Schwarzenegger vs. Interactivity

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

To put it bluntly: The issue here is not "making it illegal for kids to buy adult games". The issue is "removing freedom-of-speech protections from games". Were this to pass, any state could very likely make any game marginalizing, or even criminalizing, "mature" video games. Imagine having to register in a government database if you want to buy the next Grand Theft Auto, or the next Gears of War simply being illegal to sell (or even own) in your state. Don't like it? Too bad, it's not like you have a right to buy them.

And, although they would never admit it, a number of parent groups want this. They don't want more stringent laws preventing Johnny from getting Axe Murderer 6- they want laws preventing Axe Murderer 6 from being MADE, so that they don't have to hear Johnny whine for it. How many children are getting their hands on these games because harried parents who don't want to pay attention are buying them? It's less "protect the children from filth" and more "protect me from having to parent".

Hyperbole? Sure. But I'm positive there's more than a few grains of truth in this.

I would actually be in support of this bill if it applied to all media.

Therumancer:
snip

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not going to go point by point on this, because the post is way too long for me to do that, but a few things stand out.

First of all, Hilary Clinton is about as conservative as a Democrat can get without being a DINO. Joe Lieberman, the other "Democrat" behind the save the children nonsense isn't even a Dem in name anymore; he's as conservative as they come, but he changes his party affiliation depending on which party he thinks will be most likely to get elected. Currently, he's independent but claims to caucus with the Democrats; his voting record says otherwise.

As for your claims about America following the patterns of a democracy, and allowing the majority of the nation to decide on matters that could negatively impact a minority; you're wrong there, too. When the will of the majority violates the Constitution, what's written in the Constitution takes precedence -- unless it's the will of the majority to make some kind of discriminatory amendment to the constitution. Protecting minority rights is not a power grab by the Democrats; it's the Dems reaffirming the foundation of the U.S. constitution. The entire reason we have many of the rights we do is to protect against the "tyranny of the majority," as one of the authors of the Federalist papers put it. We have a republic for a reason, and following the bill of rights and the 14th amendment does not a power grab make. If anything, it's a power grab when the majority tries to take those rights away from underrepresented minorities.

Edit: Fixed major typo in quote.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Worgen:
snip

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not going to go point by point on this, because the post is way too long for me to do that, but a few things stand out.

First of all, Hilary Clinton is about as conservative as a Democrat can get without being a DINO. Joe Lieberman, the other "Democrat" behind the save the children nonsense isn't even a Dem in name anymore; he's as conservative as they come, but he changes his party affiliation depending on which party he thinks will be most likely to get elected. Currently, he's independent but claims to caucus with the Democrats; his voting record says otherwise.

As for your claims about America following the patterns of a democracy, and allowing the majority of the nation to decide on matters that could negatively impact a minority; you're wrong there, too. When the will of the majority violates the Constitution, what's written in the Constitution takes precedence -- unless it's the will of the majority to make some kind of discriminatory amendment to the constitution. Protecting minority rights is not a power grab by the Democrats; it's the Dems reaffirming the foundation of the U.S. constitution. The entire reason we have many of the rights we do is to protect against the "tyranny of the majority," as one of the authors of the Federalist papers put it. We have a republic for a reason, and following the bill of rights and the 14th amendment does not a power grab make. If anything, it's a power grab when the majority tries to take those rights away from underrepresented minorities.

so you felt I was totaly wrong about something but you felt the need to snip off whatever the hell I said, classy, anyway, I dont recall saying anything about hilary or really anything else in your post so Im just confused at this point, I get the feeling you ment to link someone else

Worgen:

so you felt I was totaly wrong about something but you felt the need to snip off whatever the hell I said, classy, anyway, I dont recall saying anything about hilary or really anything else in your post so Im just confused at this point, I get the feeling you ment to link someone else

Ah shoot, I'm sorry -- I meant to quote Therumancer. I was actually agreeing with you and adding some more points. Initially I meant to quote the last post that you quoted Therumancer on, but it would have taken up way too much space to quote the whole thing, and it was pretty much entirely aimed at him anyway -- so I did a snipped quote in order for him to get a notification. Apparently, I snipped off the wrong quote tag in the process.

