Utah: games as pornography Bill back for second run at becoming law

[CptStern]

Earlier this year, a Utah bill treating violent games as pornography failed to make it into a flurry of last-minute laws approved in the state legislature's 2006 general session. Now with the lawmakers back to work, a very similar bill is making progress

Utah HB 257 would have classified games containing "inappropriate violence" as harmful to minors. Currently, only material that is sexual in nature receives that designation from the state. The law originally would have applied to movies, music, and other media, as well, but it was revised after failing to make it out of committee in its original form.

so in other words games with violence could be subjected to the same restrictions in distribution that pornography has ..meaning an AO rating meaning no distribution at Wlamart, gamestop, target, best buy etc ...so what exactly constitutes violence in a video game that would cause it to be classified as AO:

This new measure, sponsored by Rep. Scott Wyatt, retains much of the language of Hogue's bill, with one specific substitution. Where Hogue detailed a number of criteria that would classify a game as having inappropriate violence (if the violence was "the thread holding the plot" together, if it used "brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage," if it depicted protagonists "who resort to violence freely," among other criteria), Wyatt pinched a bit of language from Louisiana's pending game restriction law. Under Wyatt's proposed law, Hogue's descriptions are replaced with a single line saying that a game is inappropriately violent if it "appeals to the morbid interest of minors in violence."

well that pretty much covers any and every game with any measure of violence ...if you're not getting some measure of satisfaction from violence in a game why would they put it in the game? it's designed to be enjoyable


thankfully:

The new bill, still in draft form, was approved Wednesday by the Judiciary Interim Committee despite warnings from Utah attorney general Mark Shurtleff, according to the Deseret Morning News article. Shurtleff warned the committee that the bill would likely be declared unconstitutional if the industry were to challenge it in court.

but sooner or later they'll push through one of these bills into law

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6161893.html?part=rss&tag=gs_news&subj=6161893

 

[Loc-Dog]

Great. Then we'd all get games for free through the internet. Just like porn.

 

[Raziaar]

I don't think its fair that they're allowed to bring a proposed law back again and again and again, waiting for that one lucky chance they'll get it passed into place. There should be a limit on how many times, like twice.

 

[Stigmata]

I don't think its fair that they're allowed to bring a proposed law back again and again and again, waiting for that one lucky chance they'll get it passed into place. There should be a limit on how many times, like twice.

Once every two years? I think that would work better, and then lawmakers couldn't say "Well, that was struck down twice two hundred years ago, so HAH!"

 

[SAJ]

Could be a good thing if like to play online, far fewer immature shit-talkers in your fps games.

Why not raise the age limit on violent games? Maybe devs will take it on board and start designing games that are targeted at players that have actually gotten over puberty.
Let's face it over-reliance on violence and massive bodycounts is a crutch that publishers (not designers, note) are using to hide the paucity of original gameplay in an icreasingly risk averse arena.

Does the argument of cesorship have any merit? Is there a concept in any game that is unable to be expressed without the player participating in an act of violence? What about sexual material, if you cant show cock and pussy in unrestricted pop culture, can you honestly argue for the inclusion of bullet and exitwound?

Personally I feel that beyond the technical side of things, innovation in games is dying out, and I would welcome pretty much anything that shakes things up a bit. The way I see it, you wouldnt have got the underground comics revolution of the sixties if you hadnt have the over-restictive comics code.
Sometimes a touch of government repression is good for the creative juices.

 

[CptStern]

yes but without proper distribution even the best of games will have poor exposure

what publisher would invest 10's of millions if because of distribution restrictions they're more than likely to not recoup the costs of development ..so in order to make sure they have as much exposure as possible publishers may force developers to self-censor ..the wording is so general that it could pretty much apply to any form of violence:

"a game is inappropriately violent if it "appeals to the morbid interest of minors in violence."

what exactly does that mean? it's open to interpretation

personally I wish there was a rating system that was 100% adhered to ..that way we wouldnt have vocal minorities/special interests groups trying to dictate what we can/cant consume ..it's the principle of the matter

 

[Raziaar]

Once every two years? I think that would work better, and then lawmakers couldn't say "Well, that was struck down twice two hundred years ago, so HAH!"

Meh. Well it should be just as easy to overturn the law then.

I don't know how the law process works. Heh.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Could be a good thing if like to play online, far fewer immature shit-talkers in your fps games.

Why not raise the age limit on violent games? Maybe devs will take it on board and start designing games that are targeted at players that have actually gotten over puberty.
Let's face it over-reliance on violence and massive bodycounts is a crutch that publishers (not designers, note) are using to hide the paucity of original gameplay in an icreasingly risk averse arena.

Does the argument of cesorship have any merit? Is there a concept in any game that is unable to be expressed without the player participating in an act of violence? What about sexual material, if you cant show cock and pussy in unrestricted pop culture, can you honestly argue for the inclusion of bullet and exitwound?

