Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Utah pushing new violent game bill

Judiciary Interim Committee reportedly approves measure to keep violent games out of kids' hands despite state AG's warning over constitutionality.

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, according to a report from the Deseret Morning News.

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.

The draft was approved anyway, with Rep. David Hogue, the original sponsor of HB 257 and a member of the committee, brushing aside concerns of a legal battle.

"Somewhere we have to stand up as citizens and parents and legislators and say, 'That's enough,'" Hogue was quoted as saying. "I very seriously think that we need to push this forward and find if we're going to have a challenge or not and have the attorney general fight those battles."

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.

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."

Wyatt said he thinks the bill has a fair chance of withstanding a legal challenge, but indicated he would pull the measure if additional research suggests otherwise.

92 Comments

  • schlosser_rider

    Posted Jan 12, 2007 5:43 pm GMT

    How can I put this, hmmm..... RETARDS!!!! GrimBee, are you sure you wrote enought?

  • PixyMisao

    Posted Nov 20, 2006 6:20 am GMT

    It's funny how conservatives are so interested in protecting our children from violence, yet they have no problem with shipping teenagers off to Iraq with guns. If I was a kid, the lesson I take from this example is that pretend violence is bad, but real violence is good.

  • GrimBee

    Posted Nov 19, 2006 3:10 pm GMT

    "Do you live beneath a rock? It's called the ESRB."

    Games are entirely different to music... sheesh... music can only be sensored in a lyrical way, like blanking out words. And thus the only rating an album can get is EXPLICIT LYRICS or EXPLICIT CONTENT.

    In no way can that stop people underage buying the album, because there is no age rating.

    If games were like movies, they would have the MPAA movie rating system.
    Only select stores actually prevent people underage getting a game made for a mature audience. Much like buying a music album.

    In the UK, games like SIlent Hill, GTA, Gears Of War.. etc get the BBFC rating which is used for movies. This rating actually prevents stores from selling the game to minors or people under that age certificate.

    In Utah this is hardly the case, only certain stores do this, and its usually the parent which has to be there in the store with the child, and thats it.
    What Utah are looking for is a way to determine the different TYPES of violence.

    Gears Of War is violent, Call of Duty 3 is violent, but what the guy means is that in WHAT WAY the violence is depicted.
    For example, you can go around killing people - if its done in a comic book style.. and it would slip by all kinds of ratings. If the game had green blood.. it would slip by a TONNE of certificates..
    If one game had no violence but one sexual theme (dating or talking in depth about sexual acts etc etc). The rating system for games is not really covering those aspects.

    A system like the BBFC DOES, as with the MPAA. These systems are more descriptive.

    Another example would be (how easy games slip by the ratings) is with the GTA SA Pc version with the HOT COFFEE content still inside. The original versions (with said content inside) had an Adults Only rating. When this was removed, it was pushed back down to an M rating...

    So, for the sake of one small thing which you had to hack out yourself... it had an entirely different age demographic.

    What this guy is looking for is a system which is set in stone, much like the bbfc.
    In the Uk, if a game gets a 15 cert bbfc rating, it CANNOT be sold to anyone under that age, otherwise the store will be fined MASSIVE amounts, as will the employee who sells it. But if it gets a PEGI rating of 16+ the product can be sold.

    Ratings laws vary from state to state. When a violent game (which just has gratuitous violence, or very sexual themes, or drug usage or abuse, or frequently bad language) then the BBFC takes hold of it. This prevents kids getting to that kind of content. Then it is in the hands of the parents.

    However in Utah at the moment, games stores can choose to let Rated M titles slip by. Titles with rated M arent set in stone as being not suitable for minors like the movie industry is.
    What they are looking for is a system which is more descriptive and more concrete. That way it will test the honour of the state in how it lets such things be sold.
    For example, porn is illegal there. However in other states its ok if you are the right age. And it literally ends there.

    For games, it fluctuates all over the place. Some stores dont allow rated M games to be sold to minors, some allow it if the parent is in the store with them (they dont actually have to be at the counter in alot of stores) and then some just let it slide simply because the rating is not a concrete law of the state.