Therumancer:
snip again

The above snipped quote is just so you get a notification; my last post was aimed at you, not Worgen. I'm going to edit it accordingly, but that alone won't give you notice about it.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Worgen:

so you felt I was totaly wrong about something but you felt the need to snip off whatever the hell I said, classy, anyway, I dont recall saying anything about hilary or really anything else in your post so Im just confused at this point, I get the feeling you ment to link someone else

Ah shoot, I'm sorry -- I meant to quote Therumancer. I was actually agreeing with you and adding some more points. Initially I meant to quote the last post that you quoted Therumancer on, but it would have taken up way too much space to quote the whole thing, and it was pretty much entirely aimed at him anyway -- so I did a snipped quote in order for him to get a notification. Apparently, I snipped off the wrong quote tag in the process.

Therumancer:
snip again

The above snipped quote is just so you get a notification; my last post was aimed at you, not Worgen. I'm going to edit it accordingly, but that alone won't give you notice about it.

no worries, soon as I posted that one I figured you had seen his and accidentally responded to mine, good to know when Im too lazy to make an argument someone else will

LordOfInsanity:

SenseOfTumour:
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.

Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a motherfucker, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, bitch?'

The thing is, every game store that sells video games already cards people if they wish to buy M games. I know I've been carded multiple times after I turned 18 for buying an M game. Putting a law on it is a kick to the balls of all video gamers with a heavy, steel-toed boot with spikes on it.

This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

That's why I like what the ECA/EMA is doing by fighting this. Our rights as citizens (Of the States since this is where it's happening), are being shot by a law like this.

What, your right to not be able to buy an 'M' rated game as a minor because no shop will sell it to you without ID? I think you Americans are just a bit too scared of laws. Comments like 'What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games?' are about as helpful as asking 'what's to stop them starting up a Battle Royale-style tv show?' - not very.

Archon:
But California is taking a new tact to defend its Bill

I think you mean 'tack'.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Therumancer:
snip

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm not going to go point by point on this, because the post is way too long for me to do that, but a few things stand out.

First of all, Hilary Clinton is about as conservative as a Democrat can get without being a DINO. Joe Lieberman, the other "Democrat" behind the save the children nonsense isn't even a Dem in name anymore; he's as conservative as they come, but he changes his party affiliation depending on which party he thinks will be most likely to get elected. Currently, he's independent but claims to caucus with the Democrats; his voting record says otherwise.

As for your claims about America following the patterns of a democracy, and allowing the majority of the nation to decide on matters that could negatively impact a minority; you're wrong there, too. When the will of the majority violates the Constitution, what's written in the Constitution takes precedence -- unless it's the will of the majority to make some kind of discriminatory amendment to the constitution. Protecting minority rights is not a power grab by the Democrats; it's the Dems reaffirming the foundation of the U.S. constitution. The entire reason we have many of the rights we do is to protect against the "tyranny of the majority," as one of the authors of the Federalist papers put it. We have a republic for a reason, and following the bill of rights and the 14th amendment does not a power grab make. If anything, it's a power grab when the majority tries to take those rights away from underrepresented minorities.

Edit: Fixed major typo in quote.

You might want to actually do some research on the Constitution. That's not meant to be snippy, but simply due to the fact that you have some strong misconceptions about it and the intent, ones that are unfortunatly not uncommon.

See, one of the things that many people who argue about The Constitution rapidly forget is that not only is it a living document, but when it comes to intent and the spirit of what was written the guys who created it left behind numerous examples of how they interpeted it, and how it was intended to be understood. What's more the constitution itself becomes altered through this thing called "precedent", which is to say that when there has been question about the constitution and how it was intended to be interpeted, and a desician was reached, that desician effectively becomes the new interpetation. Then of course this mutates further as people establish precedents based on other precedents. This is why lawyers are in business (and arguably why they are hated by many), it's also why it's important when people refer to other cases in court to prove a precedent that supports an interpetation that they are going to argue.

