Oklahoma Politicians Decide Some Videogames are "Harmful to Minors"

Oklahoma's State Senate unanimously passed a bill that would equate videogames like HALO and Grand Theft Auto 3 with hardcore pornography, making it a crime to sell those games to anyone under the age of eighteen:

HB3004 seeks to amend an existing Oklahoma statute, and redefine what is considered "harmful to minors." Authored by State Rep. Fred Morgan (R), the bill would add "inappropriate violence" to the statute. In the actual wording of the bill, "harmful to minors" means: "the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors."

[. . .]

Virtually everyone can agree that there are games which are clearly inappropriate for children, but that's what ratings and parents are for. Why is it that Republican lawmakers are gung-ho for personal responsibility and government abstinence when it comes to healthcare, welfare, and minimum-wage laws, but they can't vote "aye" fast enough when it comes to intrusively legislating morality?

If this bill becomes law, it will be a crime to sell a "harmful" game to a anyone under 18. There are countless reasons that this is incredibly stupid, among them the fact that a 17 year-old can buy himself a ticket to a graphically violent film like Saw or Hostel, or a sexually-charged film like Showgirls. But that same 17 year-old couldn't legally purchase DOOM 3, and the person who sold it to him would be criminally liable. How does this make sense? The answer is, it doesn't. Bills like this have nothing to do with protecting the children or seriously addressing issues which need governmental attention. Bills like this are entirely about election-year pandering to the ultra-conservative minority who unfortunately make up the modern Republican Base.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

No. Parents should be the judge of this, not our government.

I hardly believe Halo constitutes any type of pornography. I don't recall any intimate scenes with the covenant aliens or between Master Chief and Cortana. (laugh, laugh)

__________________
Continue the Renaissance!!!
www.okcpulse.net

BUT tEH BLOOD!

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I guess purple and neon sea-green blood is just too much for our preacher-fearing government types.

__________________
Continue the Renaissance!!!
www.okcpulse.net

What a step backwards! Don't they have more important things to worry about ( like giving us 6 pt cold beer ha,ha!)

Grand Theft Auto I can see ..but Halo !? It doesn't matter to me anyway.. I buy the games for the kids. But I decide what they play, not the government.

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

No Karrie, apparently they have plenty of time to legislate morality and values. Of course, the government knows what's best!

They'd rather forbid certain video games than fix the TIF problem that will ultimately rob our schools of millions.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

IQ level of Oklahoma Legislators: Too low to register

__________________
Continue the Renaissance!!!
www.okcpulse.net

okcpulse, I don't think it's lack of intelligence so much as the fact that these developers probably paid a lot of $5000's to get the TIF thing to a vote of the people.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Of course, Midtowner. I was just referring to their constant need to legislate morality instead of focusing on the more important... economic development.

__________________
Continue the Renaissance!!!
www.okcpulse.net

Gee whiz okcpulse.. if you don't like them legislating morality, you must be a liberal.

That makes you a bad person.

Sorry that I had to be the one to break the news

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Why is it that you single out the hypocrisy of Republicans, while ingnoring that of their presumeably more liberal rivals?

How certain are you that it's a minority?

Damn this bunch is predictable: constant bashing of Republicans, and conservatives (or is it just 'ultra-conservative' which, by now, I realize is basically code for 'religious right') while giving Democrats a pass. And even from those who claim to be Republican!

First, I don't take credit for the article. I didn't write it. That doesn't mean that I necessarily disagree, however. I don't believe that the author of this article is from Oklahoma. If he was, he'd know that the State Senate has a majority of Democrats, yet this bill passed unanimously. He assumes it was Republicans, but he assumes wrongly.

It's not the hypocrisy of anyone. Hypocrisy would involve saying one thing and doing another. Our current leadership is very clear -- they want Oklahoma:Christian Nation::Iran:Muslim Nation.

As for the ultra-conservative minority, the best data out there is the 2004 exit polling data from the Presidential election. Keep in mind that a minority is anything less than the majority. If you want to argue that the fundamentalist christian right is the "majority," you'll be hard pressed to prove that unless you start to vastly expand that definition as, for example "anyone who goes to church = ultra-conservative majority," and I just don't see you being right on that one. Without furhter adieu, the numbers:

In '04, given the choice between taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, moral values, and health care, 22% selected "moral values." Of that 22%, still 18% of those chose to vote for Kerry.

By church attendance, 41% said they went "weekly", and 40% said occasionally. Of those weeklys, 61% voted for Bush. Of the Occasionallies, 53% voted for Kerry.

Here's the kicker that convinces me that your argument that these religious conservatives are actually the 'majority' is completely false. When polled on the "most important quality," and given the option of cares about people, religious faith, honest/trustworthiness, strong leader, intelligent will bring change, and clear stance on issues, a full 8 percent selected religious faith as the most important factor.

