A new video game bill is being reviewed by Oregon lawmakers. The new bill will make it illegal to sell or rent out "ultra-violent" games to gamers under 18.

Representative Arnie Roblan of Coos Bay, Oregon (District 9) sponsored the said bill - House Bill 3511. The bill defines ultra-violent as "a video game depicting serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." But if a parent or guardian is present or gave consent, a child under 18 can buy a violent game.

The punishment for selling such games aren't defined just yet. Hmm... The bill is a bit vague (at least from this writer's point of view). How does one put fences on what is "heinous, atrocious, or cruel"? And what if a violent game's characters are all aliens or animals? Stay tuned.

Remember that report we did on another murder case where the blame is put on video games? The Klamath Falls (Oregon) case was closed a couple of days ago. And the verdict is? Guilty.

Let's skim over the details again. Patrick Morris shot (several times) and killed 16-year old Diego Aguilar with a 12-gauge shotgun. Morris' account of the murder was a bit vague. He confessed that he and his friends planned a fight against a man (who was staying at the same motel the victim was) who flashed a gun at them.

Defense attorney Robert Abel took the video game defense (popular nowadays, don't you think?). He argued that violent video games, emotional and behavioral disorders, and mind altering mushrooms caused Morris to do it. He moved to have the charges diminished from murder to manslaughter. This was contradicted by the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Michael Knapp, who said that it was absurd to blame video games for real life crimes.

Judge Marci Adkisson gave a verdict of life imprisonment (with parole after 25 years) and said, "Now you're going to suffer the consequences." Could this possibly be the end of the "I did it because I play video games" defense?

After all of the intense courtroom drama that we've had just a few days ago about video games being involved in murder cases, the situation has turned tail. A defense attorney just claimed that video games made his client "do it." But before we get into the whole mix of things, let's open the court record:

Over at Klamath Falls, Oregon, 20 year-old Patrick Morris is charged with the murder of 15 year-old Diego Aguilar, who died after being shot five times with a 12-gauge shotgun. Ouchie. The story goes that Morris was in a fit of rage and intended to kill Aguilar after finding out that the diamond he received in some drug-related exchange was, in fact, a fake. More on the legalese side of things, to quote KOBI NBC 5:

The attorney for the defense says that violent video games such as Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto may have blurred Morris' ability to distinguish reality and the consequences of his actions.

HOLD IT! After Devin Moore's murder case from a few years back, once again, GTA has been thrown into the mix. Further details of the entire case are still a bit foggy, but whatever the scenario, the on-going debate on violent video games triggering murderous actions will never end. You can't deny the fact that violent games are available in all gaming platforms. But arguing about its influence on a murder... That's something else.

Over the past few days, we followed the development of GTA ads which earned the ire of some people who are urging that the ads be pulled down from public places. First there was Boston and Denver. While things are still being protested in those areas, Oregon's TriMet went out of its way and removed the ads.

Now for a change, instead of listing down all states that don't like such kind of games, let's start a new one: states that fell on their knees to such kind of games. Let us begin with Illinois:

Last year, August of 2005 to be exact, the above mentioned state enacted the Sexually Explicit Video Game Law or SEVGL. Accordingly, the objective of the law is to criminalize the sale of "sexually explicit" video games to minors. Also, the law states that those who are in the business should conspicuously label any sexually explicit game with a four square inch label reading "18." On the other hand, Entertainment Software Association together with other similar groups protested the law immediately the following day.

One year after, the case finally reaches to a conclusion: "The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the law, and the State of Illinois sought review. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's holding that the statue was not narrowly tailored." Why didn't we heard cheering? Hmm.. Well, in simpler terms, the law was unjustified and without basis.

Now we hear the loud applause...