and you have a unique situation.

I'm not saying that kids should be exposed to highly violent games.  I do NOT think that's healthy for them.  Then again I don't think it's healthy for adults either, but that it is a personal choice and should be left to the adult in question.  As far as the kids, where are the parents?  They should be monitoring what their children are playing and being a part of their lives, not leaving it to the government to mandate what can or cannot be purchased or played.  With such broad interpretations in the nature of violence one could be arrested for letting your kids play "Mario Brothers".  After all...someone has to stand up for those smushed mushroom guys.  Right?

~J

[Parker]

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the specific ins and outs of this law, but I have to say I do agree with the thought behind it.  There are some games, movies and activities that just aren't right for children to participate in or view.  I'm all for a legal drinking age, legal age to buy cigarettes, minimum age to purchase tickets for an R rated movie.  I think the same should go for video games.

Now, if you're right, and parents can be prosecuted under this law as well, then I'm not saying I agree with that.  Parents should have the final say over what their children do, and just as a parent can let a child go see an R rated flick, they should be allowed to let them play GTA, however much I disagree with that notion.

But the basics behind this law--the idea that, just like movies, games need to have some sort of enforcement as to age limits--I agree with.  Then again, there might be some aspect I'm missing, and I'm open to people trying to show or tell me why I'm wrong.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Its only a small leap from there to making selling the grapes of wrath to kids a 3rd degree felony.

[Fellfrosch]

I also agree with the spirit of the law, if not its execution. Raising a son has forced me to rethink my opinions about violent media--no matter what I think, the fact is that when he watches a violent movie or plays a violent game, he mimics that behavior almost immediately.

We've made the rule in our house that the kids can't see that kind of stuff until they're old enough to handle it; I think that most "good parents" (whatever that means) would do the same. We don't need the government to do it for us...but is it wrong if they do? The gaming industry created its own rules in an attempt to self-regulate, which they are not applauded for as often as they should be, but I'm not convinced those rules are being followed or enforced to the point that they become ultimately useful. Unless they start prosecuting me for allowing my kids to kill monsters in World of Warcraft, this law is not going to affect me--I'm old enough to buy the games I want without getting in trouble.

That said, I don't like the way this law is being handled, I don't like the spurious evidence used to support it, and I don't like the obtuse and infinitely malleable definition of violence that they have proposed. The worst definition is the one about art--that any game that "does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" can be classified as violent. That's not only a logical fallacy (they're essentially saying that four plus red equals meat), it's ripe for abuse and wild misinterpretation.

[JenaRey]

Personally, I have no problem with laws requiring a rating system for video games, which already exists, and with the rating being the basis for sales.  This would put video games on the same playing field as movies, music and other entertainment.  I just feel like in order to do such a thing the rating has to be standardized and the issue treated in the same way that other mediums are.  Currently this kind of thing feels like a witch hunt and a election platform for supposed 'family friendly' politicans instead of a real effort to help solve the problem.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Generally speaking, slippery slope arguments aren't the most valid objections.
Do you object to the movie rating system?

I don't disagree with this law on principle. I have no problems with laws that prevent the selling of pornography to minors, nor ones that prevent children from seeing certain movies without guardian supervision. Many video games contain content that is very graphic. I don't have any problem with putting an age restriction on that.

However, lawmakers will need to be very specific. They could even just adopt the game industry's current rating system and say you can't sell T rated games to kids under 13 or M rated games to kids under 17-18.

[Archon]

Parker said:

But the basics behind this law--the idea that, just like movies, games need to have some sort of enforcement as to age limits--I agree with.

I agree that they need to have some sort of enforcement. I do not agree that they need some sort of government enforcement. If children are not being raised in an environment where there is a strong parent or strong parents, who will be (a) good judge(s) about what they should and shouldn't be allowed to have, play, etc.  then those children are going to have choices to make regardless of how many laws you put out there. They are going to have to decide what kind of person they want to be for themselves. If children are in this situation, I would assume that we can all agree that there are far worse situations that many (I'm not saying all, or even the majority) of these kids can and do fall into. And many of these situations are illegal. As for the ones who have strong parents, the parents should set standards about what games are allowed, and what games aren't. And they should enforce those standards.
Fell said:

Unless they start prosecuting me for allowing my kids to kill monsters in World of Warcraft, this law is not going to affect me--I'm old enough to buy the games I want without getting in trouble.

It seems that most people nowadays are very quick to sell away other people's rights. I'm not saying that you are, Fell, I just picked your quote because it illustrated my point well. Many people are quick to dismiss bills that take freedoms away from other people, just because it doesn't directly affect them. And when the bill comes around to something that does affect them, the same thing happens, except they are on the other end. And that process is getting many of our rights curtailed little by little.
SE said:

Many video games contain content that is very graphic. I don't have any problem with putting an age restriction on that.

Once again, I don't have a problem with that either. But I do have a problem with the government doing that.

[Parker]

Archon said

I do have a problem with the government doing that.

