The Needles: Master Chief Goes to Washington

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

acosn:
While I agree that the government has every right to regulate this sort of thing on the premise that the industry itself is effectively asleep at the wheel on the subject, what we're looking at is anything but that. Ratings awareness has shot up in the last 10 years, the rating system has been made more robust to accommodate different games and the system itself even mirrors the same system put down on movies- G-PG-PG13-R-NC17 is almost identical to E-E10-T-M-A.

Even with that aside statistics suggest that if anything video games are calming the kids. This "Grand Theft Auto" generation is the least violent in years according to the government's own statistics. What's more an actual minority of games made every year are rated "M" and of that few actually achieve high sales.

Really though, what I find reprehensible in all this is that California, who's bankrupt mind you, is spending money to see this through. Doesn't that strike you as a bad idea?

See my above post for the rebuttal to your first statement.

As for your second statement, yes it is striking me very odd how California is spending imaginary money on this. I'd like to know how they can even afford to pay the government workers that it takes to do this shit.

ionpulse2:

acosn:
While I agree that the government has every right to regulate this sort of thing on the premise that the industry itself is effectively asleep at the wheel on the subject, what we're looking at is anything but that. Ratings awareness has shot up in the last 10 years, the rating system has been made more robust to accommodate different games and the system itself even mirrors the same system put down on movies- G-PG-PG13-R-NC17 is almost identical to E-E10-T-M-A.

Even with that aside statistics suggest that if anything video games are calming the kids. This "Grand Theft Auto" generation is the least violent in years according to the government's own statistics. What's more an actual minority of games made every year are rated "M" and of that few actually achieve high sales.

Really though, what I find reprehensible in all this is that California, who's bankrupt mind you, is spending money to see this through. Doesn't that strike you as a bad idea?

See my above post for the rebuttal to your first statement.

As for your second statement, yes it is striking me very odd how California is spending imaginary money on this. I'd like to know how they can even afford to pay the government workers that it takes to do this shit.

You're over-reacting.

Andy Chalk:

arealperson:
As a final point of refutation, why can't videogames be the first to accept some regulation? Could we not bring ourselves up into such a standing that we are seen as the 'the most mature' medium rather than the 'the least' and hold us regardless of the age of our medium? You may see us as being picked on, but if a perhaps lesser recognized medium such as our falls under fair regulation, couldn't the others follow suit in a domino effect?

So you're suggesting that the videogame industry should surrender its First Amendment rights so it can lead the charge toward an across-the-board loss of these rights in other industries?

That's really quite a position to hold. Can you tell me what led to it? Have you ever called for legislated restrictions on the sale of movies, or books?

I honestly don't mean to argue from the position of "it is because it is," but there is simply no reason why the legal regulation of videogame sales would be necessary or acceptable, but not the regulation of other media. A number of you think that other media should be regulated - which would essentially spell the end of the First Amendment, and what happens to the Constitution after that is anybody's guess - and while I'm not terribly surprised that non-Americans would take the position, I'm absolutely blown away that American gamers would be so willing to let their rights slide.

Of course the First Amendment isn't perfect. I don't Germany or Australia have it quite right either. The UK had trouble just deciding who gets to make the rules, but they did manage to keep Manhunt 2 off the shelves for a year - not just out of the hands of kids, but out of the hands of everyone. Seems to me that nobody's come up with a perfect system yet, so why should we (well, they, or you, I suppose) change the system to make it more like something that we all know is no better, and quite possibly worse, than what's already there?

The bottom line is this: If you believe that videogames should be regulated, and you'd like to see some steps taken toward the erosion of the First Amendment, then do nothing. Just sit quietly and let a few vote-chasing government agencies do their thing and pretty soon, if you're lucky, you'll get what you want - and, I daresay, what you deserve.

The rest of us will be over here, standing up on your behalf.

I've made the point already, but it bears repeating: you admit that in practise, in the experience of users, this regulation is in effect. There is an NGO in the industry the regulates who has access to what content, and you seem to think that such regulation is desirable. I guess my question has to be why do you not trust the deomcratically elected organs of state (democratic in many people's opinions, not mine) to do that job just as well (because they have some responsibility to the public) if not better? Making the 'why us?' argument is facile - better explain why films (etc) are justifiably protected and why that also applies to videogames (preferably focusing on the prior - few think games are different to other media).

Maybe I'm paranoid, but I can't help but imagine this is some kind of attempt at making a back door to the regulation of textbooks. The inspiration being many stories from the last year about various US states trying to Christianise history, social studies and biology textbooks and remove history books detailing the rather nastier (slaves, indians, etc) areas of US history.

Here in the UK ridiculous laws are often passed by pushing forward something stupid, having it fail, and then pushing through all the pieces, which now sound quite sensible in comparison to the original.

Sikachu:
I've made the point already, but it bears repeating: you admit that in practise, in the experience of users, this regulation is in effect. There is an NGO in the industry the regulates who has access to what content, and you seem to think that such regulation is desirable. I guess my question has to be why do you not trust the deomcratically elected organs of state (democratic in many people's opinions, not mine) to do that job just as well (because they have some responsibility to the public) if not better? Making the 'why us?' argument is facile - better explain why films (etc) are justifiably protected and why that also applies to videogames (preferably focusing on the prior - few think games are different to other media).

Does the state need to do everything? What is it about this issue that makes it inherently better served by the government, especially when we can look at other countries where the government does regulate game sales and see that it's being handled in a demonstrably poorer fashion?

As for why I don't have unquestioning trust in "the government" to regulate game sales without impinging upon my freedoms, read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

And why not "why us?" I don't feel particularly compelled to provide a thoughtful reply to what is really a very silly suggestion.

I'm a little confused here. I live in the UK and the law here (which I know cause I used to work in a shop where it applied) is that it is not illegal to buy a game rated older than you are, but it IS illeagal for the shop to sell it to you. Most people get around this buy getting someone older to buy the game for them which is legal as far as I'm aware. The idea is that if a parent buys an 18 rated game for their 12 year old then they are deciding through parental discretion that it is ok to play it. Same thing applies with DVD's etc. For cinema's they won't let you buy a ticket if they think you're younger than the rating.

