Games on Trial

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

spartan231490:

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

Jumplion:

Zachary Amaranth:

Jumplion:
Also, when I argued that the ESRB does a much better regulatory job, with an 80% compliance rate compared to the movies 30%, he asked "why isn't it 100%?"

I wonder how your dad feels about all those other places where people aren't caught 100% of the time.

Hell, speeding is against the law, but we don't catch 100% of speeders. Would changing this from a voluntary step to a legal mandate increase the effectiveness? Maybe, but kids can still buy cigarettes with alarming frequency, and that's illegal. That even carries stiff fines.

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-bitch", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

Your Dad's not entirely out in left field. Self-regulation does often produce crappy results. When the fox is in charge of guarding the hen-house, don't be surprised if he helps himself to a hen for dinner.

On the other hand, Justice Breyer made it clear that he sided with California. Never inclined to restrict government power, Breyer bluntly asked the lawyer for the EMA "Why isn't it common sense to say that if a parent wants his 13-year-old child to have a game where the child is going to sit there and imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.... If you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it yourself?"

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, both parents of young children, also seemed to support California's position. Roberts seemed to be most concerned with protecting children from violence in general. In response to Scalia's argument that there was no Constitutional tradition of regulating violent speech, Chief Justice Roberts responded, "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that."

... I'm sorry? I don't think I've played that game before. Wouldn't that be refused classification in most countries? Thus meaning it wasn't allowed to be sold, and making that argument irrelevant.

Sauvastika:

spartan231490:

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

Besides, if you don't like the current state of the Constitution, just give it some time. It isn't carved in stone. Wait a hundred years or so and come back. It'll look nothing then like it did before. Those who would expect the U.S. Constitution to never change (whether for better or for worse), don't know too much about the U.S. Constitution.

And, just so you know, "tax protesters" (that class of persons who argue that the federal government has no power to levy personal income taxes) are, as a general rule, scary. Approach with due caution.

LarenzoAOG:

Levethian:

LarenzoAOG:
..And I am still in high school...

Really nosey - but is this true? Profile says your 28. Maybe 'High School' means something different in the USA.

Thanks JDKJ.

How might this affect online steam-like distribution of games?

I never put my actual birthday on anything online, I don;t want people making assumptons about me because of my age, I am under 21 however.

EDIT: sorry the first time I qouted you it didn't show up so now we have 2, my bad.

Can't say I blame you. I don't disclose personal information online, either. But I'm less concerned about assumptions and more concerned about someone getting a credit card in my name and then using it for a week-long, all-inclusive ski trip to Aspen.

FungiGamer:
Wait, there's a game where you beat innocent schoolgirls to death with a shovel, pour gasoline on them and then urinate on them

Ok, this has been bugging me, so I spent some of time looking at Postal 2 footage to see if anyhting like that came up. Yes, it was very violent, but a part like that never appeared. All i have to say to the person who said that is THIS

Mr. Omega:

FungiGamer:
Wait, there's a game where you beat innocent schoolgirls to death with a shovel, pour gasoline on them and then urinate on them

Ok, this has been bugging me, so I spent some of time looking at Postal 2 footage to see if anyhting like that came up. Yes, it was very violent, but a part like that never appeared. All i have to say to the person who said that is SNIP

You actually can do exactly that in Postal 2. You can, in fact, first urinate on the schoolgirls so that they vomit, then pour gasoline on them and light them on fire, after which you can beat off their burnt heads with a shovel. If you want to put out the burning corpses, you can urinate on them again.

Now, where did I put my copy...?

Mortagog:

Mr. Omega:

FungiGamer:
Wait, there's a game where you beat innocent schoolgirls to death with a shovel, pour gasoline on them and then urinate on them

Ok, this has been bugging me, so I spent some of time looking at Postal 2 footage to see if anyhting like that came up. Yes, it was very violent, but a part like that never appeared. All i have to say to the person who said that is SNIP

You actually can do exactly that in Postal 2. You can, in fact, first urinate on the schoolgirls so that they vomit, then pour gasoline on them and light them on fire, after which you can beat off their burnt heads with a shovel. If you want to put out the burning corpses, you can urinate on them again.

Now, where did I put my copy...?

I stand corrected. Thank you.

"Why isn't it common sense to say that if a parent wants his 13-year-old child to watch a movie listen to music read a book have a game where the child is going to sit there and imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.... If you want that for your 13-year-old, you go buy it yourself?"

See how that statement works for all forms of media Justice Breyer? Key word is imagine unless the game industry start making games where it actively promotes the physical activity of doing those things...

Touche Breyer! Touche.