Now, if you read what I said, you will notice that I myself talked about the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law, and how both sides of any major issue will argue whichever one happens to support what they want. In this case you can make arguements about what The Constitution itself says, but when it comes to how it was meant to be interpeted in the case of minorities against the majority precedents have been established very early on.

I'm not an expert in this area, as it was only covered in brief (as I was a criminal justice major many years ago) but the point I'm making is that your simply put wrong, as are many people who make arguements based on what The Constitution, Bill Of Rights, or any other ancient document that provides a foundation for our legal system goes because simply put nothing is that simple.

Another point to consider when looking at how things were interpeted, is that a big principle our country was founded on was the idea of not having small minorities of people who could overrule or control the majority and it's will. The idea of majority rule was integral to the entire foundation of The United States and arguably a big part of what lead to the American Revolution. The major point of contention was that we didn't want something akin to a "noble class" being able to set policy which "the mob" would be forced to abide by despite it's wishes, castrating the idea of democracy. However it was also realized that this same logic could apply in reverse with any small group of people having the abillity, even from a humble status, to effectively derail or castrate voting or democratic process. The American ideal of equality is that everyone gets a vote (so to speak) and nobody's vote counts any more than anyone else's. In general a person is not being discriminated against as long as he has his basic rights intact, and got a chance to vote against a policy he winds up having to follow.

If it was straightforward it wouldn't be an ongoing battle, and the country wouldn't be divided pretty much 50-50 along political lines when it comes to the issues that get to the root of this. Our elections being resolved on a razor's edge. Obama himself is one of the more popular preseidents of recent years and at his best when he was elected he only had a 7% lead.

The bottom line is that The Democrats and Republicans *BOTH* claim to be interpeting things properly in a general sense, and both can prove it. That's what creates the mess. When you get down to it though both sides are arguably wrong because the guys who founded the country subscribed to nothing like modern ethics. They supporting things like slavery, and had this tendency to find truely horrible ways for people they didn't like to be disposed of. These are guys that used terms like "protection against unreasonable search and seizure" or "protection from cruel and unusual punishment". Then when you look at the way they interpeted this in the street when they were disposing of British crown loyalists... well, let's just say neither side thinks like they did. To put things into perspective our founding fathers would have dealt with some of the minority vs. majority issues that we deal with today with flogging, stocks, and tar and feathering. Today scholors like to try and argue that these guys must have been against the institution of slavery and things like that, at least in secret, but really they weren't against that either.


At any rate you probably didn't read this far, but that's the problem with discussing complicated issues online. There is no easy way to cover some of these things in enough detail where it matters. See, a lot of people hear a couple of quotes from things like "The Federalist Papers" take it out of context, and don't even bother to look at what the people at the time were actually doing and how they obviously interpeted their own words. Consider especially that when talking about the "tyranny of the majority" which was mostly intended in the context of preventing mob justice through a legal system by most interpetation, that it doesn't have any bearing on the current situation where most of what we consider to be minorities today (and the cultures of which fuel a lot of the central issues) were not even considered to be human.

Ask yourself seriously what would have happened if a couple of hindus happened to be in America decided to try and make an issue out of a town wanting to have a Christmas tree in the town square and a tree lighting party, or paying for it (by agreement) with local tax money. We've progressed since then, since today they would just be voted down (which is a fair way of doing things in a case like this, a vote is fair) back then you'd probably have found their mutilated corpses hanging by the roadside covered with dried tar and white feathers... and guys like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Ben Franklin? None of them would have batted an eye. The moral lesson? You can't invoke the the Constitution in cases totally out of context to it's creation, in cases like this it's the precedents that allow us to hold to modern morality, because if we enforced it according to the way the creators intended it would be brutal.


