Other

Oklahoma Law to Censor Violent Games Shot Down

Finally, a step in the right direction for video games that are under fire for being "too violent," or whatever other tripe the decision makers in the US want to call them.

GameDaily BIZ is reporting that the Oklahoma video game law that would have gone into effect November 1st, 2006 prior to an injunction, has been killed off entirely thanks to a new court ruling.

For those not familiar with the law that was put in motion, video games with violent content would have been placed in the same light as pornography magazines - having to cover the lower two-thirds of the box with "blinder racks." Luckily someone with common sense intervened, and the law has been thrown out. United States District Judge Robin Cauthron cited that the law was unconstitutional, as video games are a form of creative expression - protected by the First Amendment.

To read more, head over to the GameDaily BIZ article.

  • Comments

Add Comment  

Add

You need to login or register to post.

Benefits of Registration

  • Interact with hundreds of thousands of other gamers on an open social network.
  • Post your stories, news, images, videos, and other content to share.
  • Create a network with your fellow gamers or join an existing one.
  • Gain reputation for everything you do.
 
  • Darahbi said 
    Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    Hooray.... Backbones FTW

  • phaden said 
    Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    Yeh, that would have been pretty damn lame.

  • Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    I personally see nothing wrong with that law. So they cover up the bottom part of the video game box... I don't buy video games for the boxes :P

    It's those other laws that deal with playing that I have a problem with.

    On the other hand, I suppose this sets a precedence for those other laws trying to truly destroy the first amendment.

  • h41fgod said 
    Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    Guillotine, its called freedom of speech and dont fix things that arent broken, its not like the covers were violent anyway.

  • Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    h41fgod: That's true, but I figure we need to pick our battles. If they really want to cover part of our boxes and that will make them happy, I would rather that than them trying to outlaw games.

  • sriin said 
    Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    Thats an interesting law. Whilst i wouldn't support it per se as dealing with our rights is a slippery slope, it brings up an interesting question for me. It says, according to the author for this post, that the violent games would be seen in the same light as pornography--which if said pornography is deemed 'obscene' is not protected by the first amendment. Are these video games 'obscenely' violent? However, I believe the whole deal about obscenity is still up for discussion within the US court system and could have changed--feel free to correct me if you know better.

    Guillotine also brings up a good point. it's just a cover that would be hidden partially, which really does nothing to protect anyone from the content, provided they buy it.

  • cyrnus said 
    Tue, Sep 18 2007 11:06 PM ()

    You may not buy games for their boxes, but some people do choose one game over another based on the box art. I've personally picked up a game I've never heard of first because the box looked cool and then went on to buy it because the description on the box sounded like it would be a good game.

    A law like this would most likely lead to developers editing their games to not fall under the category of 'violent' so that the boxes could be seen to people browsing the games. Also this case was going to set a precedent either way. We ended up with a good precedent for the industry, but if the law went through it would open the doors for more strict regulations involving video games.

  • 1 page(s)
  • Syndication