This sounds like the law they're trying to pass in America to me, am I wrong? Because I'm really not sure it's such a bad idea. Admittedly a lot of parents are idiots and will give their kiddies completely inappropriate games anyway but the main idea (atleast here) is not to stop younger players/viewers using the item but to make sure that some discetion is used

Andy Chalk:

Does the state need to do everything? What is it about this issue that makes it inherently better served by the government, especially when we can look at other countries where the government does regulate game sales and see that it's being handled in a demonstrably poorer fashion?

As for why I don't have unquestioning trust in "the government" to regulate game sales without impinging upon my freedoms, read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html

And why not "why us?" I don't feel particularly compelled to provide a thoughtful reply to what is really a very silly suggestion.

First, thanks for responding. Here are some thoughts:

1. I'm aware of that story and it is as scary as it is unsurprising. States the world over re-write history to assist in the control and manipulation of their populace. It does appear to be accelerating at an alarming rate in the USA, over here they just refuse to teach about the British Empire in schools. So I agree that you're very right to distrust governments. However, for every Germany or Australia, there are several UKs and Frances and Swedens that back up these agencies with legislation and continue to work at the same rate. Even in Australia the problem isn't that the government is doing it, but that the government is doing it wrong, and the solution that slowly seems to be coming there is by democratic means - a motivation that would not affect non-democratic institutions. Unless you mean your link to be evidence that there shouldn't be governmental regulation of what is taught in public schools (USA meaning) then it isn't really an analogue.

2. No the state doesn't need to do everything, but if the harm of not regulating videogames (at all - not the status quo) is children accessing unsuitable material and having their mental problems aggravated to the point where they are a danger to society and/or themselves (of which I am not convinced at all, but then I wouldn't regulate it at all) then surely that is as much within the remit of government as alcohol or tobacco. If that isn't the perceived harm that existing regulation is there to protect against then please detail what it is as I don't know.

3. On 'why not 'why not us?'' I have to say that I read your article as a semi-call to arms for people to support the position that you are advocating. The reason that I think you need to have rigorous arguments in such a case is that you convert more people when you can demonstrate why you are right in principle rather than merely by analogy. You may well motivate more people (particularly in a preaching:choir situation like this) by playing the 'videogames=victim' card, because there does exist persecution of the industry, but in order to arm those people with sensible arguments that are worth listening to if they are going to lobby, you need to win the argument in principle. It's like if I argue for the legalisation of marijuana with merely comparisons that showed it is just as harmful as tobacco and therefore is unfairly picked on (not really the case - just go with it for argument's sake) I am as convincing for the legalisation of marijuana as I am for the outlawing of tobacco, whereas if I show the harms of legalising marijuana and why those harms are counterbalanced by the benefits and why we should accept them.

To be honest, I keep asking for you to win the argument here because I'm interested in how that plays out.

Ok. I know there have been lots of comments covering this issue so I may repeat some points that have already been stated (I've read all the comments so far).

First off I live in England where our convoluted political history means we don't really have a constitution to base our laws around, only the ideals at the time (as an aside I'm glad we don't have one),and as such there is no overriding protection of free speech per se (the reality is FAR more convoluted). I work at a cinema, and as such I can be fined a large sum (1000 I think) if I let anyone into a film when they do not meet the age restrictions. The point is it is MY ass on the line as the one who sells the ticket (or DVD or Game), and not the person who sees the film, or buys the DVD, or plays the Game. This is what needs to change.

I actually support the legally backed age restriction laws. I agree, as most people do, that not all content is appropriate for all ages. To prevent the viewing of inappropriate content for minors restrictions should be placed on the availability of such content. It should not be sold or viewed without parental consent. Such restrictions should be in place universally in all retailers, outlets, etc, and such should be controlled by the only body with the power and authority to do such a thing, the state. I do not, however, believe that the ratings organisation has the right to ban the sale, or censor the material they control, and that all content should be made available to adults.

Flauros:

Umm, gee sorry man. I was just giving the standard offended protest, wasnt really expecting anyone here to argue with me. Allow me to correct you.

No, its NOT there job description to make any law they feel like. There are rules and laws to making laws. "regulate who uses it" exactly. Thats why its wrong. The laws are there to protect people, not to regulate what they like. You are allowed to read ANY book you want. YOu are "allowed" to watch rated R movies, yes, even if youre a child. If a parent wants to watch a scary movie with you, they can. Theres no "laws" involved.

"getting addicted to heroin has nothing to do with it" you are obviously just trying to argue, its obvious that I was making a statement that the videogame/movie/book/painting isnt commiting a crime or hurting anyone, so you cant say people cant use it. Obviously

So yes, once again THEY HAVE NO RIGHT. Oops, way off the mark again....

They aren't making any law they feel like, people are coming to law makers with something that their ignorant brains see as a problem. ie: uneducated parents see videogames with violence in them being played by their children, they become concerned and don't know what to do about it. The first conclusion that they come to is that the government should step in and regulate it, much like the government regulates alchohol, driving, porn, and (depending on your state) guns. That is what these parents are connecting videogames with, and that is why lawmakers are making these laws.

As for it being a crime, I agree with you, videogames are definetly not inherantly bad in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately there are people who do not see it that way, and they are the ones trying to pass these laws.

And yes, you still are way off the mark, they do have a right to do what they are doing, just as much as we have a right to play video games.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for the sake of argument, its just that I'd like for people to be arguing rationally and not sounding like idiots to the opposition.

the_maestro_sartori:

Shynobee:
The US constitution is considered by many to be one of the most successful constitutions in the world

isn't that just the same as saying it's considered by "many" NOT to be one of the most successful in the world? o.O

Shynobee:
having only been amended 27 times since its inception. That is a pretty good track record by anyone's standards.

you mean since it was written it's "only" been amended 3-4 times per generation? I stand corrected, that clearly is awesome... If each generation are only changing it 3-4 times it was clearly bang on the money, which sorta proves my point, the more time passes the more parts of it become out-dated and redundant. That's exactly why these revisions are being made, because topics like this obviously didn't exist until the technology was available for kids to play what effectively, are simulated murders

Ok, let me explain this a little more clearly;

As for the 27 times of being amended, yeah, that is an amazing track record, considering that every other country that has an amendable constitution has been amended far more times than that. The US constitution is a dynamic document that allows for change with the times. It even has a clause specifically allowing for change and expansion of power where need be, (this is what allowed the creation of an Air Force, NASA, and the application of Amendments to States.)

isn't that just the same as saying it's considered by "many" NOT to be one of the most successful in the world?