On a final and doubtlessly unread note, I can understand a desire by liberals who don't want to face the reality of what their party is doing today want to seperate themselves from Mrs. Clinton, consider however though that she is one of the most powerful and influential liberal democrats out there, connected directly to one of the most popular presidents that the party has ever put into office (despite my personal problems with Mr. Clinton).

In general I think one of the big reasons why there is a problem is because people who have been raised to think of the Democrats as good guys, and Republicans as insane are reluctant to change. It's one of those things where the label and what people want to believe about the respective sides (as they are today) supercedes the reality of what is going on.

I tend to see things more clearly than most in a lot of cases like this because in absolute terms I'm not really a follower of either party. I'm registered Republican because I tend to agree with them more as they are for the moment, and I want to be able to vote in their primary. I however DO go very left wing when it comes to things like unions and workers rights (which rarely come up). I unapologetically back "big goverment" when it comes to protecting employees from being too heavily exploited by their employers, the creation and enforcement of safety guidelines, and the protection of people engaging in collective bargaining... many of these things which typically put me at odds with many of those in the Republican Party. In cases of free speech and such, I am not attacking the Democrats (who I do generally support on some issues) because of some political act to grind, but because they really are the bad guys here. The situation when it comes to censorship and media control can easily be reversed, and Republicans have made similar attempts in the past, but as things are right now The Republicans are by and large not on that kind of a push, but the Democrats are so it's the Democrats the need to be dealt with. Should the situation reverse itself, then that is how it will need to be dealt with. I call it as I see it. Trying to deny Mrs. Clinton who is a presidential appointee right now (ie she is acts with the support of her party and The White House) is pretty ridiculous.

The edifice of Free Speech (the right to speak unfetttered by government regulation and oppression) is only as strong as those who are willing to stand up and fight to defend it.

Sikachu - Doh. You are right. I will now go commit ritual seppuku in shame over my error.

This is an answer for those who believe there is such a thing as too much video game violence for children. Those who do not will of course think that there is no reason for a law. I don't understand why they are responding to this article at all.

For everyone who says its a parenting issue: then isn't everything a parenting issue? Shouldn't we remove all laws specific to minors and let their parents protect them from whatever the laws are currently protecting them from?

If your answer is "no", why not? Either you can control everything they interact with or not.

So a store employee can knowingly sell an M rated game to a minor against all training and instruction by his/her employer and face no legal consequences, but the employer would be held liable for the employee's willful disregard for the law and be fined by the state? Sure, the employee would lose his/her job, but that sucks for the store. I can see stores in CA severely limiting their sale of M rated games in general, like small stores requiring manager approval to complete a sale or a central pick up window for M-rated games like Toys R Us used to use for all of their games.

This law is inconsistent both in its application and its enforcement: 1) Employees can be charged with a crime for selling minors alcohol and 2) This same standard doesn't apply to music CDs or movies.

I searched for the word Irony on google.

This page came up, then a fist extended through the screen and repeatedly punched me in the face until I clicked the link and read every single word.

Jeez, how much does that needle you when video games are picked on over other forms of media as the 'interactive media'? Hopefully, if you are on the Escapist, it should needle you tremendously. We're talking, a brisk root canalling level of needling. Would movies, books, and music be subjugated to this kind of frivolous campaigning - getting state governments involved? No, because it would be ridiculous, and they shouldn't! This is bad because it singles out video games. Our hobby and their industry is, according to California's state government, DIFFERENT than that of film or music.

We are now different. And now that we have been ostracized from our brethren media forms we are susceptible to many different kinds of government controls. That needling feeling? That's the pen of the California lawyers pushing around words to bend what they can and can't do with this new found power that this bill gives them. And California LOVES power.

Hopefully, this is a lot of hyperbole, hopefully we're just making a mountain out of a molehill, but the chilling effect is very possible. I am needled.

Also, as far as all the political discourse on these comment pages goes - it is BEAUTIFUL. This is why I come here every week; every day. Thank you for being a broad and sensible community that not only loves video games passionately, but is also very aware of the bigger picture and can construct not only strong opinions, but strong counter-opinions as well. Always classy, Escapist.

parents and reasonably responsible salespeople (which they are, generally, already).

