Does the State of Louisiana hate gamers?

There are two schools of thought on this; the first answer is a "Yes" with an S.

The second answer is a "Yes" with a long-winded explanation.

...you can see where this is going.

Over the last many weeks, this state in particular has gone leaps and bounds past the competition in the race for ultimate game-legislating blunders, much to the bewilderment of non-residents and the aggravated disdain of taxpaying editorialists.  

I find it all morbidly entertaining, perhaps even deserving of an acerbic narrative; In a state ravaged by natural disaster and controversy, only a few chosen men had the courage to stand up and do something about those damned evil video games.

This is their story.

This comedic dance of poor mental faculties seemed to begin when state rep Roy Burrell introduced the purportedly drafted-by-Jack-Thompson Bill HB421, following the [failed] traditions of many other states that attempted to legislate video game sales under the identical provisions of pornography sales.

The notion of using existing laws regarding 'obscenity' and 'pornography' to regulate violence in video games is a bold step.  Nonsensical, as well.  In fact, you could easily call it arbitrary and desparate, but in hopes of maintaining optimism I'll stick with 'bold.' 

This step is taken in the hopes that, with some feel-good wordplay, this feel-good legislation will sit just fine with the feel-good first amendment and give feel-good parents the help they need in raising feel-good children.  When he brought this bill up to vote, I'll bet Rep Burrell felt great. 

As the bill reached the house, the hilarity began.  I'm going to estimate without hyperbole that at least seven hundred to one thousand of our fifty U.S. states have had video-game related bills shot down in the months leading up to this one.  Upon some investigation, the number is a lot closer to 15 with more being challenged in court as we speak.  Honestly, that is quite a lot.  The batting average for these bills is appalling, yet not only are new states continuing to try passing ones of their own, many are recycling identical copies of the bills that were ALREADY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

There's a definite irony in this bill that I will concede in their favor; violence as a truly 'questionable' content has often been ignored in legislature, leading to our current moral society of 'nudity = bad bad bad' alongside 'violence = kinda bad.'  "You can cut a breast off, but you can't kiss it," as Bruce Campbell said.  It's very interesting to see that blind hysteria over video games almost leveled the playing field, albeit briefly and generally unnoticed.

Purportedly many house reps questioned the first-amendment implications of this bill and whether or not it would survive a court challenge.  There were at least a few that were aware of how similar bills had fared in previous states.  Then, they finished their breakfasts, shut their brains off, drove to work, and passed the damn thing unanimously.

"That's for the courts to decide.  Anything's subject to challenge," said rep Danny Martiny. 

No, you reality-impaired congress-chimp, it was given to YOU to decide first and you apparently said to the mythical Voting Steward "I'll have what they're having."  You are a pitiful sheep flocking towards feel-good election-year protect-the-children garbage and are in no way doing the job you're paid for. 

I'm not angry about video games at this point, despite my obsession as a gamer and a gaming journalist.  I'm angry about all things of the 'legal-feel-good' variety.  This buffoon is proud to announce his total inability to think and do research for himself. 

Furthermore, I am regretful to have called him a 'chimp,' as chimpanzees are well-known to have primitive investigatory skills that he clearly does not.  A chimp would learn not to smash his own fingers under large stones after the second or third attempt at most.  Such an action both hurts and sucks.  Martiny decided to vote for this bill despite witnessing over a dozen such bills shot down in their respective states.  Danny, your pattern recognition skills are an insult to our genus.

The bill was written so that it would take effect immediately upon passing.  After the house approved it, the Senate went through identical stages of questioning-it's-sensibility followed by unanimously-passing-it-the-hell-anyways.  It went into effect for what was surely a harrowing day until it was challenged and put on hold by ESA complaint.  Now yet another court battle begins.

Louisiana editorialists have been mystified by these events.  The long road of crushing-evil-video-games has been bumpier in this state than any others, with more newspapers and more writers blasting against it than any before it.  The reason behind this uproar was a bit confusing to me.

Apparently, Lousiana suffered some sort of natural disaster in recent months.  Something about a lot of water, and an entire city submerged and destroyed with thousands of lives ruined, I think?  I don't recall exactly, clearly it wasn't too important.  It must not had been on many local news stations, because the state's legislature felt that the most pressing issues to discuss were video games and cockfighting.

Louisiana taxpayers, for some reason, took issue with this use of congressional funds.

The congress voted, unanimously, to take on a lengthy and expensive court battle for a law that they already said was probably unconstitutional.  They backed up this notion in committees with the vocal support of the Global Champion of the Legal-Failure Ring Jack Thompson, who uttered such prize-fighting taglines as;

"There's more evidence [that violent games are harmful to kids] than there is that smoking causes cancer."

"[A video game controller] literally gives you a pleasurable jolt and vibration back into your hands every time you kill someone.  When you take a car and you run over innocent virtual pedestrians in the game you get a pleasurable vibration as your wheels go over their skulls."

"[A video game] is not even speech of any kind. It is a device."

"[A] proposal is needed to prevent a Louisiana Columbine."

...and his coup-de-grace uppercut of;

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer."

Are these your arguments, Rep Burrell?  Is this hyperbole and lunacy the face of 'protecting the children?'

"We are protecting our children," Burrell said, verbatim, in multiple interviews.

You want to protect the children?  Invest in their futures by getting career-mongling idiots like yourself out of office and letting rational people in before it's too late. 

"If it's unconstitutional, why do it?" asked one editorialist.

Why?  Because being a congressman is a paying job, and apparently 'protecting the children' is the only thing that will keep you from getting fired. 

As reported in Gamepolitics, when confronted by the ESA statement that "Like great literature, these games often involve themes such as good versus evil, triumph over adversity, struggle against corrupt powers, and quest for adventure," Rep Burrell offered this gold nugget of geriatric ignorance:

"The kind of literature I've seen in some of these games is not 'great.' It may be great for somebody but it's not great for children. It's great for profits and great for controlling the minds of kids, but literary value? None... You're the one who's killing the cops. You're the one who's beating the woman. Pavlov's Law kicks in, giving you a reward for this behavior."

I am nothing more than disgusted by this narrow-minded stupidity.  Anyone who has read my columns before can already figure the volumes I want to expound in response to that.  Instead, I'll push forth a bit of brief optimism.

Here's hoping Louisiana gamers speak up, and that Lousiana voters wake up to their priorities and tell people like Roy Burrell off.

- george@GamerAndy.com