If legislation passes:

 

http://videogames.yahoo.com/newsarticle?eid=439073&page=0

 

Utah House approves game legislation

Bill that would include violent games under obscenity laws passes state House with ease, moves on to Senate.

 

By Brendan Sinclair

 

1:39 pm PST February 24, 2006

 

A bill that would alter Utah's criminal code to include violent video games under the banner of "material harmful to minors" has passed the state's House of Representatives with ease. The bill passed the House by a vote of 56 to 8, with 11 legislators absent or not voting, and was introduced to the Senate this morning.

 

If it becomes law, Utah HB 257 would make it illegal for anyone to show or give games containing inappropriate violence to minors. 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.

 

Under the state's current law for exposing minors to harmful material, each separate offense would be a third-degree felony with a minimum fine of $300 and imprisonment (with no option for a suspended sentence) of at least 14 days. If someone has already been convicted under the law once, however, the crime is then a second-degree felony with a minimum fine of $5,000 and at least a year in jail, again with no possibility of a suspended sentence.

I wonder what would happen if Utah banned irresponsible parenting.

I :wub: obscenity.

 

Hmmmmmm, how much do you get punished for selling underagers porn?

what a Joke

what do you expect.

 

 

utah is morman country, which to most of you takes conservative life to an entirely new level if you know nothing about the religion.

first the south dakota abortion ban, and now this?

 

the boundaries of jesusland are starting to form.

Crazy Mormons. At least all the Mormon boys who can't play this game can take comfort in the fact that one day they can have as many wives as they want.

first the south dakota abortion ban, and now this?

 

the boundaries of jesusland are starting to form.

 

The boudaries of "Jesusland" formed long ago. This was founded as a Christian country and (and this is coming from a Jew) will always be a Christian country.

 

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this? Joe Lieberman decried video games, Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson introduced a bill against the sale of games like GTA...I could go on.

 

I'm so f***ing sick of everything in this country being politicized without people looking at BOTH SIDES. It isn't like only Republicans want this in an effort to make this "Jesusland," it isn't like the Bush administration has spoken out and supported this. It's not a purely Republican or Democratic issue - people on BOTH SIDES feel this way. Get your f***ing head out of your ass and stop thinking that everything is a Republican conspiracy. It isn't. End of discussion.

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this?

 

Major difference here, this takes the right away from the parents deciding. Should kids be able to buy AO and M rated games? Maybe parents should have to intervene in that sale, but they can buy the game for the kid if they want to. If this legislation passes if they buy the game for the kid and give it to them then they are doing something illegal, taking the right away for the parents to decide what is the best for their kid.

 

This would be like outlawing parents brining kids to rated R movies. The other legislation would be like fining movie theatres for selling a group of 15 year olds tickets to a rated R movie. See the difference?

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this?

 

Major difference here, this takes the right away from the parents deciding. Should kids be able to buy AO and M rated games? Maybe parents should have to intervene in that sale, but they can buy the game for the kid if they want to. If this legislation passes if they buy the game for the kid and give it to them then they are doing something illegal, taking the right away for the parents to decide what is the best for their kid.

 

This would be like outlawing parents brining kids to rated R movies. The other legislation would be like fining movie theatres for selling a group of 15 year olds tickets to a rated R movie. See the difference?

No, this would be like outlawing parents bringing kinds to NC17 movies, whereas the other legislation would fine movie theaters for selling kids tickets to NC17 movies. I think AO makes it pretty clear - ADULTS ONLY. Much like NC17 is no child under 17. What you're saying is that a parent would have a right to let their kid have access to media specifically intended only for adults, in which case that makes a parallel to NC17, which is only for adults.

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this?

 

Major difference here, this takes the right away from the parents deciding. Should kids be able to buy AO and M rated games? Maybe parents should have to intervene in that sale, but they can buy the game for the kid if they want to. If this legislation passes if they buy the game for the kid and give it to them then they are doing something illegal, taking the right away for the parents to decide what is the best for their kid.

 

This would be like outlawing parents brining kids to rated R movies. The other legislation would be like fining movie theatres for selling a group of 15 year olds tickets to a rated R movie. See the difference?

No, this would be like outlawing parents bringing kinds to NC17 movies, whereas the other legislation would fine movie theaters for selling kids tickets to NC17 movies. I think AO makes it pretty clear - ADULTS ONLY. Much like NC17 is no child under 17. What you're saying is that a parent would have a right to let their kid have access to media specifically intended only for adults, in which case that makes a parallel to NC17, which is only for adults.

 

AO games would be NC17 in this equation. And M rated games the R ones, because M rated games are "not suitable for kids under 17", which is basically the same definition of rated R movies. AO games would be the NC-17, which both are intended for adults only.