It's all that really needs to be said. If the parents pass on it, then it's not the government's job to swoop in and parent for the parent. and parents should be offended by that connotation, but that's EXACTLY what's happening.

I do not comprehend your problem. The way the article presents it is as follows as far as I understand: Violent video games are not to be made accesible to children. Means explicit content harmful to the development of the child to a reponsible und healthy member of the community. That is brillant and anyone can agree with this. That is that often laughed at "Think about the children" wagon. You are talking about censorship here but how is simply making explicit games not avaiable to anybody censorship? Yeah Gamestop wonīt sell es many copies because those 13year olds cannot buy it any longer, but how does that factor into censorship?
It is good not to expose children to explicit content like porno, but so is violence. They are not the same but both have negativ effects on the development of children. I am not talking about cartoon violence but grim and gritty violence, the disturbing kind.
What is needed is a law that disables children to buy explicit media but adult still can. You do not have to prohibit advertisment or displaying this media but simply prohibit selling them to minors. And by no means do you have to forbid reporting on and reviewing said media. I say all media. That includes books, television, games and even the internet. You might think it impossible to do so but it is. There are other countries that have done so... kind of. All media must be classified according to its content. Classified into adults only and for everyone to buy. This does not mean 13year old will not be able to play the game per default because if the parents buy it and give it to him/her it is stil aokay. Remember the law is only supposed to prohibit to let them buy it not prohibiting to consume it with the parents approval. Would such a law touch the right of free speech? I donīt think so. Of course new problems will be coming if such a step is taken because every blessing has its curses. There would have to be an office testing the media with the approval of the gouverment. It will cost money I wonīt lie to you.
But think of the children :P No seriously

Sikachu:

LordOfInsanity:

SenseOfTumour:
I can't help but think it's a reasonable idea to prevent sales to minors of M rated games, and as for training, surely 'Hey guys, you know how you card people for Mature rated movies? do the same for video games please'. That's not $1000s of training to me.

I just think because people are crazy about the idea the kids playing violent games, if we don't as an industry keep them away from kids, the world will just go nuts and try to get them banned altogether.

Again tho, I think the main problem is parental responsibility, you buy GTA for your wailing 8 year old to shut him up, despite the clerk's desperate attempts to educate you about the games content, then you don't get to run off to FOX news because it taught him to call the family pet a motherfucker, and reply to 'tidy your room' with 'what up, bitch?'

The thing is, every game store that sells video games already cards people if they wish to buy M games. I know I've been carded multiple times after I turned 18 for buying an M game. Putting a law on it is a kick to the balls of all video gamers with a heavy, steel-toed boot with spikes on it.

This also opens the door for government to put laws on movies and stores. And it gets worse. What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games? What about political ideals? Heck, they could ban swear words from games.

That's why I like what the ECA/EMA is doing by fighting this. Our rights as citizens (Of the States since this is where it's happening), are being shot by a law like this.

What, your right to not be able to buy an 'M' rated game as a minor because no shop will sell it to you without ID? I think you Americans are just a bit too scared of laws. Comments like 'What's to stop them from banning violence in all video games?' are about as helpful as asking 'what's to stop them starting up a Battle Royale-style tv show?' - not very.

Considering the state of video games in Germany, Australia, and what happened only a few years ago in Greece, Americans are more than right the be scared of laws regarding free speech. And don't forget the Manhunt debacle in England. And that's just the video game industry. Don't forget what happened to similarly vilified artistic mediums, like the Comic Code. That stunted an entire industry, one that's still trying to recover and mature. So yes, the possibility of games being legally banned is a plausible one based on other countries and historical analysis. Is it likely? Hard to say. But there are other ways it can ruin the industry. It could mean major stores won't cover M-rated games for fear of lawsuits should a single employee screw up. It could mean M-rated games can't sell ads anywhere with a significant percentage of children who read or watch it. And most importantly, it means video games are no longer legally recognized as art, period. The closest thing we could use to compare to games, whether they're Grand Theft Auto or Dora's Pony Adventure, are pornography and other materials considered too obscene to be protected by the first amendment. If we complain about the lack of mature stories in games now, imagine the state of games after that.

