Arizona Bill Would Hold Content Creators Liable for Damages Users Cause

Allows victims of crimes to sue those who produce, publish or distribute written, audio, video or digital material that is considered "dangerous" or "obscene" and is believed to have been a cause of the attack.

Arizona is the latest battleground between free speech advocates and those determined to hold accountable people who make produce movies or video games for example that are later said to have been a reason for a person's criminal actions.

House Bill 2660 was passed by a 36-23 vote in the Arizona House of Representatives last month and beginning today is under consideration in that state's Senate. It would hold 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.

The bill reads:

A. A person is liable for damages if the person produces, publishes or distributes written, audio, video or digital material and all of the following apply:

The material is dangerous or obscene.

The person benefited from the production, publishing or distribution of the material.

The person knew, should have known or recklessly disregarded a significant risk that the material would substantially assist, encourage or result in another person committing terrorism or a felony offense.

The material was a cause in another person committing terrorism or a felony offense against a victim.

The bill defines "dangerous" as any material that is "...found by clear and convincing evidence to incite or produce an imminent act of terrorism or a felony offense.

It also defines as being "obscene" any material that:

(a) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

(b) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.

Content creators are rightfully nervous about the bill for how do you factually determine that a movie or song they produce for instance caused a person to attack somebody? The fact that a state government may be getting into the business of deciding what's "dangerous" or "obscene" should make us all nervous if not angry.

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?

The Video Game Voters Network, operated by the Entertainment Software Association, which represents U.S. video game publishers, has issued an alert to members, urging them to contact their elected officials about the bill.

Attorney Keith Perkins, who runs The Never Again Foundation, which represents rape victims in civil suits, said people who profit from these materials should be held accountable. He said the bill is designed to financially penalize those who produce videos distributed on the Internet that he believes are a "how to" guide on committing rape for example.

John Moody, a lobbyist for the Arizona Newspapers Association, worries that the bill could also hold newspapers and TV stations liable for their investigative reporting.

He used airport security as an example. If a story points out security vulnerabilities and "how you could walk right in without ever being checked carrying weapons or a bomb or whatever and something were to occur in the wake of that story."

Proponents of the bill say that critics are being overly dramatic, that the content must clearly be defined as "dangerous" or "obscene" as well as a cause of the attack. But, Briggs said she takes little comfort from that language since juries will be asked to decide not just what a movie or game producer or distributor knew, but what they should have known.

Ultimately the bill should be worrisome to all for it'll mean that crime victims can sue anybody for producing material it believes to be the reason for a crime while seemingly overlooking the person who actually committed it.

[Via Joystiq]