Personally I feel that beyond the technical side of things, innovation in games is dying out, and I would welcome pretty much anything that shakes things up a bit. The way I see it, you wouldnt have got the underground comics revolution of the sixties if you hadnt have the over-restictive comics code.
Sometimes a touch of government repression is good for the creative juices.

What in the hell are you on about with the rhetorical questions?
Violence is worse than sex. But, if anything, that's an argument for more genitals visible in popular culture (which they already are and have been since people began painting images of people way back 6000 years ago when our lord created this universe).

The basic argument you have there is that, by and large, people are too stupid to buy games with genuine artistic merit.
I don't debate that, but proposing an overbearing nanny state as a solution solves nothing and creates infinitely more problems.

Lots of movies and books are inspired by the vietnam war.
Maybe a touch of bloodshed is good for the creative juices?

 

[SAJ]

yes but without proper distribution even the best of games will have poor exposure

what publisher would invest 10's of millions if because of distribution restrictions they're more than likely to not recoup the costs of development

None probably, but the point is that that's not automatically a bad thing (in the long run).

..so in order to make sure they have as much exposure as possible publishers may force developers to self-censor ..the wording is so general that it could pretty much apply to any form of violence:

Two effects, firstly you get more nonviolence in the mainstream.
Secondly, you get publishers and developers realising that there's untapped new markets in 18+ violent games that don't need to appeal to a younger audience at the same time.

...personally I wish there was a rating system that was 100% adhered to ..that way we wouldnt have vocal minorities/special interests groups trying to dictate what we can/cant consume ..it's the principle of the matter

I agree, but this issue is not just about ratings. I believe( and this was the basis of my post) that its about American stores not stocking games with an "adults only" rating, which is where legislation like the one proposed would surely lead.

What in the hell are you on about with the rhetorical questions?
Violence is worse than sex.

BINGO !! Nail on the head! Yes violence is worse than sex, but we -as a culture- accept limitations on access to explicit sexual imagery (age based mostly), so why shouldn't violent imagery be subjectedto the same restrictions?

But, if anything, that's an argument for more genitals visible in popular culture (which they already are and have been since people began painting images of people way back 6000 years ago when our lord created this universe).

But by and large people accept that universal access to explicit sexual images is not on (especially in north America), so why should there be an exception for expicit violent images?

The basic argument you have there is that, by and large, people are too stupid to buy games with genuine artistic merit.
I don't debate that, but proposing an overbearing nanny state as a solution solves nothing and creates infinitely more problems.

No that's not it at all, people are free to choose what they want and would continue to do so if violent games were treated the same as pornography (as per the op) all that would change would be commercial access and even that would most likely be short term.
The "genuine artistic merit" is harder for both sides. Yes violence does not preclude art but it also doesnt follow that where you find violence you find merit.
There are precious few examples of "genuine artistic merit" in the gaming world and fewer still if you exclude the nonviolent ones. If you look at the most obvious and uncontrovertial example, namely HL2, you find its an exception to the rule in a lot of areas. Self financed, self published and self distributed, a change in the law would not affect it in the slightest.
Ok, gone slightly OT there, but the point is restriction based on age is not automatically the same as censorship and the artistic merit argument is kind of a red herring when you can still make the same game but you cant market it at immature audiences.

Lots of movies and books are inspired by the vietnam war........

But pretty much all of them that include violence have age restrictions dont they? Well the movies do at least.

 

[Razor]

Violent video games should not be sold to minors...plain and simple, if this law is punishing retailers that would sell a mature and violent game to minors, then so be it. As long as it in no way hinders developers creating games they please and only stops the games getting into the hands of minors, i see no reason why such a law shouldn't be past.

 

[CptStern]

None probably, but the point is that that's not automatically a bad thing (in the long run).

I think it is ..HL2 could fall under that loose interpretation meaning in order to from game penetrationto be at iit's peak it has to have as much distribution as possible ..therefore valve could cut back on content just to be more commercially viable ...which just kills the creative spitit (ask any creative person who does that for living what the biggest hinderance to their career is and they'll most assuredly say the penny pushers/accounting dept)

Two effects, firstly you get more nonviolence in the mainstream.

i dont see how that's a plus ..some games couldnt be made if they had to adhere to that loose definition

Secondly, you get publishers and developers realising that there's untapped new markets in 18+ violent games that don't need to appeal to a younger audience at the same time.

but their bread and butter is games that appeal to as wide an audience as possible ..would Halo have sold so much if it was restricted to 18+? or Half-life2 for that matter?