By many I meant historians, you know, the people who study these things for a living?

Well, since anything i would want to say that would add insight to the issue has already been said, so ill just say this: I know that people are offended by China forcing people to ask for government approval for raising a child, but the only reason that this is an issue is because parents are getting more irresponsible. Also, im somewhat baffled by the fact that a child needs ID in order to get an M-rated game, meaning that the only way a child could get an M-rated game would be via the parent (or at least thats how i see it, seeing that the only M-rated game i own is Dragon-Age: Origins, which i got as a birthday present.) Anywho, why would someone who bought a product as an adult who would believe their child was mature complain when they see their child playing (gasp, choke) a violent game that was rated M for a reason? Lack of responsibility at its finest >.<

i honestly think that some people need to have a liscence in order to be a responsible parent or guardian. It is required in my state by law to take a class on how to babysit i order to legally babysit, so why not with parenting?

Andy Chalk:

Second question: Do you think state or federal governments in the U.S. have the legal right to prevent children from accessing this content?

Legal right? No. Do I suspect that this is as much a combination of trying to avoid letting mature content into immature hands as it is parents telling the government "We have no f*cking idea what the hell an 'FPS' is. Take over, I've got to put 8 month old johnny in the tub and then make dinner" and that power should be taken away from them? Hells yes. Simple and sweet, videogames have evolved at an incredible pace and a majority of the older generations just can't wrap their heads around them. Add in the media shock outlets calling them (vgs) porn and murder simulators, and those gens BELIEVING it, then yeah, they look pretty incompetent without Big Brother steering them around. It's a breech of the first amendment, but what the hell are they supposed to do when people are so incredibly incompetent? I'm not going to cry if this sort of thing gets passed, but I am going to lose it if several years from now it gets worse or can't be repealed, once people who can tell a joystick from their ***** are in the vast majority.

Andy Chalk:

Proper answers can be found anywhere along the scale between confusion and outrage over the continuing drive of governments to hold videogames, as a medium, separate and distinct from all other forms of expression despite repeated Constitutional smackdowns. It's been 30-some years since Space Invaders and we're still waiting for Ragnarok, yet you'd think from the way some people carry on that the end-times are upon us and the only salvation is to turn videogame violence into a new form of pornography.

That's because they ARE a fundamentally different artform. In sculpture, comic books and movies communication only happens in one direction, from the artist to the viewer. Video game's whole appeal is that it takes input from the viewer in order for the entire piece to be seen and even to determine what the final "image" looks like. It's an awesome new medium that's evolving at a fantastic rate and that's what has people so confused.

Okay, long story short: Why did you not go to see R rated movies when you were a kid? More appropriately, who were you hiding the fact that you were going to see an R rated movie from? Not laws per se, and the denial of admission to minors is a company to company thing, but what ruling body is directly above a minor? And what happens when that ruling body has no interest in being truthfully informed, and delegates to a higher ruling body which, ironically enough is driven by people of similar opinion?

Also, we're talking about a country who was actually able to sign away the rite of habeas corpus, and that is an actual legal structure that has been around for about 200 years as opposed to a form of expression that after only thirty years is now coming into it's full maturity.

When we start to give away the rights of others to the government soon we will found that one day the government will come for our rights. Our ignorance is leading to our loss of freedom and the abuse of our liberties. If you allow one group to be silenced soon you will be the one they are trying to silence. All men deserve the freedom to speak as the please and enjoy media they like. Ignorance and idiocy is their right to choose. Either all is allowed or there is no stopping those in power. This is why our country is not a democracy for then we would be beholden to the tyranny of the strong masses. No we are free under the rule of law. To abandon that freedom is foolish. Eventually we will not be the ones in power and then who will protect us?

DarkSpectre:
When we start to give away the rights of others to the government soon we will found that one day the government will come for our rights. Our ignorance is leading to our loss of freedom and the abuse of our liberties. If you allow one group to be silenced soon you will be the one they are trying to silence. All men deserve the freedom to speak as the please and enjoy media they like. Ignorance and idiocy is their right to choose. Either all is allowed or there is no stopping those in power. This is why our country is not a democracy for then we would be beholden to the tyranny of the strong masses. No we are free under the rule of law. To abandon that freedom is foolish. Eventually we will not be the ones in power and then who will protect us?

This is ridiculously misplaced and analytically lacking, not to mention that chances are you don't even agree with yourself. How do you feel about the freedom to enjoy pornographic pictures of children, or snuff films?

First the only issue I have with those are the manner in which they are produced. A child has to be abused to make child porn. Your freedoms do not allow you to infringe upon other people's freedoms. You can make whatever kind of media you want unless it requires the infringement of other people's rights. Children are too young to be able to decide if they want to engage in pornographic media. Video games do not require the infringement of somebodies rights to produce. They may be a bad influence on children but that is for the parent to decide not the government. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The primacy of these is in that order as well. You are free to pursue happiness by any means unless you seek to infringe upon another persons rights. Just because somebodies choice of what makes them happy is unpleasant to you doesn't mean you can stop them from pursuing it unless they are trying to infringe upon another person's rights. If you don't protect everybody's rights equally then you open up the system to the tyranny of the strong and powerful. If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults? You have allowed them to move the line once and beak the written letter of the bill of rights. What is to stop them from doing it again? Slow creep is how a free people move towards tranny. Look at the wealth of historic evidence. Mankind is willing to give up freedom when they have taken it for granted. It happened to Rome. Straight democracy is no good either because then the minorities are at the whim of the majority. Eventually only the strong remain in power and we have set ourselves back hundreds of years as a civilization.

MrPatience:
Wait, so in America, minors can buy any game and see any movie they like? I had no idea.
I live in Australia (cue chuckling) and usually need to produce I.D to be allowed in to an MA movie. I'm 18 and grow a fair beard, as well. And you need to be over 18 to even be able to trade in games.
Don't I feel like an idiot.

Also, great article, Andy.

This. I'm in England, and I've been ID'd for games occasionally, aswell as at the cinema.

The3rdEye:

-First Part Snipped-

Also, we're talking about a country who was actually able to sign away the rite of habeas corpus, and that is an actual legal structure that has been around for about 200 years as opposed to a form of expression that after only thirty years is now coming into it's full maturity.