Why doesnt California try and fix itself before trying to push through a pointless law like this.

Their argument is stupid because if parents HAVE a problem with violent video games the buck well and truely ends with THEM!!!

"I don't want my 13 year old playing violent video games."

"Then dont let them buy one... or better still if you are scared that you as a parent as so inept that you cannot stop them buying one behind your back, dont let them have a game console..."

But it appears that people like to jump on the bandwagon of mass hysteria where games are the spawn of satan and all that is bad in the world stems from games. Yet they dont seem to understand that there was war and violence from people of all ages and backgrounds before video games. Makes me depressed about the human race.

Also:

"13-year-old child to have a game where the child is going to sit there and imagine he is a torturer and impose gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women...."

Has he just thought of some random violent and act and said its a game, even though there are actually depictions of this sort of thing in other sorts of medium, books/movies. I have yet to see a game (at least a game that a 13 year old would actually go out and buy as apposed to some indiegame made by some guy in his bedroom) that is anyway like this.

Sigh...

I love that a man who once was the model for violent video game heroes is now the frontman for a direct attack on the same genre.

This law will not go through. =)

Unless this law is streched to every form of medium then i can't support it in any way.

They really should show the Supreme Court a few episodes of Extra Credits and then maybe they can appreciate this art form a lot more.

Sauvastika:

spartan231490:

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

spartan231490:

Sauvastika:

spartan231490:

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

If a State doesn't want the Federal government telling them what the speed limit on an interstate highway is, then the solution is simple: they can reject the federal funding for highways within the state, build them with their own state funding, and post whatever speed limit they like. Plain and simple.

But having chosen to take the federal funding, don't complain about the strings that come attached.

spartan231490:

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

There's no provision in the Constitution saying that spending for the general welfare will be divided amongst the states according to population. Are you referring to Article I, Section 9? Because that apportionment in that sense means that direct taxes, like the income tax, have to levied based on state population and cannot be geographically uniform. The general welfare clause says that the federal government can levy taxes for the general welfare. Full stop. No elaboration. You can interpret that broadly or narrowly, whatever.

The Constitution also doesn't say that Congress can't legislate on education, speed limits or the drinking age. It enumerates powers that Congress can legislate on, and the 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states. The Constitution doesn't directly enumerate those things. And this is an important point, because we get to the crux of the problem, which is constitutional interpretation. The 10th Amendment may say that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the States, but things like the Necessary and Proper clause and the Commerce clause imply powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. This is a problem not solely with the 16th Amendment, nor is it a recent problem; it's been a problem in the entire history of constitutional law and with all other amendments. If the Constitution just had one correct interpretation, then being a Supreme Court justice would be a cakewalk.

Whenever I hear the "state's right" spiel, for some strange reason a Southern, red-neck voice from the past comes to mind, saying, "We don't need nobody from Wershington comin' down here an' tellin' us how we should treat our Negroes."

Wait, WAIT just a freakin moment. Okay so this thought just came to me while on a commute. Don't we recently have quite a few museums being interactive toward the public? So if games won't be protected because they are interactive, does that mean it would be a no no for interactive museums soon as well?

Negatempest:
Wait, WAIT just a freakin moment. Okay so this thought just came to me while on a commute. Don't we recently have quite a few museums being interactive toward the public? So if games won't be protected because they are interactive, does that mean it would be a no no for interactive museums soon as well?

You don't even have to stretch that far. There's interactive books. Like the "Choose Your Own Adventure" series.

AC10:
How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

Yeah I'm surprised any laws like this have EVER passed.

Telling parents you'll do the work for them is obnoxious and should be looked at with disgust at all times.

My father was out to sea most of the year and my mom had 3 kids to work with (different ages) who all had different times they were busy, sleeping, at school, or whatever else.

There is no excuse to half ass being a parent, either be one or don't. These laws are unnecessary :/.

theultimateend:

AC10:
How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

Yeah I'm surprised any laws like this have EVER passed.

Telling parents you'll do the work for them is obnoxious and should be looked at with disgust at all times.

My father was out to sea most of the year and my mom had 3 kids to work with (different ages) who all had different times they were busy, sleeping, at school, or whatever else.

There is no excuse to half ass being a parent, either be one or don't. These laws are unnecessary :/.

Damn straight.

I LOVE and RESPECT my mums (single parent). If I go anywhere I at least let her know so if any **** happens to me she at least knows where to look first. So if "YOU", as the parent, don't want to be informative with your children on why "YOU", as the parent, don't believe they can handle certain parts of life than maybe it was just a tad bit early to be one? I am not saying that parenting is easy, I AM saying that kids aren't toys or trophies. Whether we like it or not they each come with their own view of the world.

forgive my ignorance, but i'm not quite sure what these people are trying to do with this law. what are they trying to accomplish? not selling violent video games to minors?