I agree, but this issue is not just about ratings. I believe( and this was the basis of my post) that its about American stores not stocking games with an "adults only" rating, which is where legislation like the one proposed would surely lead.

yes but the ratings are meaningless because consumers wont have a choice either way because it wont be at their local wal-mart or EB games or what have you ..when games cost upwards of $10mil (gears of war at $10mil was seen as a bargin) they cant afford to have their game stuffed into a plain brown bag and hidden amongst copies of "Big Jugs Momma" and "Hanna does her Sisters" with the hope that they'll sell hundreds of thousands of copies

 

[SAJ]

Violent video games should not be sold to minors...plain and simple, if this law is punishing retailers that would sell a mature and violent game to minors, then so be it. As long as it in no way hinders developers creating games they please and only stops the games getting into the hands of minors, i see no reason why such a law shouldn't be past.

The thing to bear in mind Mr Razor, is that whilst we in the uk have had the "18" rating for games for some time, in north America (and correct me if I'm wrong guys) the rating stops at "teen" or "teen mature" and the next reating would be "adults only" the same rating that porn gets.
This rating would stop most chains for stocking any title with that rating, hence the outcry.

 

[kirovman]

Porn is still rated 18.

 

[CptStern]

The thing to bear in mind Mr Razor, is that whilst we in the uk have had the "18" rating for games for some time, in north America (and correct me if I'm wrong guys) the rating stops at "teen" or "teen mature" and the next reating would be "adults only" the same rating that porn gets.
This rating would stop most chains for stocking any title with that rating, hence the outcry.

it's the content that pushes it in either direction ..for example a game becomes AO if there are scenes of sex/nudity ..what these guys are proposing is that violence be catagorized as an "obcenity" therefore it equates it to pornography in terms of how restrictive distribution is .....this doesnt apply for anything else except games

 

[SAJ]

it's the content that pushes it in either direction ..for example a game becomes AO if there are scenes of sex/nudity ..what these guys are proposing is that violence be catagorized as an "obcenity" therefore it equates it to pornography in terms of how restrictive distribution is .....this doesnt apply for anything else except games

Didnt see your reply until I had posted , I'll try and address your points later, quick question though: If the law were to pass and violent games get an "AO" rating, what would stop a chain from selling it? The law or the store's own policy?

 

[CptStern]

the store's policy ...in most cases (self imposed) ..but I really cant say with any degree of certainty because each state has different laws as to what can be displayed

 

[Mechagodzilla]

[W]e -as a culture- accept limitations on access to explicit sexual imagery. ... But by and large people accept that universal access to explicit sexual images is not on (especially in north America), so why should there be an exception for expicit violent images?

People also, by and large, - as a culture- accept that the world is going to be destroyed by the ghost of jesus christ within the next fifty years.
Like I said before, it's not debatable that people are stupid.
The question is whether we allow them to do stupid things like ban images.

Tell me, where is the legitimate harm in images?
What is the epidemic that set this precedent, where certain images are deemed too dangerous, and are thus put under government control?

As far as I can tell, there is no logical precedent for these laws. And when you have a law without logical precedent, that should be your first indication that it's not just.

You can evoke "tradition" and "culture" as arguments, but those words are meaningless. They're nothing more than synonyms for "repetition" and, as such, they represent the arbitrary instead of the logical.
The only legitimate forms of tradition are those that hold up to logical scrutiny, just like it's insane to constantly repeat actions that fail.

[P]eople are free to choose what they want and would continue to do so if violent games were treated the same as pornography (as per the op) all that would change would be commercial access and even that would most likely be short term.

If that is the case, your proposed plan would accomplish exactly nothing except to cause companies to lose large amounts of money.
And where's the harm in causing someone to lose large amounts of money for no reason?

The "genuine artistic merit" is harder for both sides. Yes violence does not preclude art but it also doesnt follow that where you find violence you find merit.

That's a red herring. No-one is arguing that violence causes art.
The question is whether the restrictions on violent images are arbitrary or sensible. I see no sense behind them.

There are precious few examples of "genuine artistic merit" in the gaming world and fewer still if you exclude the nonviolent ones. If you look at the most obvious and uncontrovertial example, namely HL2, you find its an exception to the rule in a lot of areas.

Get the hell out. Most games have far more artistic merit than you're giving them credit for. Half-life 2 is a powerful contender, but it's certainly not the artistic pinnacle of the entire medium.

But, like I said, artistic merit is another of those arbitrary spectres people tend to evoke. It's entirely subjective and, as a result, simply not relevant here.

Again, the question is whether there is a legitimate reason for the government to commandeer the distribution of an image.

But pretty much all of them that include violence have age restrictions dont they? Well the movies do at least.

That's a popular misconception. The fact of the matter is that basically all the restrictions surrounding movies are self-imposed by the industry for the purposes of marketing.
They self-censor in order to gain customers (the aforementioned "we as a culture", meaning a white, christian middle-class majority).
Like you said, there is a demand for censorship, and production companies are glad to supply that demand.
Voluntarily.