 

Like I said the Utah legislation takes away parents rights, while the other legislation leaves it up to the parents to make the decision which is fine with me. Parents should take a role in what their kids are up to.

first the south dakota abortion ban, and now this?

 

the boundaries of jesusland are starting to form.

 

The boudaries of "Jesusland" formed long ago. This was founded as a Christian country and (and this is coming from a Jew) will always be a Christian country.

 

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this? Joe Lieberman decried video games, Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson introduced a bill against the sale of games like GTA...I could go on.

 

I'm so f***ing sick of everything in this country being politicized without people looking at BOTH SIDES. It isn't like only Republicans want this in an effort to make this "Jesusland," it isn't like the Bush administration has spoken out and supported this. It's not a purely Republican or Democratic issue - people on BOTH SIDES feel this way. Get your f***ing head out of your ass and stop thinking that everything is a Republican conspiracy. It isn't. End of discussion.

 

You know the funny thing is, he didnt even say republican or democrat. He said Jesus land. Youre the one who read republican to mean Jesus groups. What other group in this country thinks this way besides the religious/moral dictators. Democrats might be just as capable of pandering to the moral police but throwing the word liberal out there is your attempt to label.

 

And even if most of this country is Christian, doesnt make it okay for them to ram their moral choices down our throats when those moral choices have no rational basis. What if a state banned sugar because Rod and Todd Flanders arent allowed to have any?

Besides, if you want to make an argument, banning violent video games is more of a Democrat/liberal stance. I mean, your beloved Hilary Clinton wanted a $5000 fine on people who sell violent video games to kids - hey, doesn't that osund kinda like this?

 

Major difference here, this takes the right away from the parents deciding. Should kids be able to buy AO and M rated games? Maybe parents should have to intervene in that sale, but they can buy the game for the kid if they want to. If this legislation passes if they buy the game for the kid and give it to them then they are doing something illegal, taking the right away for the parents to decide what is the best for their kid.

 

This would be like outlawing parents brining kids to rated R movies. The other legislation would be like fining movie theatres for selling a group of 15 year olds tickets to a rated R movie. See the difference?

No, this would be like outlawing parents bringing kinds to NC17 movies, whereas the other legislation would fine movie theaters for selling kids tickets to NC17 movies. I think AO makes it pretty clear - ADULTS ONLY. Much like NC17 is no child under 17. What you're saying is that a parent would have a right to let their kid have access to media specifically intended only for adults, in which case that makes a parallel to NC17, which is only for adults.

 

AO games would be NC17 in this equation. And M rated games the R ones, because M rated games are "not suitable for kids under 17", which is basically the same definition of rated R movies. AO games would be the NC-17, which both are intended for adults only.

 

Like I said the Utah legislation takes away parents rights, while the other legislation leaves it up to the parents to make the decision which is fine with me. Parents should take a role in what their kids are up to.

 

Not if it's deemed detrimental to society. When I was 15 I knew kids' parents who would let their kid and their friends drink and smoke in their house. In one such situation a kid was so drunk he fell down the stairs and died. The parents "took a role in what their kids were up to," but it was wrong and ended up with a kid dying. It seems relatively clear that with video game violence has come more street violence among kids, and if that can be proven it shouldn't be up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their kids racing cars down a street at 125 miles per hour, etc. It impacts our entire community, and once you start screwing with other people's lives it isn't just up to the parents anymore.

When I was 15 I knew kids' parents who would let their kid and their friends drink and smoke in their house. In one such situation a kid was so drunk he fell down the stairs and died. The parents "took a role in what their kids were up to," but it was wrong and ended up with a kid dying.

 

Comparing giving kids drugs and alcohol to giving them a video game? :lol :lol :lol

 

It seems relatively clear that with video game violence has come more street violence among kids

 

Proof?

 

and if that can be proven it shouldn't be up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their kids racing cars down a street at 125 miles per hour, etc.

 

So when a parent gives an M rated video game to their kid it is their way of saying, "Hey, I want you racing down the street at 125 mph"?

 

It impacts our entire community, and once you start screwing with other people's lives it isn't just up to the parents anymore.

 

 

So do you honestly live in fear, and think little 15 year old Johnny down the street poses a threat to you as he sits infront of his PS2 playing some GTA?

When I was 15 I knew kids' parents who would let their kid and their friends drink and smoke in their house. In one such situation a kid was so drunk he fell down the stairs and died. The parents "took a role in what their kids were up to," but it was wrong and ended up with a kid dying.

 

Comparing giving kids drugs and alcohol to giving them a video game? :lol :lol :lol

 

Oh man that is the funniest thing I have heard in a while.Why not? Potentiality to be just as harmful to society.

 

 

It seems relatively clear that with video game violence has come more street violence among kids

 

Proof?Do you have any proof that it isn't?