    The BBFC IS a law of the uk. The ESRB is likened to that of teh PEGI system in the Uk, its the states and stores choice not to supply the games to the underage.
    Utah are looking for a more concrete solution, i mean... games like manhunt can slip by next to gears of war.

    Both games depict violence in VERY different ways. This is what they mean by either ruling out the sicko violence (as in games where you rape people etc etc) or slapping on a rating which is likened to be as strong as the pornography material is.

    Its a good way for parents to keep a hold of things, imo. If you aren't a parent you wont understand!

    If utah can get a clear hold on what MORBID intersts actually means, then this means a clearer rating. Meaning all kinds of content can be released.

    In the Uk its a tight law, but it works very well. If I am 18 or over i can buy what I like, its awesome. If you are 12 year old chav and want gta.. then you will be denied it.
    Basically, its all there to make the society and the future of how entertainment is made, better! its not there to just dampen the parade. If Utah get the law passed, I hope that they can get a clear rating on the games... rather than banning them indefinately. Why? well if the games get a proper rating system, then this means games like gta will be seperated from the absolute SICK-VIOLENT games.. There is no game rating in utah to differentiate gta between a sexually explicit game, they are both the same rating.
    if a game comes out where you are a serial killer, it will get an M rating... the story might feature drug abuse in more obscene ways.. however the rating system is so vague, that it can slip by and get into stores.

    If the super mature games get an MPAA style rating, then it is up to the state or law to get this recognised and apropriate action taken (i.e epecific censorship like that have in germany... they removed blood from resident evil games, they removed the ninja cutting soldiers scenes in mgs 1 !!)

    With a proper law in place, people who like violent games will be able to play them no problems, but if they wanted games where you eat peoples organs and burn children (etc etc) then they will have to look elsewhere.
    At the moment the game ratings system is hard to specify and to rate. But its damn annoying when games like gta get the same rating as manhunt, when you will find the themes of the game to be very different.

    Silent Hill 2 would of definately of had some content removed, or banned indefinately if it kept its sexual-esque content intact, but the BBFC rated it (it was one of the first bbfc ratings for a game) and it allowed the content to still be there simply because the BBFC rating is recognised trading law certification for the entire UK government.
    In America the rules are kind of all over the place, so I can understand why alot of states have to kick up a fuss.

  • speeddemon_14

    Posted Nov 19, 2006 1:44 pm GMT

    I love living in Canada...I have yet to hear of one attempt at making such a law in my country...

  • MasterAsh42

    Posted Nov 19, 2006 12:53 pm GMT

    "appeals to the morbid interest of minors in VIOLENCE"?

    "APPEALS to the morbid interest of minors in violence"?

    "appeals to the MORBID interest of minors in violence"?

    No matter how many times I say it, it never sounds any more intelligent. This line suggests two things:

    1) Minors interested in violence are morbid.
    2) Legal adults interested in violence are not morbid. . .

    . . .and neither of those propositions sound very intelligent either, especially coming from a committee which brazenly ignores its attorney general, yet still expects him to "fight [the] battle."

  • jayme22

    Posted Nov 19, 2006 5:26 am GMT

    at the end of the day it doesnt matter WTF they try and do even if they put an adult rating for example on games like gta 10-18 year olds in the uk would still get it anyway they could. so this is my message to you courts do what the hell you want to try and stop it you will just force it underground.
    its the same with drugs their illegal but people dont stop doing them do they and they are even more harmful than computer games to family life. o im gettin real pissed with this now i just want to say your stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid

  • Talgrath

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:20 pm GMT

    "Its not that, its just that movies and music have their own systems in place, games do not." Do you live beneath a rock? It's called the ESRB. By the way, the chances of this bill being declared unconstitutional are very, very good.

  • GrimBee

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 10:55 am GMT

    "Notice how it was to include music and movies. Guess they can't touch music and movies but they think gamers and the companies will just bend over to new legislation. "

    Its not that, its just that movies and music have their own systems in place, games do not.
    Movies can be censored (like ones for tv) and music aswell. Games usually are just as they are (unless you live in germany!) and its not such a widespread genre like movies and music are.