The pre-existing ESRB is effectively identical to the system used to judge movies. It is also self-imposed, based on consumer demand.
Companies who wish to censor themselves can and do, and parents interested in self-censorship continue to make use of their services.
No laws are required to enforce this.
Yet, new laws are being proposed every day for no good reason.

Also, I assert that the fact that infinitely more violent and sexual books have been unrestricted for decades or even centuries debunks any claim you could make over the supposed dangers posed by movies and games.

 

[SAJ]

I think it is ..HL2 could fall under that loose interpretation meaning in order to from game penetration to be at iit's peak it has to have as much distribution as possible ..therefore valve could cut back on content just to be more commercially viable ..

I completely agree, but didnt Valve say that they probably couldnt have made the game that they wanted to if it hadnt been for the fact that they were largely self financed? So what were the restrictions that would have stopped a dedicated talented bunch of creatives such as Valve?

(ask any creative person who does that for living what the biggest hinderance to their career is and they'll most assuredly say the penny pushers/accounting dept)

Right, so we agree that it is commercial pressures that already stifle creativity in the games industry? The same industry that has to sell to all markets (age wise)at the same time.
There should be space in the industry for a niche market, -and in a limited way there is- but at the moment the only difference between "niche" and "mainstream" is $$$$$ .

i dont see how that's a plus ..some games couldnt be made if they had to adhere to that loose definition

That in of itself is not the silver lining. The de-coupling of adult and juvenile(or niche and mainstream, if you prefer) markets is.

but their bread and butter is games that appeal to as wide an audience as possible ..would Halo have sold so much if it was restricted to 18+? or Half-life2 for that matter?

And in serving the same menu to all customers who wins other than the publishers?

yes but the ratings are meaningless because consumers wont have a choice either way because it wont be at their local wal-mart or EB games or what have you ..

I would argue that not all customers have equal choice right now. If you (as an "age of consent" customer) want something in large enough numbers, someone will make it and someone else will stock it

when games cost upwards of $10mil (gears of war at $10mil was seen as a bargin) they cant afford to have their game stuffed into a plain brown bag and hidden amongst copies of "Big Jugs Momma" and "Hanna does her Sisters" with the hope that they'll sell hundreds of thousands of copies

But we now have digital distribution, we can shake off our brown bags of shame and cry "I want tits and guns, and I want them now ! "

 

[CptStern]

I completely agree, but didnt Valve say that they probably couldnt have made the game that they wanted to if it hadnt been for the fact that they were largely self financed? So what were the restrictions that would have stopped a dedicated talented bunch of creatives such as Valve?

money ..Valve is the exception ..no one else could afford to independantly produce a game, game engine and distribution system ..everyone else has to go to publishers to pony up the cash before they even write one word of code ..it's like the hollywood studio model where developers pitch an idea and the publishers says yay or nay

Right, so we agree that it is commercial pressures that already stifle creativity in the games industry? The same industry that has to sell to all markets (age wise)at the same time.

not neccessarily ..Mature games are targeted at a specific audience ..the US isnt the only market some jurisdictions abide by ratings ...the fact that we get souless games with regurigitated gameplay and pretty graphics is because of the developer/publisher dynamic ..publishers want a sure thing ..which explains things like Sims2: electric boogaloo/shiny pets and Madden 2142 XXXIV

There should be space in the industry for a niche market, -and in a limited way there is- but at the moment the only difference between "niche" and "mainstream" is $$$$$ .

exactly ..that's why independants stay away from shooters or mmo's or whathaveyou ..take a look at the rts games out there for pc ..tons of independant developers but the shooters looks like a who's who of big name developers/publishers (although with games like Comapany of Heroes the quality for rts just ramped up)

That in of itself is not the silver lining. The de-coupling of adult and juvenile(or niche and mainstream, if you prefer) markets is.

in theory yes that is very desirable ..however legislating and curbing content isnt the way to go about it ..further splintering of the market is

And in serving the same menu to all customers who wins other than the publishers?

of course, it's purposefully set up that way ..the current system is by no means ideal

I would argue that not all customers have equal choice right now. If you (as an "age of consent" customer) want something in large enough numbers, someone will make it and someone else will stock it

but someone has to pay for it all from the very beginning ..that's where publishers come in ..and he who controls the purse strings ..

But we now have digital distribution, we can shake off our brown bags of shame and cry "I want tits and guns, and I want them now ! "

[/quote]

ideally if we wanted more guns and boobies that's what they'll provide ..gamers are mostly to blame for that ..I think that even if games go digital distribution exclusively that you'll see it even out once again and the same types of games will sell the lions share of sales ...guns and boobies sell 9every other industry it's boobies and babies ..gaming = NRA wet dream )