For everything above the bottom, see my post on Pg. 3.

As for the bottom bit, yes, that was an absolute buttfuck to the Constitution and the entirety of the United States. But again, I must stress the significance of something called a PRECEDENT.

The reason why Habeas Corpus was removed in the first place was because of a ridiculously small legal battle. What happened though? The wrong side won, because nobody gave a damn. More cases popped up, and then more. Eventually, it got to the point where the astoundingly retarded PRECEDENT was set, and Habeas Corpus ceased to exist in its effective form.

The only reason this is being brought up in the first place, and the only reason it made it to court, was because of that specific PRECEDENT, and allowed them to question the Constitution and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights.

This is not one of those small court cases, those opportunities to nip this problem in the bud are gone. This is a HUGE, MAJOR, IMPORTANT COURT CASE. It is in the Supreme Court, our highest form of legal judgment in the United States, and it has the power to "interpret" the Constitution.

If this passes under the radar like the Habeas Corpus mishap, if we show continued apathy toward this extremely sensitive subject, than we will set yet another legal PRECEDENT, resulting in a major blow to the First Amendment rights every single man, woman, and child are given at birth in this nation.

Please, people. I cannot stress this enough. LISTEN to me. LISTEN to Andy. LISTEN TO THE COUNTLESS OTHER PEOPLE WHO SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE, AND STOP THIS BEFORE IT BEGINS. Once these people are given an inch in such utterly sensitive territory, they can begin to dismantle, piece by piece, the Bill of Rights - and ultimately - the United States of America.

Some of you would think that I am overreacting. I can assure you I am not. Situations like this are highly delicate, and require the utmost attention and seriousness. We CANNOT, under good conscience, let this slip through our fingers. This country is unique, we are the only one in the world with the amount of freedom like this. Don't let it fail. Don't let the Great Experiment end people. It may be about Video Games now, a totally inconsequential form of entertainment, but soon, oh yes very soon, it will be something bigger. You, as a normal citizen, would never think to wield such mild and harmless topics like these BARBARIANS plan to, to cut a vast swath through the heart of our nation. But heed my warning, they do not think like we do. They will use anything and everything in their power to achieve their ends, and to them, that justifies the means, no matter what the means are.

And in this case, those means stem from what would appear as a simple hobby.

Andy Chalk:

twistedmic:
I don't see a law preventing kids from buying M and, if they exist, AO rated games as an infringement of the First Amendment.

Fortunately, federal courts in 12 separate states have thus far disagreed with your assessment.

Why is it okay to regulate videogames, but not movies, books, music or DVDs?

Well, and in a larger context, the prohibition against regulating books, music and DVDs is explicitly a first amendment protection. If the ruling came down that it was okay to regulate videogames in this way, the extension of that would be that videogames are not entitled to first amendment protections.

Really, the legal issue at the heart of this case is precisely that: are videogames entitled to first amendment protections? Not, should they be regulated?

First of all, BEEFING UP YOUR TEXT and repeatedly referring back to your text as the sole support for referring back to your text does not an argument make.

ionpulse2:
....I must stress the significance of something called a PRECEDENT.... because of a ridiculously small legal battle...The wrong side won... it got to the point where the astoundingly retarded PRECEDENT was set, and Habeas Corpus ceased to exist in its effective form...This is not one of those small court cases...

Small case or no, wouldn't the president of the United States signing away the legal right to appeal wrongful detainment under those circumstances create a big deal, or A PRECEDENT? My point was that if America can be convinced that it should revoke certain legal rights from the people, why wouldn't they be convinced that letting the government choose what little Billy can and can't play. This isn't the threat of escalation, it is the result.

All this time gamers have been jumping on FOX news and certain legal officials, flaming them to all hell, all the while ignoring the general audience, whose continued ignorance over the issue of video game content has left them just as susceptible to misleading information as before. Now however, since no one made it a point to correct the information they were given, they actually still believe some of the crap that was fed to them. And no wonder, look what happens when someone tries to present gaming in a calm and concise manner:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.182302-Slanderous-Anti-Game-Discussion?page=1

In any event, all sensationalism aside (I hope), I'm confident that this will get nipped in the bud. It's the parent's right and responsibility to nurture a child and keep them from what they believe to be harmful influences, not the governments. Videogames are an exploration and expression of free speech, and should be protected as such. Two issues, one ****storm. And on the slim chance that it isn't and our government tries to copy the 'States, then I'll rest easy knowing that there will be a vote of no confidence.

The3rdEye:
First of all, BEEFING UP YOUR TEXT and repeatedly referring back to your text as the sole support for referring back to your text does not an argument make.

ionpulse2:
....I must stress the significance of something called a PRECEDENT.... because of a ridiculously small legal battle...The wrong side won... it got to the point where the astoundingly retarded PRECEDENT was set, and Habeas Corpus ceased to exist in its effective form...This is not one of those small court cases...

Small case or no, wouldn't the president of the United States signing away the legal rite to appeal wrongful detainment under those circumstances create a big deal, or A PRECEDENT? My point was that if America can be convinced that it should revoke certain legal rites from the people, why wouldn't they be convinced that letting the government choose what little Billy can and can't play. This isn't the threat of escalation, it is the result.

All this time gamers have been jumping on FOX news and certain legal officials, flaming them to all hell, all the while ignoring the general audience, whose continued ignorance over the issue of video game content has left them just as susceptible to misleading information as before. Now however, since no one made it a point to correct the information they were given, they actually still believe some of the crap that was fed to them. And no wonder, look what happens when someone tries to present gaming in a calm and concise manner:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.182302-Slanderous-Anti-Game-Discussion?page=1

In any event, all sensationalism aside (I hope), I'm confident that this will get nipped in the bud. And on the slim chance that it isn't and our government tries to copy the 'States, then I'll rest easy knowing that there will be a vote of no confidence.

You do realize you just restated the main point of my argument, right? I sincerely hope you didn't mean this as a rebuttal.

dogstile:
Eh, this'll always get the same response from me?

"So, you want to tell me I can't do something that only affects me? Oh right. Well then, fuck off".

Edit: Can we swear on these forums? I've never really got an answer.

1) Sounds like Australia with the governement refusing an R18+ rating because they wanted it too much.
2) I believe swearing is okay here. In my experience, the mods usually don't mind as long as you don't go overboard with it. I could be wrong though.