    Games need some sort of rating system etc and its good that people are made aware of such things. Simply because if there were strict laws all the time (like in germany) then you have alot of things taken out.
    Can you imagine if every violent game ended up like mortal kombat on the snes??

    Its not illegal to actually HAVE this stuff in Utah, but just to sell such things (like porn as reddye_5 says). Different states (and countries) have different laws which work for them.
    If it wasnt for this then every place in the world would be exactly the same, which would definately suck!!

    It's good that games are being recognised as a serious entertainment platform, so much so that people need to be aware of the content... BUT... I remember in MGS 1, when the soldiers butt was blurred out.. this was one of the first things to happen. Maybe it was a way to create a more "cinematic" quality... but...(lol..but).. sorry.. anyways... its required now that games are becoming more realistic.

    At least people will be made aware. I mean, I would loath the day when a game lets you be put in the shoes of a high-school massachist... if a film was dedicated to that, its different because its thought of as more of a DOCUMENT. But games are more or less letting you do this stuff. People need to be aware of that.

    I think as soon as developers start to be more creative, and working around these "bans" etc. You can expect more quality games, except ones which are released purely because they would create some controvercy.
    Once rules are set (like disc space, or console power etc) then developers can work around it.

    Violence is not really needed to make a game absolutely awesome, but if it is done is a way that its important to tell the story (as this guy says) then its alright. Like a war game for example. But if its games like manhunt (etc) or games which say things like "BE jack the ripper!".

    I guess this law would let you play games where you RUN from jack the ripper, but not let you play games where you ARE jack the ripper.
    In a way, this is good. If you want to play sick games, go to the societies which allow this stuff and see how it turns out for you.
    But I think states etc have a good right to sensor (etc) stuff if they want that state to be like that.

    I like that way of thinking, rather than banning it all over the world.. ala jack johnson!

  • RedDye_5

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 8:14 am GMT

    To the people who aren't minors and don't think a law this would affect them if it was passed:

    If there was a penalty to retailers for selling "bad" games to minors, many would just decide to not carry them at all. That means NOBODY could buy them.

    Also, in Utah, selling pornography is completely illegal. If these so called "inappropriate" games were classified the same as porn, they wouldn't be sold at all.

    I'm just surprised it isn't Orrin Hatch behind this idiotic bill.

  • starcutter20000

    Posted Nov 18, 2006 7:58 am GMT

    "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. "

    Notice how it was to include music and movies. Guess they can't touch music and movies but they think gamers and the companies will just bend over to new legislation.

  • Royas

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 4:03 pm GMT

    If passed, this bill will fail in court like every other one passed nationwide to date. Nothing new here, just more politicians wasting tax dollars on a non-issue to cadge votes from the ignorant and uneducated.

  • grandgundam3

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 1:59 pm GMT

    Huh. "Inappropriate violence is harmful to minors."

    Yeah, I just saw a report of some kid getting tasored for no reason, and two people were shot today, as well as a string of robberies, all on the 4 o'clock news. Why are these representatives all angry over games that are meant for adults and set you back $30-$50, when you can see "inappropriate violence" by just turning on your TV and flipping to the local stations?

    What really gets me is the fact that none of these guys seem to have a problem understanding the movie ratings that everyone knows and (maybe) loves, and are okay with the fact that you could go into a screening of Crank or Borat and see a bunch of 10-year-olds, but they get their panties in a knot over a game that is rated on a system that is identical to the movie ratings and basically get an R rating (if you look at it like EC/E=G, E10=PG, T=PG-13, M=R, and AO=NC-17).

  • LongShot42

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 12:52 pm GMT

    WTF this freakin sucks and anyone notice that no one is whining about how rappers are always flashing gangs signs and other crap this pisses me off

  • cjcr_alexandru

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 12:05 pm GMT

    I don't think this bill will pass... as all the others.

  • JollyJake

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 11:00 am GMT

    Wow, that means that people from Utah will have a VERY limited selection of games at retailers if this passes.

    Jolly Jake

  • spyboy29

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 10:36 am GMT

    No chance this is going to pass. Who said all gamers are underaged?! There's quite a good percentage that outranks those under 18.