LordVyreth:
It could mean major stores won't cover M-rated games for fear of lawsuits should a single employee screw up.

Similar to how pubs in the UK have stopped serving alcohol since employees and the pub could get a massive fine for selling to under-age drinkers? Oh wait.

LordVyreth:
It could mean M-rated games can't sell ads anywhere with a significant percentage of children who read or watch it.

Where the hell's the harm in that? The tobacco industry seems to have survived having its opportunities to advertised slashed...

LordVyreth:
And most importantly, it means video games are no longer legally recognized as art, period... [redacted for brevity] ...If we complain about the lack of mature stories in games now, imagine the state of games after that.

Way to go for a non-sequitur. Videogames won't be protected in the USA by the First Amendment and suddenly the storylines will get worse because you can't do Manhunt style violence? Get a grip on yourself. Porn storylines aren't bad because it isn't protected, they're bad because they don't need to be good. Similar to videogames.

LordVyreth:
So yes, the possibility of games being legally banned is a plausible one based on other countries and historical analysis. Is it likely?

It is a plausible one with or without passing legislation regulating what you can and can't sell to children. As for comparing it to other countries, Germany bans more or less anything to do with the Nazis, and you can still legally buy any game of any type there, just so long as you get it off the internet. The UK has overturned the bans on both games it has ever banned. Australia is a shit-hole for games. But then Americans got sanitised versions of games like Indigo Prophecy because of worries about not getting a licence. Perhaps if you had laws delineating who can buy what, adult American gamers could finally have games made for them that didn't cut bits out because the industry would be confident enough in its standing, rather than having the threat of uncertain legislation always hanging over it like the sword of Damocles.

*sigh*
[insert three-page-long rant about Nanny State Alarmists, California, the separation of Church and State, the Moral Myopia of Senators and Ministers alike, the unfeasibility of the law, the true Currency of Society, my ever-growing and nigh-unto-complete-pessimism about the country I no longer even want to *identify* with, and how the Industry will live on, no matter if the movement is passed or not]

Let's just say this, and leave it at that.
I agree with Sir John the Net Knight on every aspect, and anything else I say about the issue will - and, indeed, already has (elsewhere) - come off as either a rehash of the same material, or my own pessimistic, at times overly-dramatic, musings about the state of society and what will *really* cause its collapse (hint: it's not 2012, Jesus returning for His people, or a Communist Invasion).

I'll leave it at that...or else, I'll be sitting here all night, ranting behind my computer screen, but not wanting my post to dominate the page (not that there's anything wrong with that, so long as you've got a good enough arguement and point).

fundayz:
Oh please, how about a little less fear mongering? In effect, all the Cali law is trying to do is add a fine to the selling of "M" and "violent" games to minors; calling that a chilling effect is plain and simple exaggeration.

Stores like Wall-mart "will have to restructure their entire business model" to abide this law? give me a break, all they will have to do is actually make sure their employees ask for IDs before selling any M games, like they are already supposed to do in many places.
Also, do you think games stores are actually going to stop selling M rated games instead of just asking for IDs? Seriously?

I agree that interactive media should be protected like all other kinds of media, but to claim that a law trying to uphold game ratings and their purpose is censoring is ridiculous.
What's next? Claiming that not selling porn to children is unconstitutional and that it uses a 'chilling effect' to oppress the people?

I've got a question for you. You almost make it sound like this law won't have any effect on the games industry. If that's the case, then why is the law necessary in the first place, and why has it been repeatedly struck down?
Whether or not this article exaggerates the effects such a law will have on the games industry is beside the point. Such a law would still remove from games the same First Amendment protection that other media have, and would that would establish a precedent that will allow further restriction and censorship in the future.

