Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Royal☭]

Arizona House Bill 2660


There's no way this could possibly hold up as constitutional, but still...

 

[Thad]

I'd like to see a roll call.

My local rep is Ed Ableser, and a quick look at the bills he's sponsored suggests he's very liberal.  (Bear in mind my district includes ASU, so it's a liberal district in the middle of a conservative area.)  Of course, what "liberal" means on an issue like this is hard to say; if there's one thing that's crossed party lines over the years it's the culture war.  (Nanny-state Dems and "think of the children!" Republicans find common ground!)

I'm also curious how Sam Crump voted; he's an acquaintance of mine and represents the district I used to work in.  I tend to find his politics odious, but since he's a Libertarian-leaning small business owner, I'm thinking there are pretty good odds he voted "nay" on this one.

EDIT:

Where can I obtain a voting record of my member? Is it online?
The information is not available online. You can receive that information through the House Chief Clerk's office (602)926-3032 or Senate Secretary's office (602)926-4231.

Damn it, what century is this?

I wonder if they're hiring Web developers.

[Saturn]

Can someone Translate that into english?

Legal speak gives me a headache.

i start reading it and my eyes just go like this:

[François]

It's a censorship thing mostly I think.

[Thad]

GP breaks it down nicely.

HB 2660, which was passed by a 36-23 vote in the Arizona House of Representatives last month, would make content producers, publishers and distributors liable for monetary damages if any written, audio, visual or digital material from which they profited was judged to have been "dangerous" or obscene and motivated someone to commit a felony or an act of terrorism.

[...]

Representatives for content creators, however, say the measure goes too far:

A representative for the Motion Picture Association of America, Wendy Briggs, said House Bill 2660 is overly broad. She said the legislation… could result in lawsuits against people involved in mainstream movies. Briggs, who also represents video game producers, said they, too, could be liable for items she would consider harmless.

Briggs used a flight simulator game as an example:

Should I now be reasonably sure that that’s going to incite somebody to commit an act of terror? What about a movie, or a book, that teaches you how to shoot a gun straight?

[...]

GP: The industry is legitimately concerned about this bill, which would have a chilling effect, certainly on game developers. Who gets to decide, for example, whether content is "dangerous"? What does that mean, exactly? Does violent content make media dangerous? Is Manhunt 2 dangerous? Call of Duty 4? Saving Private Ryan? Beowulf? The Bible?

[TA]

... that's a good point.  Point to pretty much any abortion clinic bombing, and bible publishers could fall under this statute.

[Mongrel]

Yeah, that sucker's about as open-ended as it gets.

DANGER DANGER.

[Royal☭]

I just don't want to see J.D. Salinger thrown in jail.

[Thad]

I didn't know he was still around.

Anyway.  Bear in mind this thing still has to pass the Senate, where it's less likely to pass, and even if it does, I have faith in Governor Napolitano to veto.

...I love being in a state full of "fiscal conservatives" who want to blow millions of tax dollars defending things that are self-evidently unconstitutional (time for another link to Wikipedia's entry for Sheriff Joe!).

EDIT: Split thread (and decided to retitle it, as you'll note from the last few posts).

Also: I expect they'll haul in Scorsese, de Niro, and Foster any time now.

[Zaratustra]

Who is this "Average Person" the law makes so much use of? Is it like an elected position?

Also, how does this apply to media made outside Arizona and imported in? Who exactly is at fault then?

[Thad]

Who is this "Average Person" the law makes so much use of? Is it like an elected position?

IANAL, but I'm guessing it's the equivalent of the "community standards" used to define things like pornography and obscenity.

Also, how does this apply to media made outside Arizona and imported in? Who exactly is at fault then?

Whoever has the biggest pockets.

More seriously: "producer", "publisher", and "distributor" are all listed, so any of those could be held liable.  And I think it's clear that they're targeting corporations, not just local individuals.

The whole thing seems to have been put together by a guy who runs a charity for women who have been victims of violence, and his angle is that he wants to classify anything that glorifies rape, or provides instruction on how to commit it, as criminal.  (This was pretty much the basis of the oft-cited case where the ACLU defended NAMBLA, arguing that NAMBLA's website was not responsible for the actions of a child molester who read it.)  Of course, with the legislature's hands on it, it's been broadened to the point of being pretty much all-encompassing.

The law itself doesn't mention games, and the Daily Star article that discusses it only mentions flight sims.  But obviously it applies, and if this thing gets bigger we're going to see more asinine and ill-informed remarks about video games featuring rape.

Again, though, I expect this thing to fizzle before it ever goes on to the inevitable constitutional challenge.

[Dooly]

Since the bill mentions "obscene" material as a no-no, will that mean that it'll be illegal to produce or sell any kind of pornography in Arizona?

[TA]

Since the bill mentions "obscene" material as a no-no, will that mean that it'll be illegal to produce or sell any kind of pornography in Arizona?

It's an And, not an Or thing.  The material has to be obscene on top of everything else.  It has to be (1) obscene material that (2) the producer benefits from producing, which (3) caused terrorism or felonies, and which (4) the producer knew would assist/encourage/result in terrorism or felonies, or should have known that it would, or recklessly disregarded the possibility that it might.  If all of the above is true, then they're liable for damages.

[Thad]

GP: Senate kills it in committee.  It's not over yet, as the sponsor says he's going to introduce a "more concisely-written version" next year (because that's what was wrong with this one, it was not concise enough), but I expect the Senate will kill it then, too.

[Thad]

GP: well looky who's about to get disbarred.

It's just a recommendation from the bar trial judge at this point, and still has to go to the Florida Supreme Court, but it's pretty damning.

It's a pity this happened AFTER he got his chance to cash in on the GTA4 media storm, but that was deliberate on his part; the judge said he bombarded her with additional documentation that delayed her recommendation.

[Mongrel]

So the whole idea all along was to make enough money that getting disbarred wouldn't matter?

[Thad]

Well, he'll always have Fox News.

Let's put it this way: they're still okay with giving money to Ollie North.

[Shinra]

An update on jacky boy.

I understand that the ten year disbarment recommendation would have probably been a lifetime, given his age and probable high blood pressure, but the judge suggesting it be official is pretty nice.

I wonder if the media will catch on that he was just a crazy guy who projected his craziness on videogames? Probably not. I imagine Fox will immediately hire him as a permanent consultant.

[Thad]

Already linked, but either thread is fine if anyone wants to continue the conversation.

[Brentai]

That other thread probably needsa good rerailing.