-- so as for the social ultraconservative movement being a minority, my certainty is nearly 100%.

I'm highly critical of my own party -- I expect more out of it than the opposition. I expect our leaders to make intelligent arguments for new policies based on facts and data, not using some gut response to criminalize a behavior when there is no factual basis whatsoever for doing so as we see here.

It's not "bashing" when you state facts. I fully expect the Republican party to concern itself with issues that could actually make a difference, for example, fixing TIF so that it's not something automatically given to any developer with political connections, making government leaner and more efficient, etc. Instead, our politicians are putting the state on a one way course to being the Christian version of the fundamentalist state of Iran or Syria.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Just because we have democrats as a majority does not mean that they take a liberal stance(as would be expected). I get really annoyed when people wrap thinggs up and slap a party label on them. In the south during the 1860's the Republicans were a liberal party(not by our standards but their's).

Now on to the question. First I have seen no conlusive evidence that violent video games cause any harm. For the most part I think hat the video game ratings system should operate very much like that of movies, Only in that case the AO rating should be the point at which they limit children's purchase. I also think the ratings should be spread out a bit more (there is a SIGNIFIGANT difference between Halo, Unreal Tournamnet 2004 , and Grand Theft Auto San Andreas).

In a majority of cases video games have been proven to have a highly beneficial effect on the mind from advanced dexterity and hand-eye coordination to the ability to work out complex strategies (there are hundreds of games that are very similar to Chess and hold the same beneficial effect).

I have been playing games and I don't think one negative thing has some out of it. I thin k this is just one more attempt by the American Government to make me feel claustrophobic.

True resistance, the Oklahoma Democratic party should rename themselves "Republican-Lite."

There is no real representation here for liberals. And since liberals are not represented here, there is no incentive for anyone to move to the center on issues. That brings about wacky legislation such as this and chicken boxing.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

That is why I don't like it here...way too right for me...I'm will try to move away before I will cast my first vote thugh to avoid the inevitable pain of my vote being overridden by that pesky electoral college....

I'd recommend that you stay here and 'fight the machine,' but I can't stop you from leaving. Oklahoma needs its best and its brightest to stay here and make this a better place.

What exactly makes you a liberal anyhow? I haven't herad you spouting a ton of liberal rhetoric here. Conservatism in its truest form doesn't have much to do with the neandrathalic sputem coming from our "religious right" wack jobs (Clark Jolley, Thad Balkman, et al). Those guys use religion to inflame the masses, get their own names out there, and try to build up name ID for subsequent elections that they'll have to participate in if they want to remain "public servants." There's very little ideology there as far as I can tell. These guys consider whether a bill is consititutional as secondary to how much press it will receive during and after the legislative process.

If you want to get an idea about what real conservatism is about, I'd recommend Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. It'd make great summer reading (very long, complex and philosophical [but the story ain't bad either] -- it's something you'd probably really enjoy).

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I wanted to let you know about a great web site that allows gamers to take action to stop efforts to censor and regulate video games. The site is the Video Gamer Voters Network and can be found at http://www.videogamevoters.org/

I just sent a message to my Senators urging them to oppose the Clinton-Lieberman-Bayh Family Entertainment Protection Act, which would regulate video game sales at the federal level. If we are going to stop this bill, and other efforts at the state level, we need more people standing up and taking action.

Please go to http://www.videogamevoters.org today and make your voice heard.

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

Yes I Am!!!!!!!! Oh, did I just say that too loud?

I'm living in Texas now, and I am still fighting to win Oklahoma back from the political nut jobs. I will continue to do so. Just call me the energizer bunny. A monkey in the wrench. A pain in the a$$ for politicians who believe they are Oklahoma's god-parents.

__________________
Continue the Renaissance!!!
www.okcpulse.net

I'm neither a political scientist nor a literary expert, but:

1. Was 'conservatism' a central topic of the book? It's been many years since I've read it but, as I recall, it had more to do with economic freedom, free markets and such, than it did with actual conservatism. Perhaps you're suggesting that that's what 'real' conservatism is? If so, I disagree: there are more accurate ways to define it e.g. "Standing athwart history, yelling "Stop!"".

2. "Atlas Shrugged" is one of the most boring books I've ever (almost) read (I couldn't summon up the fortitude to finish it: maybe the ending would have made it all worthwhile, although I can't imagine how)

Point taken, poor choice of words on my part.

Why did you use this comparison? What is your point? Are you equating the religious right of this state with the mullahs and their followers in Iran?

Actually, my question wasn't rhetorical, but I can understand why it appeared to be. Interesting facts, thanks for the information.

Yeah, I think that it probably can be. And I wasn't merely referring to you, but to this group in general. You explicitly criticized Republicans with no mention of the shortcomings of the opposition party. That goes on a lot around here.