Therumancer:

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="Therumancer" post="6.212374.7286280"]snip

snip, because, damn dude

I'm a little confused by several things in your post.
First, could you state whether or not you support the California law that is at the source of this thread please? For clarity's sake.
Second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican and the sponsor of this law, isn't he? And similar laws have been proposed by members of both parties, so really, why are you talking like it's just one group that makes this kind of legislation?
Third, first you say that the constitution is a living document, then you argue that people shouldn't quote it or other documents without considering the context in which it was written. Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can we call it living if we can only consider it in the context of men long dead? Wouldn't that quickly make it irrelevant? How would that context affect laws regarding things that simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written?

I agree that the United States has the power to regulate certain speech. This is a valid power that has been exercised in our nation's history, but the cases in which it has been exercised have been national emergencies. To envoke this emergency power when no threat or immediate danger can be found is not just illegal it is a slap in the face of democracy. Our founders built for us a nation where the people enjoy a series of freedoms that few in the world at the time had. To censor speech without rhyme or reason save "Well, it COULD be dangerous" is not just stupid and pointless, it's threatening to the pillars that support the United States.

*insane grin*
Big days are ahead, aye? Finally. I live in Canada, so it's safe up here for now. But I still want to fight, or at least petition, for my southernly gamer neighbors. Good luck, Californians. What happens there will affect us, too.

paragon1:

Therumancer:

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="Therumancer" post="6.212374.7286280"]snip

snip, because, damn dude

I'm a little confused by several things in your post.
First, could you state whether or not you support the California law that is at the source of this thread please? For clarity's sake.
Second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican and the sponsor of this law, isn't he? And similar laws have been proposed by members of both parties, so really, why are you talking like it's just one group that makes this kind of legislation?
Third, first you say that the constitution is a living document, then you argue that people shouldn't quote it or other documents without considering the context in which it was written. Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can we call it living if we can only consider it in the context of men long dead? Wouldn't that quickly make it irrelevant? How would that context affect laws regarding things that simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written?

I'm not a great writer, and perhaps I was not clear due to covering this in a number of threads.

I am against the law.

When it comes to my political statements, I have always pointed out that this is an issue that goes cross party. It is however a pet issue of the democratic party, and specifically of people like Hillary Clinton and her/her husband's supporters (referred to by many as Clintonistas), as well as our current president Barack Obama who uses the issue as a scapegoat for health issues and the like as opposed to Hillary's more "protect the children" type message.

The thing is that during the last sets of elections the Democratic party took a "who cares if we're right or not, let's do anything to win" approach to a whole new level. Believing that it was dissent due to differant ideas in the party, the leadership pretty much decreed that the Democrats are all going to rally behind specific issues and promote specific people irregardless of what they might personally believe, or they are out of the party.

There is a lot more that can be said about this, but the whole thing where Hillary was given a position in Obama's administration was a big deal because it ended a divide within the party and pretty much brought the only divisive faction that could have bucked this proclaimation into the fold.

Unfortunatly for us, video games are the scapegoat of choice for both Hillary AND Obama and when push comes to shove very few people within the democratic party are going to oppose them (though it does happen) out of concern for their careers.

There are indeed Republicans who support these issues, however right now what your dealing with is the entire democratic party with any dissent quashed, and the Republicans going cross party that are the force behind this. That level of support is why a bill like this (giving the goverment censorship powers, irregardless of why) which should by rights be shot down instantly has become such a big deal.

Right now the opposition includes the Republicans in the "against it" camp, and a relatively scant handfull of democrats who are willing to buck their own leadership.

Arnie himself is a Republican, but also consider who he's married to, and whom that marriage connects him to (The Kennedies, and if you think his marriage and so on didn't influance his political career I think your naive). Arnie himself does have a lot of right wing ideals but has also claimed as I recall to be a social liberal.