OT: Great article Andy. Posted the link for the petition on my facebook page.

Wow, I'm shocked to see so many people willing to let that pass because "parents are stupid", "it won't change a lot of thing" and because they are seemingly to lazy to care and do something about this. You people seem to be forgetting that if this pass, they get to say what is a violent game, and believe me, they will rake a lot wider than the ESRB. Knowing that 99% of retailers won't hold AO games on their shelves, imagine if every games that would be released with a M rating would get an AO instead by the new "government approved standard". Hell, now that games are not protected by the first amendment, what stops them from banning games that they consider unpatriotic? Games that are not sending the message that they want to be sent? Other medium will follow soon after because why should we protect our children from the evil of video games when there is also corruption and "unpatriotisms" in movies, books and music.

It's not about letting games like GTA4 or MW2 in the hands of 10 years old, they shouldn't be playing that. It's about not letting the government, people with political agendas and different lobby to please, decide what games gets to be played and by whom. The Hays code stood for 34 years and was dropped in 1968. May seem like an eternity ago to someone in their 20's but it's only been 42 years. That is not that long ago. Do you really think that none of those politicians trying to get that law passed isn't thinking about something similar for video games? Do you think that this won't pass with all the fear created around violence, extremists, terrorists and socialists? Once games are stripped away of their constitutional protection, it's free buffet for the law makers and since no one will have cared for that first little law, the first little slice in freedom of speech, why would they care if some more cuts are made, you know, in the name of the children and our very vocal minority of supporters and lobbyists.

Just like Mr. Chalk, I am Canadian. I don't know why we care so much about what happens to your constitution. maybe it's because we know what whatever shit you cook up down there, we are going to get it that we want it or not. Not on political level, but just through business and social changes. It's sad to see people fighting more vigorously to defend their right to walk around with a freaking loaded weapon than to defend a little piece of their freedom of speech.

A few years ago there was a shootout at a college in Montreal. A bunch of people got hurt and a girl was killed by a gunman who killed himself when cops showed up. Did the media go on a rampage about violent video games and trying to point fingers? No. They talked about the isolation of people like him and mental illness. Did the government tried to pass a law restricting the sell of games? No. They created better restrictions for gun sales.

Maybe you'll care about this when video games end up like comic books. Beat into the ground by massive censorship because nobody cared enough to get their thumbs out of their ass and speak up.

And for irony's sake: http://www.virtualshackles.com/107

umm, sorry, I've obviously missed something here... Why is it that you think its a bad idea to protect children from inappropriate content - just run that by me again.
It seems to me thats all thats in contention here; and in what way exactly would it be any different from a constitutional POV from age restrictions on selling alcohol?

you'll have to forgive my British ignorance :D

Continuity:
umm, sorry, I've obviously missed something here... Why is it that you think its a bad idea to protect children from inappropriate content - just run that by me again.
It seems to me thats all thats in contention here; and in what way exactly would it be any different from a constitutional POV from age restrictions on selling alcohol?

you'll have to forgive my British ignorance :D

You tell me you have no problem with putting video games in the same bag as alcohol and cigarettes?

ionpulse2:
You do realize you just restated the main point of my argument, right? I sincerely hope you didn't mean this as a rebuttal.

If I may suggest, rather than simply saying, "if you'd read my previous post", you could spoiler tag a quote of your previous post, and preface it with, "As I said earlier:" or something to that effect.

Continuity:
what way exactly would it be any different from a constitutional POV from age restrictions on selling alcohol?

Alcohol has proven negative effects on the body. Videogames do not. There is no comparison.

Tenmar:

So basically, you have kids that are actively attempting to get their hands on content that is only deemed to be inappropriate for a specific age range. Through parents? Well that is called parenting. Older siblings? Well that is making a judgement call or personal decision. Other friends? Same thing with older siblings.

Not everyone is a round peg in a round hole and there is no one size fits all when it comes to the human condition. Some people who are younger are more mature than those that are older and we of course have seen where older people are less mature than those that are younger. Also it is part of the human condition to try and get things that they want but is considered out of reach. I don't know how old you are but have you actually seen college students that are underage try and get alcohol? Trust me give them enough time and they will find a way. But do you also notice that when a college student does come of age getting alcohol doesn't become a big deal? Ever wonder why? It is that restriction, that ability to be "more mature" or "to rebel" and this is nothing new so we shouldn't treat it as new when it comes to video games.

Also if you are supportive of this law then you really should be active in trying to ban children from being exposed to lyrics that are adult themed. Just note that the girls you see here are all first graders.

The ESRB are meant to be basic guidelines. Would you really prevent a child who is twelve years old from getting a T rated game? And if so what is it that that child is missing that would prevent them from handling said T rated content? While people will just rail against the M rating what specific trait or qualification is actually required to be able to play a video game and handle the content that does vary from game to game? The answer is that there is no single trait or qualification a person can attain or does attain instantly that should prevent a person from having access to a video game that does no physical harm unlike consuming alcohol or smoking. Maturity is gained in time and that time is different from person to person and this includes children.

Honestly your reason to support the law because "Despite the ratings the kids are going to get them anyway" just ignores that there is a lot of enforcement within the video game industry and that includes the retail industry. First retail employees can actually lose their job if they are caught selling mature games to those who are not of age. I don't know about you but that is a pretty good incentive to follow store policy. Second, sales of Mature rated games require identification from the purchaser. So if a kid is trying to buy a game they are required to show their ID proving that they are 17 years old.

Finally, if friends, parents or older siblings have decided to give the game to their kids? That is their judgement call. They decide for better or worse that their child should be able to play the game they want. I've encountered this in stores multiple times where parents go up to me and ask me what kind of content is in a game like Metal Gear Solid or JRPGS and they make the decision if they will buy the game. Some shrug my warnings of violence and adult themes and buy games like MGS4 for their kid just to shut them up but that is the parents judgement call. If there is a problem the problem isn't the ESRB anymore, it is the parents, the friends and the siblings.

Because if we do apply that logic then why isn't it the movies rating board problem if a kid sees an R rated movie because of their parents, friends, or older siblings at home? The movie got the stamp but the kids are going to see the movie anyway. Same can be applied to books, or music. The album got the label with adult lyrics but the kids are going to get the album or listen to the album anyway because of parents, friends, or older siblings.