Despite your obvious intelligence, you have a habit of saying really crude and generally ridiculous things about Christian fundamentalists. That last one is not at the top of the list, but it's close. It's no wonder that you criticize Republicans: it's obvious that you despise a significant percentage of your fellow party-members.

For the record, IMHO, the proposed legislation is reprehensible, and those that voted for it should be ashamed of themselves, not least of all because it reinforces negative stereotypes about the citizens of this state.

Of course, our's is by no means the only state whose politicians are shameless:

Bill on smoking in cars adopted

The Senate endorsed a bill by Rep. Bob Mathis, D-Hot Springs, on Friday to ban smoking in automobiles when a child is in a child-safey seat in the vehicle.

The bill goes to the governor.

House Bill 1046, known as the "Arkansas Protection from Secondhand Smoke for Children Act of 2006," provides for a $25 fine for anyone caught smoking in a vehicle if a child younger than 6 or less than 60 pounds is in the vehicle.

The fine may be waived on the first offense if the offender enters a smoking-cessation program.

"There's no doubt about the health impact upon an infant," of secondhand smoke, Gov. Mike Huckabee said. "I think it's a great bill. I'm glad that it's cleared both houses."

While it was not outright praised, I think it was. Most books written in praise or in support of conservatism are propaganda pieces by people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. While not being necessarily untruthful, they are often not intellectually honest. They often achieve their ends through rather questionable thought processes, all in an effort to prop up whatever they believe conservatism to be -- that is, conservatism = whatever they are preaching on any given day.

Rand's work instead focuses on ideals, ideas, concepts, and philosophy. It does not simply praise "libertarianism" or "conservatism", the "ism" that it discusses in detail is "objectivism." As you may know, isms are not mutually exclusive. I can believe in Catholicism, for example while still maintaining my views in conservatism.

Objectivism (very simply) teaches that our moral purpose in life is the pursuit of our own individual happiness. It further reasons (in around the last 200 pages in John Galt's speach) that Capitolism is the only natural way for this to occur in society. It argues in favor of a laissez-faire system of capitalism with which I disagree with in some regards. Objectivism is a decidedly libertarian philosophy, however, when tempered with the belief that government has some role in regulating capitalists for the good and for the continuation of society as a whole, we are left with Conservatism -- or at least fiscal conservatism.

Was conservatism a central topic of the book? Not exactly. But when I internalized it and integrated its meaning into my own philosophy, it in essence became a 'conservative' book for me.

Out of all of the branches of conservatism, I am most decidedly a fiscal conservative as far as where it fits on the political continuum:

<-Commnism-Socialism-Liberalism-Conservatism-Libertarianism->

(I may have left some 'isms' out there, but that's a fair representation as far as I'm concerned, at least where fiscal conservatism is concerned. Were I to draw a continuum for social values, I'd diagram it differently). Conservatism as it is has come to mean a great deal as compared to the more traditional Merrium-Webster definition. It means different things in different societies. That is to say that a British conservative would hold an entirely different outlook as compared to an American conservative.

Up until the last 200 pages or so (John Galt's speach), I found it to be a hell of a fun read. Galt's speach from an intellectual perspective though is absolutely the most interesting part of the book. I wouldn't recommend reading it like you would read Harry Potter expecting to be entertained. This is a book where you'll have to do some of the heavy lifting on your own.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Absolutely. When Pat Robertson says "Jump," do they not say "How high"? When Benny Hinn beckons, do they not come?

On a more serious note, Iran and Syria both have their law written according to relgious dogma. Religious righties want their law written according to relgious dogma. Am I saying they want honor killings? No, they're not Islamic. Do I think that women might needlessly die because abortion would be punishable by deaht? That, I could see.

Well, Thad Balkman, Todd Hiett, and Clark Jolley aren't Democrats, and tehy aren't proposing ridiculous legislation based on what their preacher told them last Sunday. If I'm discussing one particular type of shortcoming, and one party seems to have monopolized that particular shortcoming, if you want the Democrats discussed here, we can say that they absolutely should be since they also voted for the deal. They didn't propose it, but they didn't oppose it either. It's close to election time though, and would you want to give your opponent the ammunition he would have in being able to say that his opponent voted to keep violent video games in the hands of kiddos? Probably not.

The fun thing about this bill is that I think that there's very, very little chance that it'll see the light of day in the second chamber. I could be wrong though.

I don't despise anyone, and I would hope that they don't despise me. There's plenty of room to disagree without "despise."

As for the "generally ridiculous" things I say about Christian fundies, prove me wrong. What I say is based on more than what I feel. I don't tend to spout things out without having thought them through.

So you'd agree that it's a move to energize the religious base while distracting them from more important issues like the economy, oil prices, the I-40 relocation, the abuse of TIF's, etc?

(discussion on smoking can be moved to another thread, but I'm not so sure it's shameless, it seems like sound public health policy to me.)

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!