Having one of the best known Republicans out there pull the trigger to start this is also a calculated move, because on a lot of levels it shows both parties moving for the same thing, in hopes that it's going to influance people, and even The Supreme Court, when they see this. The image they want to present is one of everyone coming forward to beg the Supreme Court to give them the power to save all of us poor pathetic peasants from the burden of our own freedom, since we obviously can't handle parenting and deciding what media we want to consume on our own.

This is an old discussion so I'm not going to say more on it, and apologies for the length. Whether you agree with me or not, this hopefully clarifies what I think and why I say the things I do.

Therumancer:

paragon1:

Therumancer:

Owyn_Merrilin:
[quote="Therumancer" post="6.212374.7286280"]snip

snip, because, damn dude

I'm a little confused by several things in your post.
First, could you state whether or not you support the California law that is at the source of this thread please? For clarity's sake.
Second, Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican and the sponsor of this law, isn't he? And similar laws have been proposed by members of both parties, so really, why are you talking like it's just one group that makes this kind of legislation?
Third, first you say that the constitution is a living document, then you argue that people shouldn't quote it or other documents without considering the context in which it was written. Aren't you contradicting yourself there? How can we call it living if we can only consider it in the context of men long dead? Wouldn't that quickly make it irrelevant? How would that context affect laws regarding things that simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written?

I'm not a great writer, and perhaps I was not clear due to covering this in a number of threads.

I am against the law.

When it comes to my political statements, I have always pointed out that this is an issue that goes cross party. It is however a pet issue of the democratic party, and specifically of people like Hillary Clinton and her/her husband's supporters (referred to by many as Clintonistas), as well as our current president Barack Obama who uses the issue as a scapegoat for health issues and the like as opposed to Hillary's more "protect the children" type message.

The thing is that during the last sets of elections the Democratic party took a "who cares if we're right or not, let's do anything to win" approach to a whole new level. Believing that it was dissent due to differant ideas in the party, the leadership pretty much decreed that the Democrats are all going to rally behind specific issues and promote specific people irregardless of what they might personally believe, or they are out of the party.

There is a lot more that can be said about this, but the whole thing where Hillary was given a position in Obama's administration was a big deal because it ended a divide within the party and pretty much brought the only divisive faction that could have bucked this proclaimation into the fold.

Unfortunatly for us, video games are the scapegoat of choice for both Hillary AND Obama and when push comes to shove very few people within the democratic party are going to oppose them (though it does happen) out of concern for their careers.

There are indeed Republicans who support these issues, however right now what your dealing with is the entire democratic party with any dissent quashed, and the Republicans going cross party that are the force behind this. That level of support is why a bill like this (giving the goverment censorship powers, irregardless of why) which should by rights be shot down instantly has become such a big deal.

Right now the opposition includes the Republicans in the "against it" camp, and a relatively scant handfull of democrats who are willing to buck their own leadership.

Arnie himself is a Republican, but also consider who he's married to, and whom that marriage connects him to (The Kennedies, and if you think his marriage and so on didn't influance his political career I think your naive). Arnie himself does have a lot of right wing ideals but has also claimed as I recall to be a social liberal.

Having one of the best known Republicans out there pull the trigger to start this is also a calculated move, because on a lot of levels it shows both parties moving for the same thing, in hopes that it's going to influance people, and even The Supreme Court, when they see this. The image they want to present is one of everyone coming forward to beg the Supreme Court to give them the power to save all of us poor pathetic peasants from the burden of our own freedom, since we obviously can't handle parenting and deciding what media we want to consume on our own.

This is an old discussion so I'm not going to say more on it, and apologies for the length. Whether you agree with me or not, this hopefully clarifies what I think and why I say the things I do.

Yes, it does, and I thank you for taking the time to clarify and explain.
I basically agree with most of your points, though I think you may be seeing too much in Mrs. Clinton's appointment. It'd be interesting to see the Democrats try to rally behind certain issues in the manner you describe, since they'd be doing the exact same thing the Republicans did during Bush's first term.

Wish I could say that seeing parts of the government try to gain censorship powers surprised me, but I guess that's just the nature of the beast, isn't it?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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
Registered for a free account here