• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Violent games now treated like pornography in Oklahoma

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

mage_x

Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6152609.html

Democratic Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry yesterday signed into law HB3004, which revises the state's definition of what is harmful to minors to include games with "inappropriate violence." Previously, the only content that would qualify something as harmful to minors involved sex or sadomasochistic abuse.

In a statement, Henry criticized violence in games that he said had grown "to epic proportions." He added, "While parents have the ultimate responsibility for what their children do and see, this legislation is another tool to ensure that our young people are not saturated in violence. This gives parents the power to more closely regulate which games their children play."

Under the law, no person, not even minors' parents or guardians, would be allowed to give or show them an inappropriately violent game. Retailers would also not be able to have such games on display where minors could see them, unless the lower two-thirds of the boxes were hidden behind "blinder racks," of the sort commonly used for sexually explicit magazines.

The law defines "inappropriate violence" as any depiction in a game that, when taken as a whole, has the following characteristics:
"a. the average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the interactive video game or computer software is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors, and
b. the interactive video game or computer software lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors based on, but not limited to, the following criteria:
(1) is glamorized or gratuitous,
(2) is graphic violence used to shock or stimulate,
(3) is graphic violence that is not contextually relevant to the material,
(4) is so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together,
(5) trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence,
(6) does not demonstrate the consequences or effects of realistic violence,
(7) uses brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage,
(8) endorses or glorifies torture or excessive weaponry, or
(9) depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely"

While the definition of inappropriate violence specifies that it must take place in a game, the new definition of "harmful to minors" specifies "any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form [emphasis added], of inappropriate violence." This means that video footage showing the violent gameplay, a review of the game in question, or even a newspaper editorial decrying the violence in the game would be classified as harmful to minors, according to a lawyer GameSpot consulted on the matter.

Several weeks ago, GameSpot interviewed the bill's co-author, Republican Representative Fred Morgan, and asked if that was the bill's original intent. At the time he said he needed to examine the language of the bill before answering, but later on he commented that he did not agree with that interpretation.

Neither the state nor national branches of the American Civil Liberties Union returned GameSpot's phone calls regarding the law. The Entertainment Software Association was not available for comment but is almost certain to file suit in this case, as it has in California, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, and other states where restrictive gaming legislation has been passed.

The law is slated to go into effect November 1.

What country is this again?
 
I do live in OK and this is the first I have heard of this. Well past 18 but this still can affect any of us.

Lets just do away with all these fandangled electronics. The stereotypes about Oklahoma are not true for the majority of the population, but the people that fit the description are truly worse than the stereotype suggests.

Brad needs to go enjoy his little mansion across from the capitol and shut up. Its really sad he lives in this massive house by the capitol and its all in the middle of the ghetto.

Lets worry about education in our state. Methinks the average highschool teacher makes less than $20k. Or fix the roads, how about that one? Maybe you should spend more state money on our univiersities. OU tuition has gone up every year for @ 12 years. Yet all the worthless ones in power scream that OU is the cheapest in the big 12. This is very true. AND WE ARE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PER CAPITA!! For families that attend a state univiversity a larger % of their income goes to education than almost any other state/univiersity.

Hell we can't afford very many video games around here. Avg** is $26,000!!! And you are worried about "blinder racks"??!!? Is the state going to pay the additional cost to censor all of those games? No the retail stores will have to which will lower profits and probably raise the price to the customer in one way or another.

**Pulling numbers out of my butt cause Im too lazy to look them up. But the avg family income is something in that ballpark. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Gabbiani said:
Hell we can't afford very many video games around here. Per capita is $26,000!!!

26,000? That's twice the per capita income here in WV. yes. The per capita income average here is right around 12,500 (what i'm gonna be makin' per year at my new job).

anyways, back on topic.... This law does not surprise me. However, the average age of those buying the videogames is in the mid-20's. Why do we need to protect our adults from something that is obviously fake? Again, why do we need to protect our children from it? Can a parent not be responsible enough to sit thier kid down and say "Son/Daughter... this is a video game. What you see in this isn't real. Don't go doing this stuff in Real Life. Remember, it's just a game, and leave the game at home when you go outside."
 
I live in Oklahoma, too...Tulsa area. I don't think I'd heard about this until this thread, but some of that language looks familiar when reading through it. Maybe they copied another state or maybe I had read something about it when it was in the works.

They are going about this the wrong way...I hope it gets fixed it or doesn't happen like it sounds. They need to treat this stuff like R rated movies and put stickers on the plastic packaging that are real obvious to parents that say, "This game is bad!! Pay attention to your kids!!"

BTW, the high school teachers...yeah, they don't get paid enough, but it's not $20k/yr bad. They start out in the low $30k's and it goes up slowly from there. Considering the benefits and huge amount of time off, it's not completely terrible. Mostly, it's just not good enough to attract lots of quality people from better compensation with other jobs.
 
Everytime I here about stupid lawmakers in the US it makes me want to move across the pond. Then I remember that you guys don't have newegg* and shipping there sucks.

*I hear that this could change soon.
 
To tell you the truth, kids shouldn't have access to Violent video games in the same manor that they shouldnt have access to pornographic material. BUT!, if the parents allow the children or teenagers to play those types of games, all the more power to them. My parents bought me the orginal grand theft auto, and HALO, and many other violent video games. I'm tired of all the people saying that those video games promote thigns. I read somewhere that "shooting and killing police is condoned in Grand Theft Auto 3 and Vice City"When it actually isn't. You get police after you and they slaughter you, and they bust ya.