So what is the alternative?  It seems like a joke if there are ratings, but kids can go ahead and buy whatever they want.  I'm not trying to be argumentative--I just am trying to think of what the other options are, and I'm kind of tired, so I'm hoping someone else will point them out to me.

[Entsuropi]

I watched predator, Terminator 1& 2 and a number of other violent movies before I was 12. Ditto with playing Doom.

I've yet to kill anyone, to the best of my knowledge.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

the problem with saying, "Yeah there should be enforcement, but not by the government" is that you are in the same sentence saying there *should* be enforcement, but we aren't going to provide any, anywhere. The fact is, there are bad parents. But game industry supporters sitting around saying "it's not my fault! It's bad parents!" is just as hypocritical as parents not doing anything about it. The argument against any sort of institutionalized enforcement ultimately says "people are going to be bad anyway, the government has no place trying to stop that." In that case, why do we bother making things like bank robbery or murder illegal? People still have to make their own choice about whether they are going to do it or not.

Now, Entropy, you've made that argument many times before. You seem to think there is some sort of substance to it that is meaningful to this sort of debate. Speach is protected because it is meaningful. REading a book, (or watching a program, or playing a game  or hearing a speach, etc etc) isn't going to make you kill someone. Reading several probably isn't, unless you're an instable personality to begin with. I don't think anyone with an IQ above 2 is claiming that, so in one sense your argument is simply a strawman argument.

On the other hand, it is inarguable (ok, it is arguable, you'll just look foolish) that the media you take in has an influence on you. Arguing that it doesn't means that it's irrelevant what sort of things are said, so it really doesn't matter if it's regulated or not.  I accept people who argue in light of this that it still shouldn't be restricted, but people who say that media has no effect on the viewer are simply ignoring reality.

[Skar]

Seems to me that in an ideal society violent games would be produced but they would be clearly labeled (perhaps according to the current rating scheme but it doesn't matter as long as responsible parties can tell at a glance the general nature of the game) and parents would then take care of the "enforcement" we're all talking about.  Parents would be the ones deciding whether they allow their children to play "mature" games.

That's obvious.

But what we have here is a society where many parents (I have no idea on the relative percentage I just know it's alot) shirk that responsibility.  Whether that's because "Morals" in general are changing or because the Guvmint has been trying to do this for them for so long (laws enforcing movie ratings, moralizing in public schools, etc...) that they don't think it IS their responsibility anymore is really irrelevant to the discussion.  Video Games are not the root of the problem as the Jack Thompsons (right name?) of the world would have us believe.  And until we return to a world where parents think of themselves as responsible for their children this problem and problems like it will continue forever.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

3rd Degree Felony

0-5 years USP $5,000

Aggravated Assault
Poss Cocaine, Meth, etc
Burglary Non-Residence
Theft < $250 but > $1,000
Forgery of Check > $100
DUI
And Selling Video Games to kids.

Which of these things is not like the other.

At least you don't lose your right to vote in Utah for a felony. But thats cold comfort, considering a felony conviction will screw up almost any chance of getting work.

[Spriggan]

actually DUI is about a 4k fine in Utah I think.

[House of Mustard]

So, here's a question I'm just throwing out for discussion.

It is not only illegal to sell pornography to minors, but it's illegal to distribute it to them at all.  Is there a point, and should there be a point, where the same laws are made about extreme violence?

Look at Entropy's argument:  couldn't many people say the same thing about porn?  They could say "I found my Dad's Playboy Magazines under the mattress when I was twelve, but it didn't affect me -- I've never raped a woman or molest a child."  I would imagine a lot of people could say that, but that doesn't mean we should legalize porn for minors.

In essence, is violence all that different from pornography?  Both are a glorification and sensationalization of immorality, and both desensitize the viewer to the sanctity of humanity.

So, why is violence -- even extreme R-rated violence (with exploding heads and torture and severed limbs, etc...) -- perfectly legal to be distributed to kids?  Sure, kids can't go see a movie like Hostel unless they're accompanied by an adult, but when that movie comes out on DVD, anybody can buy it, and give it to their kids to watch.  Technically, if you bought a Playboy and gave it to your kids, you could get arrested.

So what's the difference?  Why does society tolerate violence more than pornography?  And should it?

(I honestly am not sure what my opinion on this is.  I'm just asking what you guys think.)

[Fellfrosch]

And Spriggan should know.

Archon, your point about selling away the rights of others is good, but not germaine to this discussion in my opinion. I'm not saying that I don't care about kids' rights in general, I'm saying that they shouldn't have this particular right in the first place (I in fact stated that I already took this right away from my own children). My comment about how the bill wouldn't affect me was intended to mean "this bill will stop who it's supposed to stop, and still let mature adults make informed choices."

The thing about rights is, government and law imply the loss of rights inherently. That's what laws do--they stop you from doing something and by doing so improve the quality of life for you and everyone else. I'm right with you on the "government should kepp its hand to itself" issue, and I have historically voted to reduce or limit government power whenever it comes up, but this is a case where I really think that society (ie, parents) are just not doing their job. If we are willing to make laws that keep violence and sex away from children when they come in movie and magazine form, I think we should be willing to do the same when they come in video games.