You're totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. I never said I was in support of the law, in fact I said quite the opposite in a previous post. I am saying that the nature in which mature games are exposed to unintended audiences is different from the nature in which mature movies and their ilk. The environ in which one plays a mature game is much different from the one in which one watches a mature movie, not to mention the difference in time duration. Games engage interactivity, movies engage vision and spectacle (though I am not saying games encourage violence - only that games encourage people to play them). Therefore, it's rash to assume that the same methods and restrictions should be applied to all media in general.

My point of 'kids will get the games anyways' was *in spite* of the fact that there is voluntary enforcement of ratings at the retail distributor level. The nature in which they get the games is something of a slip under the radar. This is my logic:

1. Rating systems like the ESRB exist to inform parents and guardians of age-inappropriate content in games.
2. Children are getting age-inappropriate games.
3. The system doesn't work.

Yes, ultimately, it's a parental decision to permit kids playing games that weren't intended for them. Do I think the majority of parents are making the correct decisions? No, (and that includes parents who strictly forbid games with *any* violence or the like), but that's not for me to decide. My position isn't of what most people have indicated in this game forum, but it's not of those pushing for the legislation either. I'm just trying to evaluate both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, you're making the mistake of thinking that anybody with inclinations towards changing the current system is someone who wants to ban it all.

Your analogy of underage drinking is an excellent one, though. Something considered out of reach is also something that is considered a privilege to attain in spite of how it's forbidden, and this is one of the reasons why I think legislation in this case would be ineffectual. In any case, legislation only serves to formalise the enforcement of ratings that is already in practice, which as I've already stated, doesn't seem to work as well as it should. Still working with your analogy, games haven't been around as long as alcohol and as is such, their content and nature are not as well-understood by the general public, and thus they have a certain stigma attached to them. And that's why I feel a different approach is necessitated; grouping them in the same category as movies, music, and other passive forms of entertainment isn't the right solution.

(Oh, and your youtube link is broken.)

Sign the petition and send a letter to your elected representative. Make some noise about it and spread the word to others. Do something to ensure that your freedom of speech remains intact.

So how would writing our Congressmen affect the outcome of a Supreme Court case? The only thing I can think of is the confirmation of Elena Kagan. Is there any word on when this case is scheduled to appear in court, or when Kagan would begin presiding if she is confirmed, or Kagan's stance on video game restrictions? In all honesty I don't think there is anything we can do to affect this case.

Shynobee:

Flauros:

Umm, gee sorry man. I was just giving the standard offended protest, wasnt really expecting anyone here to argue with me. Allow me to correct you.

No, its NOT there job description to make any law they feel like. There are rules and laws to making laws. "regulate who uses it" exactly. Thats why its wrong. The laws are there to protect people, not to regulate what they like. You are allowed to read ANY book you want. YOu are "allowed" to watch rated R movies, yes, even if youre a child. If a parent wants to watch a scary movie with you, they can. Theres no "laws" involved.

"getting addicted to heroin has nothing to do with it" you are obviously just trying to argue, its obvious that I was making a statement that the videogame/movie/book/painting isnt commiting a crime or hurting anyone, so you cant say people cant use it. Obviously

So yes, once again THEY HAVE NO RIGHT. Oops, way off the mark again....

They aren't making any law they feel like, people are coming to law makers with something that their ignorant brains see as a problem. ie: uneducated parents see videogames with violence in them being played by their children, they become concerned and don't know what to do about it. The first conclusion that they come to is that the government should step in and regulate it, much like the government regulates alchohol, driving, porn, and (depending on your state) guns. That is what these parents are connecting videogames with, and that is why lawmakers are making these laws.

As for it being a crime, I agree with you, videogames are definetly not inherantly bad in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately there are people who do not see it that way, and they are the ones trying to pass these laws.

And yes, you still are way off the mark, they do have a right to do what they are doing, just as much as we have a right to play video games.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for the sake of argument, its just that I'd like for people to be arguing rationally and not sounding like idiots to the opposition.

So you agree that they shouldnt be regulated,....but by saying that, im being irrational? Why the hell are you arguing with me, then? Ill just assume out your weirdness that you disagree withme, since im "irrational"

No, they do NOT need to regulate it. They dont regulate the storylines of books, they dont regulate the storylines of movies, so they dont need to regulate the storylines of games. You actually compared games to alchohol or porno or driving, but you didnt get my "videogames dont get you addicted to heroin" simile. So, it makes more sense that videogames actually get you drunk, then? When you crash in a racing game, does someone actually die? Does everytime someone reads Dumbledore dying on page 154, does an old man actually die? Is harry potter a "protected substance"?

Just for clarification, they rating systems arent Laws, either. They are just there to let parents know beforehand.

So no, they DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE ART REGULATED. I dont see why thats so complicated to understand. Our rights are much more important. If you dont want to watch a scary movie with your kid, you dont. It doesn't need to be a "controlled substance" To think, actually comparing videogames to real life drunk driving.....

OH MY GOD, MY BOOK READING IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL. WOW, I JUST CAST A MAGICAL SPELL! OH MYGOD, THANK THE LORD THESE BOOKS REQUIRE A LICENSE TO READ! lol

But, for one thing, a lot less 15 year olds on online games. Hmm, something to consider, lol

JusticarPhaeton:

(Oh, and your youtube link is broken.)

For the moviebob video? Thank you for letting me know that. I will fix that right away. Also I do know you don't support this law and you only support the spirit of the law to prevent children from gaining access in anyway shape or form that is deemed inappropriate by our society.

However even with your intentions you still play devil's advocate on an issue in which you should be supportive by signing the petition. Yet there is no real solution you advocate for that could truly make the sales of video games that is deemed inappropriate being either T or M to children that is foolproof. Which is why a law like this shouldn't pass because there is no amount of government restriction and enforcement that will truly stop the tenacity of the human condition of those that want that content by any means necessary.

Also I do disagree with you about how long video games have existed and their effect on people both adults and children. After all controversial games that have had the eye of the government have existed since the 1970s. There has been more than a couple generations that have grown up from childhood to adulthood and while you might see them at Penny arcade expo to appear childish they are still overall well adjusted adults that pay the same bills and taxes as any other adult that doesn't indulge in video games.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/bt/the-sage/sage-review/2004-top-10-most-controversial-games

also here is the youtube link of Moviebob's 25th episode. I cannot find the video on the screwattack website so the parts that are sped up please listen just as closely because they are important.