Censoring video games neither bothers me or makes me happy. Im 20, so I could just go buy any one of them. But, if they stop producing great games because of the people that "don't want that kind of game on a shelf". My advice is don't look at or purchase that game. Sorry, I'm not trying to incite an argument, but I've been reading things like this all over the place...

/end rant :D
 
I don't think treating video games like porn is the right way to go, however there isn't anything wrong with industry regulation when its used properly. I think the ESRB is a joke, and parents (in general, or at least the ones who complain about stuff like this) are idiots. Some random suggestion would be maybe rate video games like movies. Some with an "amount" of violence would be PG-13 so you would have to be over 13 to purchase the game. Something with very graphic or gory or blah blah blah, that would qualify as an "R" movie (did you hear about that new pirate movie? its rated ARRRGGH!) you would have to be 17 to purchase. That way parents would have a very similar system to make choices for their children. Make note, this only is for the purchase of video games, not the ability to play them, because we all know parents have let you see "R" movies before you were 17.

odd side note, I was carded today when buying HL2 Episode 1.. I guess many underagers have black beards.. but better safe than sorry for the company it would seem..

Other side note, anyone watch the Colbert Report a couple knights ago where the guest was a Video Game advocate of sorts (a good one, he liked us...) where he talked about the learning advantages of video games? Anyways, good to see someone get some air time like that...
 
I'm sure there's quite afew games out there that have cover art that children would be better off not seeing, and prolly shouldn't play the game at all. I kinda support that law, since it's not doing any harm and it can potentially do good to keep children away from violent games so there will be more copies in store for me (during the rare occasions when I might actually buy a game) and others like myself who enjoy violent games.
 
On one hand, this is just another example of the government trying to get involved in everyone's lives. I agree with the person that was talking about education and roads, etc. as things that should be focused on. There are so many things other than video games that we need to be concerned with. Today it's video games...Tomorrow, what's next? The parents of kids who play the violent games need to be paying more attention to what their kids are playing...

On the other hand, violence in video games could be considered a problem when young kids see the violent acts and, in some cases, try to emulate them. Kids are exposed to a lot of sexual/violent imagery and that's not always the best thing for them.

But back to what I was saying about the parents watching what the kids play - it is hard for both parents to take an active role in basic parenting when they are both working to pay the bills in today's dual-income economy. If the economic situation didn't dictate the need for both parents to work, and one (either one) could be at home with the kids, there could be opportunities for more parental intervention.
 
Violent images have been proven to have a greater impact on a person than porn. The brain can sometimes treats porn and violent images much like its actualy preforming the actions so either pornography is teated to harshly or westren culture sucks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_cells)
I pesonally think that its just a bunch of religious group with to much time on thier hands and some illiusions on some type of utopia they think they can trick the world into adopting but thats why we have wars. Not really anything to do with the goverment. At the heart our leader are who we want them to be and anything they can pull of is supported by some major level of the populace.
You can't stop these struggles, its an inherent quality of speech and gives people the feeling that thier actualy doing something. The best you can hope for is to marganilize or refocus these opinions with a nice little war or financial crises even a few illegal aliens.
 
Last edited:
Great job to all the morons who complain about censorship of nudity/porn in the US by comparing it to violence. It may not be what you want, but no one can whine about OK being hypocritical when it comes to censorship of nudity/porn, lol.

ps I really hope that no one who claimed violence is a bad influence in order to justify nudity/porn complains about this because they have absolutely no right to.

Please stop complaining about video game violence before the idiot atterny general out here catches wind of it. He's the type of cowboy sheriff that would shoot his own horse to make sure it was safe from horse thieves. Just they type to jump on this kind of bandwagon.
 
OC Noob said:
Great job to all the morons who complain about censorship of nudity/porn in the US by comparing it to violence. It may not be what you want, but no one can whine about OK being hypocritical when it comes to censorship of nudity/porn, lol.

ps I really hope that no one who claimed violence is a bad influence in order to justify nudity/porn complains about this because they have absolutely no right to.

Please stop complaining about video game violence before the idiot atterny general out here catches wind of it. He's the type of cowboy sheriff that would shoot his own horse to make sure it was safe from horse thieves. Just they type to jump on this kind of bandwagon.

Nudity/porn and violence are certainly not exactly the same, but for people with little kids and young teens, they might as well be the same. I don't have any problems with any of it, but I don't have any kids either.

It's an itchy subject...you don't want to say "No" to one and say the other is ok, and in fact you shouldn't because if you DO say "No" to one, then you HAVE to say "No" to the other, so as not to sound like a hypocrite.

Didn't it say that the law already got passed, and is just waiting to go into effect?
 
I seem to have issues playing games that don't involve violence...hence why I don't play them. Then again, there are just some people who were never meant to play those kinda games, bet OK went to far with that.
 
So let me get this straight:

The state is now taking on parental responsibilities so the actual parents will have more parental control? Seems more like they're just trying to blame something other than the parents for the lack of control.



So how long will it be before the news only reports happy stories? I'm dreading the day when the only shows on TV are the Carebears, Barney and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. Why is it the US government believe they can correct the problems with the youth of America by restricting things that account for no more than 5% of the actual problems? Hasn't anyone learned by now that when you tell a kid they can't do something, they want to do it even more? Parents are not always to blame...I know a ton of people that are great parents. But on the flipside, I know a ton of people that can't take care of themselves...nevermind their kids.

Why is it we vote for the people in office, but not on the bills or laws that flow across their desks, especially when they impact us directly? Oh well! Good thing I'm old enough to play whatever I want.
 
Back