  • Cloud737

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 6:49 am GMT

    That sucks. Period.

  • jimbo102671

    Posted Nov 17, 2006 6:48 am GMT

    GameSpot article above:
    "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."

    If the Attorney General has doubts about it's constitutionality, then it likely won't hold up. Stranger things have happened, though, and it would be big time BS if it does, especially since other media types have been dropped from the POS they call a "bill".

  • snakenamedjoe

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 11:24 pm GMT

    I don't care what laws they pass about minors and game violence as long as I am still allowed to decide what is appropriate and what is not for my children. I don't care if they want to label games as the sin of all sins and inapropriate, but it is my decision if my kids have access to this stuff, not theirs. As long as I can say my kids are allowed to play the 'sin of all sin' game if I want to I'm ok.

    Make fines and regulations for selling violent games to minors. Fine.
    Don't fine and regulate me if I choose to buy a violent game for my kids.

    That is crossing the line into invading my family.

  • Da1ShrpSh0trGrl

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 10:49 pm GMT

    Oh come on!!!! Am pretty sure there's real life issues out there that need to be solved.They pick on gamers becuause they know better than most of them are underage (No voting rights). And still it makes them look like they are "doing something". Well I tell you this much, when I vote I remmember this things. And when all this young gamers grow up I hope they do to!

  • Max_Hydrogen

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 10:02 pm GMT

    So Tetris is porn? Ah! My brain hurts! I must have lost 50 I.Q. points on that one. "appeals to the morbid interest of minors in violence." If they admit minors are mobidly interested in violence, then why don't they do something about that instead of banning video games? If they admit it then they should know that censoring a game will not eliminate said morbid fasination and it will only express itself some other way. Infact, is it a good idea to supress those feelings instead of providing a harmless release?

  • cronotrigger913

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 9:39 pm GMT

    Yeah, I'm getting tired of all this "Doom made eat a turkey sandwich with a side blood!" video game bashing. First, these legislators NEVER play video games. They have no idea what they are actually protesting about. I don't know what sites these people go on, because if they actually thought Bully was an online game, they must be finding some pretty crappy sites. I've been reading the Masters of Doom book and just got to the chapter about Columbine, so my memory on this kind of situation is fresh. Theoretical situation: if video games incite violence, they why isn't everyone killing each other. These games sell several million copies each, but how many horrible tragedies occur? Logically, the games would then need to be taken out of the equation, as it can be seen that they don't really create any harm. It's theoretically possible that bad stuff would happen if we think about it, which is why people are acting like idiots saying stuff like this, but it's just not true. Legislators need to get there heads out of the ground and make sure more important things get done, like informing parents on how to tend to their kids and the issue of violence in general. TV, movies, and books have violence, with some being more graphic. So why not go after them? Answer me that.

  • Gmacrusher

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 9:36 pm GMT

    its good but this will back fire some day...trust me

  • brittoss

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 8:40 pm GMT

    I'm a little confused as to why a law like this would be opposed that prevents minors getting a hold of excessively violent games. Wouldn't it provide protection for game companies from people that are underage buying/playing the games and doing something stupid, then trying to claim it as the games fault?

  • TheOneDubb

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 8:16 pm GMT

    This bill will not pass period end of story. If it did the ACLU would be all over it like a NAMBLA member on a small boy. (Connoted statement)

  • Ted_Zanarukando

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 7:46 pm GMT

    I am getting tired of all this "violent video game" legislation. Governmental regulation of electronic games is wrong and unconstitutional. Those political bills are passageways to greater censorship bills. Censorship is not the answer to violence in society. The anti-videogame forces will reap what they sow. The government does not regulate access to or sale of motion pictures, books, or cable television, and it should not regulate access to or sale of electronic games. It is up to retailers, not the church or state, to regulate the sale of electronic games and motion pictures. The church and state should not influence retailers to restrict the sale of these media forms. Electronic game legislation is based on common myths, misperceptions, misinformation regarding the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, and possible effects of the games. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board rating system has so far been very effective. In reality, the vast majority of electronic games do not contain intense violence or sexual themes. There is no scientific evidence linking electronic games to aggressive behavior, thoughts, or affect. Politicians with an anti-videogame agenda believe that legislation is necessary, because they believe "young people are able to purchase these games with relative ease and parents are struggling to keep up with being informed about the content." Both claims are evidently false. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board was originally established to silence electronic game critics. Electronic games are protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to regulate access to or sale of electronic games will be subjected to the highest degree of First Amendment scrutiny by the courts. The criminal penalties set forth in these political bills would like have a "chilling effect" on electronic game expression. The ambiguity of various terms found in these political bills result in being unconstitutionally vague. There is no scientific evidence proving a causal link between electronic games and aggressive behavior.