Flauros:

Shynobee:

They aren't making any law they feel like, people are coming to law makers with something that their ignorant brains see as a problem. ie: uneducated parents see videogames with violence in them being played by their children, they become concerned and don't know what to do about it. The first conclusion that they come to is that the government should step in and regulate it, much like the government regulates alchohol, driving, porn, and (depending on your state) guns. That is what these parents are connecting videogames with, and that is why lawmakers are making these laws.

As for it being a crime, I agree with you, videogames are definetly not inherantly bad in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately there are people who do not see it that way, and they are the ones trying to pass these laws.

And yes, you still are way off the mark, they do have a right to do what they are doing, just as much as we have a right to play video games.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for the sake of argument, its just that I'd like for people to be arguing rationally and not sounding like idiots to the opposition.

So you agree that they shouldnt be regulated,....but by saying that, im being irrational? Why the hell are you arguing with me, then? Ill just assume out your weirdness that you disagree withme, since im "irrational"

No, they do NOT need to regulate it. They dont regulate the storylines of books, they dont regulate the storylines of movies, so they dont need to regulate the storylines of games. You actually compared games to alchohol or porno or driving, but you didnt get my "videogames dont get you addicted to heroin" simile. So, it makes more sense that videogames actually get you drunk, then? When you crash in a racing game, does someone actually die? Does everytime someone reads Dumbledore dying on page 154, does an old man actually die? Is harry potter a "protected substance"?

Just for clarification, they rating systems arent Laws, either. They are just there to let parents know beforehand.

So no, they DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE ART REGULATED. I dont see why thats so complicated to understand. Our rights are much more important. If you dont want to watch a scary movie with your kid, you dont. It doesn't need to be a "controlled substance" To think, actually comparing videogames to real life drunk driving.....

OH MY GOD, MY BOOK READING IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL. WOW, I JUST CAST A MAGICAL SPELL! OH MYGOD, THANK THE LORD THESE BOOKS REQUIRE A LICENSE TO READ! lol

But, for one thing, a lot less 15 year olds on online games. Hmm, something to consider, lol

Ok, I'm gonna try one last time to make my point clear.

I agree that the laws are wrong, what I disagree with is the arguments that you chose to use against these laws.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your other points because now, we are so off topic its not even funny.

Shynobee:

Flauros:

Shynobee:

They aren't making any law they feel like, people are coming to law makers with something that their ignorant brains see as a problem. ie: uneducated parents see videogames with violence in them being played by their children, they become concerned and don't know what to do about it. The first conclusion that they come to is that the government should step in and regulate it, much like the government regulates alchohol, driving, porn, and (depending on your state) guns. That is what these parents are connecting videogames with, and that is why lawmakers are making these laws.

As for it being a crime, I agree with you, videogames are definetly not inherantly bad in any way, shape or form. Unfortunately there are people who do not see it that way, and they are the ones trying to pass these laws.

And yes, you still are way off the mark, they do have a right to do what they are doing, just as much as we have a right to play video games.

Trust me, I'm not doing this for the sake of argument, its just that I'd like for people to be arguing rationally and not sounding like idiots to the opposition.

So you agree that they shouldnt be regulated,....but by saying that, im being irrational? Why the hell are you arguing with me, then? Ill just assume out your weirdness that you disagree withme, since im "irrational"

No, they do NOT need to regulate it. They dont regulate the storylines of books, they dont regulate the storylines of movies, so they dont need to regulate the storylines of games. You actually compared games to alchohol or porno or driving, but you didnt get my "videogames dont get you addicted to heroin" simile. So, it makes more sense that videogames actually get you drunk, then? When you crash in a racing game, does someone actually die? Does everytime someone reads Dumbledore dying on page 154, does an old man actually die? Is harry potter a "protected substance"?

Just for clarification, they rating systems arent Laws, either. They are just there to let parents know beforehand.

So no, they DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE ART REGULATED. I dont see why thats so complicated to understand. Our rights are much more important. If you dont want to watch a scary movie with your kid, you dont. It doesn't need to be a "controlled substance" To think, actually comparing videogames to real life drunk driving.....

OH MY GOD, MY BOOK READING IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL. WOW, I JUST CAST A MAGICAL SPELL! OH MYGOD, THANK THE LORD THESE BOOKS REQUIRE A LICENSE TO READ! lol

But, for one thing, a lot less 15 year olds on online games. Hmm, something to consider, lol

Ok, I'm gonna try one last time to make my point clear.

I agree that the laws are wrong, what I disagree with is the arguments that you chose to use against these laws.

I'm not even going to bother addressing your other points because now, we are so off topic its not even funny.

Youre a funny one.

DarkSpectre:
First the only issue I have with those are the manner in which they are produced. A child has to be abused to make child porn. Your freedoms do not allow you to infringe upon other people's freedoms. You can make whatever kind of media you want unless it requires the infringement of other people's rights. Children are too young to be able to decide if they want to engage in pornographic media. Video games do not require the infringement of somebodies rights to produce. They may be a bad influence on children but that is for the parent to decide not the government. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The primacy of these is in that order as well. You are free to pursue happiness by any means unless you seek to infringe upon another persons rights. Just because somebodies choice of what makes them happy is unpleasant to you doesn't mean you can stop them from pursuing it unless they are trying to infringe upon another person's rights. If you don't protect everybody's rights equally then you open up the system to the tyranny of the strong and powerful. If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults? You have allowed them to move the line once and beak the written letter of the bill of rights. What is to stop them from doing it again? Slow creep is how a free people move towards tranny. Look at the wealth of historic evidence. Mankind is willing to give up freedom when they have taken it for granted. It happened to Rome. Straight democracy is no good either because then the minorities are at the whim of the majority. Eventually only the strong remain in power and we have set ourselves back hundreds of years as a civilization.