 

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_56903 - from WebMD, obviously not a biased politicized source. It's old but still relevant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9013744/ - recent, from MSNBC, of an analysis of twenty years.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449 - showing that video games alter the brain's response to real life violence.

 

I could go on.

 

 

and if that can be proven it shouldn't be up to the parents to decide whether or not they want their kids racing cars down a street at 125 miles per hour, etc.

 

So when a parent gives an M rated video game to their kid it is their way of saying, "Hey, I want you racing down the street at 125 mph"?

Obviously not. But if a kid is GIVEN a game by his parents in which people race down a street, then logic would tell you that he would think of the act as more trivialized, since his parent, who sets the rules, has given it to him.

 

It impacts our entire community, and once you start screwing with other people's lives it isn't just up to the parents anymore.

 

 

So do you honestly live in fear, and think little 15 year old Johnny down the street poses a threat to you as he sits infront of his PS2 playing some GTA?

Why not? I mean, I don't live in fear, but when my 14 year old cousin told me he wanted a machine gun for his birthday and asks to try out wrestling moves on me, sure, there's a potential threat.

I remember Tipper Gore was a big anti-violent-videogames nut too.

 

Sorry politicians, find something better to spend your time working on.

Do you have any proof that it isn't?

 

http://www.webmd.com/content/article/23/1728_56903 - from WebMD, obviously not a biased politicized source. It's old but still relevant.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9013744/ - recent, from MSNBC, of an analysis of twenty years.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8449 - showing that video games alter the brain's response to real life violence.

 

I could go on.

 

 

Funny thing about those studies. 2 of them cite aggression increasing in COLLEGE age students. Now I am no scientist myself, but college age kids tend to be over 17, meaning they can buy M rated games, and most are of age and can get AO games all by themselves. These studies say those college age students get more aggressive playing those video games, so do you think we should ban the selling of these games to college kids too? Because if you wouldn't want to deal with an agressive minor, why would you want to deal with an agressive college kid?

 

The third study also cites how violence in TV shows also increases aggression, I suppose we should take all of those off the air. See ya later 24, eh?

 

I also like how you assume aggression leads directly to violence in the streets.

 

http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/cyberment...violence805.htm

 

Recent research confirms that violent video games can increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents in the short- and long-term. Other recent research found that a particular violent video game, "Asheron's Call 2" did not increase violence in people who played it regularly.

 

 

So do you think we should ban violent video games across the board? Because by your own studies they are even harmful to those of age.

 

Could you possibly believe for two seconds that people like playing video games because of their own pre-disposition, and it is their own pre-disposition why they enjoy those games and act like they do.

I really don't like Utah. I feel like they're 50 years behind the rest of the country.

I really don't like Utah. I feel like they're 50 years behind the rest of the country.

 

 

 

that says alot when you consider South Carolina is a good 30-40 years too. Which means they are back in the old west?

 

 

This is a dumb law and would be struck down in the courts right away. This is why there is such a thing as the ACLU.

 

The government is for the people, not the people for the government

why must we put our morals on the residents of Utah?

 

I personally don't agree with this, or some of the other legislation in Utah. However, this is all legal under their state constitution and i'm sure it's probably pretty well supported by the people there.

 

There is no requirement to live in Utah. If you don't like the way the state is then move or vote in different officials.

 

I really don't see this as a federal issue and Utah has a right to be as backwards as they want (which is kind of a shame because it's a very nice state)

why must we put our morals on the residents of Utah?

 

I personally don't agree with this, or some of the other legislation in Utah. However, this is all legal under their state constitution and i'm sure it's probably pretty well supported by the people there.

 

There is no requirement to live in Utah. If you don't like the way the state is then move or vote in different officials.

 

I really don't see this as a federal issue and Utah has a right to be as backwards as they want (which is kind of a shame because it's a very nice state)

 

There you go. It isn't a national political issue. This doesn't have to be politicized.

why must we put our morals on the residents of Utah?

 

I personally don't agree with this, or some of the other legislation in Utah. However, this is all legal under their state constitution and i'm sure it's probably pretty well supported by the people there.

 

There is no requirement to live in Utah. If you don't like the way the state is then move or vote in different officials.

 

I really don't see this as a federal issue and Utah has a right to be as backwards as they want (which is kind of a shame because it's a very nice state)

 

There you go. It isn't a national political issue. This doesn't have to be politicized.

 

What if you visit Utah with your kids and buy them GTA PSP? Are you then subject to these bulls*** laws. If so, it's wrong.

 

Politicized or not the common line of thinking is just that this is an absurd law to have; you fall into two camps, it is or it isn't.

Crazy Mormons. At least all the Mormon boys who can't play this game can take comfort in the fact that one day they can have as many wives as they want.

 

 

too bad polygamy isnt part of the Morman faith anymore really.