    The Family Entertainment Protection Act could derail the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and necessitate the adoption of a federally mandated regulatory regime or ratings system. Furthermore, it is unconstitutional for the government to established a private ratings scheme into law. Legislators could instead make the Entertainment Software Ratings Board less meaningful, and they might derail or kill it entirely. If made into law, the Family Entertainment Protect Act will cause the electronic game companies to abandon the voluntary rating system and the government would propose a mandatory federal rating and labeling scheme to take its place. If the scenario unfolds, legislators will make content-based determinations and that would most likely violate the First Amendment.

    Finally, according to Jonathan L. Freedman, the scientific results do not support the view that exposure to media violence causes children or adults to become aggressive or to commit crimes, nor does it support the belief that it desensitizes people into real world violence. Freedman has reviewed just about every recently conducted laboratory experiments, field experiments, longitudinal studies, and other "media effects" studies employing mixed methodologies. He has concluded that absolutely no type of research provided the kind of supportive evidence that is typically required to support a hypothesis. All are found less than 50% supportive.

  • Brokendemise

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 7:31 pm GMT

    They need to have a friggin I.Q. test when you buy games, 'cuz it's always all the dumb kids who kill people 'cuz their driving their daddy's Mercedes or using their's daddy's gun.

  • byge

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 7:15 pm GMT

    Aren't the elections over?

  • rgp_md

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 7:07 pm GMT

    zombey1333
    "Parents worried about their children, ay? Maybe they should just ban stupid people from breeding, that'd solve the problem."

    Good point, if they passed your law there would be no more parents buying their children games that are too mature, problem solved.

  • rgp_md

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 7:02 pm GMT

    I almost hope someone somewhere will dream up a bill that actually will stand constitutional challenge. It would be mild whatever it was, it would quickly be adopted all over the country, then we could stop reading about this issue. Plus as much as I hate to say it, I think it's actually a legitimate issue. I think as a society we are way too comfortable with violence. Of course movies and television are just as bad. But that is besides the point, the real reason I hope for sucessful legislation is because I'm sick of Grand theft auto and it's copy cats. GTA was mostly fun because it was so non-linear, the violence never appealed to me and actually limited the value of the game for me. It honestly made me feel bad to play that game and that is something I can't say about any of the FPS I've played. They've been so successful that they're copied and recopied. Do you really want to see it become a genre so that game makers can crank out derivitive crap year after year? I'm for innovation and if it takes legislation to make it happen so be it.

  • beirjio724

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 6:56 pm GMT

    Utah=useless. Who cares, even if their worthless state passes the law. it would probably only affect the vendors, and they couldn't carry those games deemed with objectionable content. This would then hurt the economy of this wee little state. The majority of people in Utah live in SLC, a stone's throw away from Idaho, and could just go there, or go to Nevada, where nothing is illegal!! Oh you have to love these dumba$$es in politics.

  • zombey1333

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 6:30 pm GMT

    Parents worried about their children, ay? Maybe they should just ban stupid people from breeding, that'd solve the problem.

  • oboewan9999

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 6:03 pm GMT

    F*** these people.

  • tblack7073

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:58 pm GMT

    This bill sukes, for Utah at least

  • theragu40

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:54 pm GMT

    Meh. It's probably good to keep this stuff out of minors' hands, but this firstly will probably not pass, and secondly will most likely be challenged and defeated if it does pass. Whatever.