So your problem with child porn is that there was abuse involved in making it? Fair enough, though I glad to see that you recognise your original statement needed some qualification and that you think it is ok to censor sometimes. Your points remain analytically lacking however. You say "If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults?" without any regard for the functioning of democracy or indeed the system at present. Children aren't allowed to vote or consume alcohol, yet you don't seem to be worried about mass disenfranchisement on the part of the entire adult population, and neither do you seem worried about a second prohibition. Why do you think regulation of alcohol seems to stop at adulthood but videogames will fall down your slippery slope? On an unrelated point, in the world as it exists today, videogame sales to minors are regulated, almost universally, so the practical side of the legislative coin is already in place. The experience of the people will be no different in either case, it is just the ESRB may have some legislative backing.

P.S. Use the 'quote' button if you plan on replying - that way it sends me a notification of your post.

Sikachu:

DarkSpectre:
First the only issue I have with those are the manner in which they are produced. A child has to be abused to make child porn. Your freedoms do not allow you to infringe upon other people's freedoms. You can make whatever kind of media you want unless it requires the infringement of other people's rights. Children are too young to be able to decide if they want to engage in pornographic media. Video games do not require the infringement of somebodies rights to produce. They may be a bad influence on children but that is for the parent to decide not the government. Everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The primacy of these is in that order as well. You are free to pursue happiness by any means unless you seek to infringe upon another persons rights. Just because somebodies choice of what makes them happy is unpleasant to you doesn't mean you can stop them from pursuing it unless they are trying to infringe upon another person's rights. If you don't protect everybody's rights equally then you open up the system to the tyranny of the strong and powerful. If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults? You have allowed them to move the line once and beak the written letter of the bill of rights. What is to stop them from doing it again? Slow creep is how a free people move towards tranny. Look at the wealth of historic evidence. Mankind is willing to give up freedom when they have taken it for granted. It happened to Rome. Straight democracy is no good either because then the minorities are at the whim of the majority. Eventually only the strong remain in power and we have set ourselves back hundreds of years as a civilization.

So your problem with child porn is that there was abuse involved in making it? Fair enough, though I glad to see that you recognise your original statement needed some qualification and that you think it is ok to censor sometimes. Your points remain analytically lacking however. You say "If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults?" without any regard for the functioning of democracy or indeed the system at present. Children aren't allowed to vote or consume alcohol, yet you don't seem to be worried about mass disenfranchisement on the part of the entire adult population, and neither do you seem worried about a second prohibition. Why do you think regulation of alcohol seems to stop at adulthood but videogames will fall down your slippery slope? On an unrelated point, in the world as it exists today, videogame sales to minors are regulated, almost universally, so the practical side of the legislative coin is already in place. The experience of the people will be no different in either case, it is just the ESRB may have some legislative backing.

P.S. Use the 'quote' button if you plan on replying - that way it sends me a notification of your post.

The alcohol issue actually happened once already. The already tried to outlaw it once. It got repealed but only after the protests against it were to strong and it was apparent that it was a failure because people did what they wanted anyway. It also spawned massive amounts of illegal activity. Not something I think banning gaming would do, but loose your rights in huge sweeping movements you loose them slow over time as they are chipped away at while you sleep. Till one day you wake up and you have no more freedom than a pleb in Imperial Rome or a peasant in Soviet Russia. It is like boiling a live frog. The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. If you can ban things for children what is to stop you from banning them from adults? There is no distinction between adults and children in the bill of rights. It then is just the will of the majority that is keeping them from being banned from adults. What happens if the will of the majority decides that adults shouldn't have them either? If you cross the line even once then it is easier to cross it again later. A slow steady erosion of protection of our liberties is inevitable unless we zealously guard our rights even the rights of people we don't like or agree with. I think that excessive violence isn't a good thing for mature adults to consume, but that doesn't give me the right to try to force them to not use them. I have no right to force you to raise your child as I see fit unless you are clearly violating the child's rights. This country is founded on the belief that humans have inherent rights that are universal and not subject to majority approval. This is why racism is bad because blacks have the same rights whites do, but if you had gone with majority opinion they didn't. Our country is structured on the idea that their is a natural law that governs the behaviour of men like there is a law of gravity. Right and wrong are hard coded into the universe so to speak. This country was founded on the idea that government's primary responsibility was to ensure the protection of the rights of the citizens according to this natural law. Government should be structured to ensure that natural law is carried out justly and fairly to all people. If people don't like that idea they can move elsewhere. There are plenty of places in this world that don't have the protections we do or the outlook on government that this country was founded on. Mobility and the freedom of choice is a fundamental principle behind this country. The United States is a set of ideas more than a piece of land. Individuals have rights that can't not be infringed upon by force only given up voluntarily. Which is why the Government shouldn't get involved.

In this country the sale of games is not legislated. The companies themselves do it. The government should not take the place of good parenting and personal responsibility. It also requires good citizenship and behaviour of the companies selling the material. Even then if Jimmy is able to buy a game that his parents don't think is good then they should just take it away from Jmmy until he is ready for it. Parents should actually get involved with their children's lives instead of having the government take care of it for them. Tell them to take the time to sit down and find out what Jimmy is consuming through media. Tell them to take an active interest in their kids and look out for them. My dad did that with any media we consumed. Granted at a certain age like around 7 we could watch any g or pg movie we wanted it was the more mature stuff he examined before we were allowed to have it. Even as a kid I could see that my dad was actively looking out for me and at times I thought he was wrong but I could see he just wanted what was best. It gave us a real strong relationship. The problem with kids will only get worse the more the parents give away their duties to the government. Children won't behave for a parent that doesn't show an active interest in the everyday activities of their children.

p.s. My bad on not using the quote. I forgot. I wonder why you hadn't responded. You seem like a right amicable fellow. Nice to debate with somebody that is civil yet vigorous. Good exercise for the brain.

Here's the thing about laws: they are always backed, either implicitly or explicitly, by the threat of physical violence. Every law. You might say that some laws are only punishable by a fine, but what happens when you don't pay that? What happens when you resist every attempt the government makes to collect from you? They arrest you. Men with guns come to your home, handcuff you, and then haul you away as a prisoner. And the entire time you know that if you resist, they will take out their guns and shoot you. That is their job. And in many cases that's a good thing--the government should use this kind of force to detain murderers and child molesters and the like. But this scenario doesn't just apply to vicious criminals like that--it applies to all criminals. Even people who just sell games to kids.

Government force should not be taken lightly. We should not be so willing to put a gun to the head of anyone who does something we disagree with. If you do not find it morally acceptable to physically attack someone for selling violent games to children, then you should not support a law that would allow the government to do just that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here