SALT LAKE CITY, UT – Utah State Representative David Hogue’s attempt to insert graphic violence into the state’s definition of “obscene” and material that is “harmful to minors” has been revived, passing a Utah House of Representatives committee vote 7-2. The bill, designated HB 0257, now heads back to the full House for a vote; the house shot down Hogue’s bill in a previous vote, held January 28th.Hogue’s bill seeks to amend the language of Utah’s definition of “obscenity” under state law, which is detailed in section 76-10-1201 of the Utah state code. While the current language of the law deals specifically with sexually-explicit materials, and prohibiting the sale thereof to minors, Hogue’s bill adds the words “video” and “game” to the “Material” covered by the statute, and adds extensively to the what would be considered “harmful to minors” under state law.
“’Harmful to minors’ means that quality of any description or representation, in whatsoever form, of inappropriate violence,” reads a portion of the bill’s language. The bill further specifies what constitutes “inappropriate violence”:
‘Inappropriate violence’ means any description or representation, in any form, of violence when it:
(a) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors;
(b) taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors;
(c) is glamorized or gratuitous;
(d) is graphic violence used to shock or stimulate;
(e) is graphic violence that is not contextually relevant to the material;
(f) is so pervasive that it serves as the thread holding the plot of the material together;
(g) trivializes the serious nature of realistic violence;
(h) does not demonstrate the consequences or effects of realistic violence;
(i) uses brutal weapons designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain and damage;
(j) endorses or glorifies torture or excessive weaponry; or
(k) depicts lead characters who resort to violence freely.
While the focus of most reporting on Hogue’s bill has been on its potential application to violent video games, it is interesting to note that the language of the bill does not discriminate between exposing a minor to a violent video game and exposing a minor to any of the other forms of “Material” covered by the bill.
Other types of “Material” specified in the bill’s definitions include “anything printed or written or any picture, drawing, photograph, motion picture…. or pictorial representation, or any statue or other figure, or any recording or transcription, or any mechanical, chemical, or electrical reproduction, or anything which is or may be used as a means of communication…. and includes undeveloped photographs, molds, printing plates, and other latent representational objects.”
While most legal experts that have commented on the bill have expressed doubt that it would survive a legal challenge and the corresponding scrutiny of the courts, the bill’s supporters have said they are prepared to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
“This is more than a message bill,” Hogue told Utah’s The Daily Herald. “This is a bill that identifies the effects that different media has on our children.”
The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) issued an immediate comment expressing their confidence that the bill will not stand up to a legal challenge, and questioning the necessity for the law in the first place.
“This bill is not needed,” said Scott Sabey of the ESA. “More importantly, the bill will be challenged as unconstitutional. To plug violence into an obscenity statute won’t work.”
Hogue isn’t convinced – he says his legislative staff has assured him the bill would make it through the courts successfully. Indeed, a “Legislative Review Note” is included at the end of the bill stating, “Based on a limited legal review, this legislation has not been determined to have a high probability of being held unconstitutional.”
Apparently, Hogue’s “limited” legislative review did not include asking the American Civil Liberties Union what they thought; Margaret Plane, legal director of the ACLU, noted that the bill would very likely be shot down, because the Supreme Court has ruled that violence is a protected form of speech, even for minors.