  • hunter8man

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:47 pm GMT

    It'll be turned down just like every other one will be. Games are still a form of media, so you give it ratings (ESRB) and shut the hell up about it.

  • VladimirCrow

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:39 pm GMT

    Those people are a bunch of idiots. Games treated as porn? What the hell is wrong with them?

  • Talduras

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:33 pm GMT

    Heh heh... I wonder just what percentage of people who whine about these laws (the current one or past ones) are minors themselves, whereas the rest sympathize for minors simply because they know what it was like to be a minor. Considering parents can generally still buy their children any sort of media and "get away with it," it's the only answer I can think of.

    Anyway, don't care what happens to this law (yes, I live in the state). I'm not a minor and wouldn't buy violent (e.g. M-rated) games for minors.

  • 111v

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:18 pm GMT

    i agree with andy639

  • Andy639_basic

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:08 pm GMT

    And of course it's video games only that get singled out. I sorely wish the politicos would stop making laws about things they apparently don't comprehend. Video games have a rating system FAR more thorough and less corrupt than the MPAA movie rating system. Why isn't that enough?

  • phillangees

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 5:00 pm GMT

    Stolen_Kuniva
    Sucks to live in Utah now.... wait, no, it always sucked, and it always will.

    Nope it doesn't, it didn't, and it never will. These "laws" are popping up all over the country and the lemmings in Utah's state legislature are just doing what lemmings do, following the pack. It won't make it much farther as none of the other bills (ones more cleverly written) have been able to get around that nasty little document known as the Bill of Rights.

  • socomgamer324

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:58 pm GMT

    our country has some crazy rules...
    you have to be 21 to drink, but 18 year olds can go to war and die for the country. thats bs.

    and what is it with video games? All this stuff is on TV and movies which are MUCH more accessible to kids.. No one cares as much about that...

  • Stolen_Kuniva

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:45 pm GMT

    Sucks to live in Utah now.... wait, no, it always sucked, and it always will.

  • GeigerdolylWodd

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:33 pm GMT

    wild_world_girl
    While it goes without saying, I still think everyone should say it anyway and get used to the concept: this kind of legislation is unconstitutional and will not be tolerated. Posted Nov 16, 2006 7:14 pm ET

    True that, but thing is kids don't have a say in the laws that govern them thus they are "forced" to abide by them or else. Well that's how congress sees it anyway. When the reality of the matter is their parents are governed by those laws and their parents are who blame falls squarely on. I'm not so sure congress realizes that they are pushing this. I'm just dotting the i's and crossing the t's so that we're clear I think this is all bogus anyway. Common sense, moderation, and the reality check talk will suffice.

    So tell me in this law banning violent videogames from being sold to kids where exactly do Super Mario, Sonic the Hedge Hog, and PACMAN FIT???

  • Gohan266

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:30 pm GMT

    If they are gonna do it for games they should be doing it for movies and t.v. shows. I mean why do they single gamers out even though movies an t.v. shows are usually more graphic than games and since it looks more real in movies than in games.

  • ZuljinRaynor

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:24 pm GMT

    Another bill that'll flop.

  • wwonka666

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:22 pm GMT

    Looks like after all the hoopla surrounding the PS3 they will have to ban it in Utah.

  • calbert

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:22 pm GMT

    I wonder if the two fights that broke out in playstation 3 today lines today, a two different locales, gives them extra motivation? From someone that lives where this bill is coming from....they would rather ban the sun and live in darkness then decide to use what we in the real world call....self control and common logic.

  • wild_world_girl

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:14 pm GMT

    While it goes without saying, I still think everyone should say it anyway and get used to the concept: this kind of legislation is unconstitutional and will not be tolerated.

  • Griff1390

    Posted Nov 16, 2006 4:07 pm GMT

    let's ban movies too, you got nice friendly big bird and elmo movies for the kids, and you have porno and rambo for older people. That makes sense, because little kids can see porno and rambo, too. maybe we should get rid of television...don't want any 4 year old seeing anything bad while the 98.6% of the population remaining sits there happily. IT'S THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO WATCH THEIR KIDS, NOT POLITICIANS. Screw off Utah, you're lucky I can't swear and tell you want i really think....

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!