I'm not very worried. In GameStops you're not allowed to sell M games to minors. My mom still gets carded. I also highly doubt this means people won't be able to purchase games like that via stores like GameStop because they'll stop stocking it, which is very doubtful. Guys, GameStop stocks tons of shitty games that never sell. I highly doubt they're gonna stop selling some of the most popular games on the earth because now kids will just send out their oblivious parents (like they always have) to fetch their games. Not to mention, just because California passes it doesn't mean every state in the U.S. is gonna pass it.

The only reason I'd be worried is that this case is even being considered. No matter who wins, it's such a stupid thing to fight over, because the constitutional option is the most obvious. Hell, it's not even worrying, just frustrating how broken the system is in this country.

Altorin:

imnotparanoid:

Altorin:
It's always postal 2 they go for.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

I honestly don't know anyone that does, and I know a lot of PC gamers. It's one of those games that people pirate for a couple lols, get tired of, and delete.

But politicians keep bringing it up like it's the ONLY THING THAT GAMING HAS EVER PRODUCED

I own this game. And Apocalypse Weekend retail disc too. It's really hilarious. But, well, I'm not American, I'm Russian. And my country never censor any games.

You two just made my day

JDKJ:

thepyrethatburns:

internetzealot1:
It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

While I realize that this was a New York Supreme Court Justice, this story pretty much sums up the state of the U.S. legal system.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20021342-504083.html

So, no. It isn't all that surprising anymore.

How so does it sum up the state of the U.S. legal system? You might have missed the all important fact that "and their parents" can also be sued was what the Justice decided. This reflects nothing more than the age-old legal concept of vicarious liability (i.e., a parent can be sued along with a child for the harms caused by the child even if the parent was nowhere around when the harm occurred). Despite the obvious spinning of the facts so that it reads as if the children are the ones primarily being sued, the more meaningful subject of the suit are the children's parents (the ones who I have to assume are in the position, unlike the children, to actually pay any monetary damages which may be awarded to the plaintiff). If you take the time to search for similar decisions among those of any Anglo-Saxon-based civil law system, including that of the UK's, I'll bet you'll easily find a number of similar decisions. This decision is neither unique nor peculiar and hardly serves as some sort of negative commentary on the state of the U.S. legal system.

It's generally a good rule of thumb to believe half of what you hear and nothing that you read in the news.

What I think is a much better commentary on the state of the U.S. legal system is the fact that the second the California Governor signed the law into effect, a lawsuit seeking to block it was filed and, by all accounts, looks as if it will succeed in shooting down what by any stretch of the imagination is nothing more than a foolish attempt at censorship. Say what you want to about the Americans, but you can't say that there isn't a vocal contingent of them who just happen to think that the right of free speech is an important right and who will go to any lengths to protect that right against government interference. For better or worse, many of them also feel that way about the right to own a gun.

No. I didn't.

I also didn't miss the part that CBS got the story wrong and that the woman died three months (not weeks) later. I also didn't miss the part that the woman died from unrelated issues according to her doctors. I didn't miss the part about the judge applying an artificial standard of "reasonable prudence" to a four-year-old. I didn't miss the fact that the judge concluded that the mother had no active role in the incident but he is still alowing the estate to sue her anyway. I didn't miss the fact that, while it is true that this is being used as an avenue to sue the parents, the children will still be taken to court and have their lives turned upside down at an age where they'll need booster seats just to reach the witness microphone. I also didn't miss the part that CBS decided to expose 4-year-olds to media scrutiny by naming names.

I also didn't miss the part that, despite all this, the judge is letting the lawsuit proceed despite it being a completely groundless suit. By itself, it doesn't serve as a negative commentary on the U.S. legal system. The fact that this type of thing is increasingly the norm and is not "unique or peculiar" does serve as a negative commentary on the U.S. legal system.

JDKJ:

Jumplion:

Zachary Amaranth:

Jumplion:
Also, when I argued that the ESRB does a much better regulatory job, with an 80% compliance rate compared to the movies 30%, he asked "why isn't it 100%?"

I wonder how your dad feels about all those other places where people aren't caught 100% of the time.

Hell, speeding is against the law, but we don't catch 100% of speeders. Would changing this from a voluntary step to a legal mandate increase the effectiveness? Maybe, but kids can still buy cigarettes with alarming frequency, and that's illegal. That even carries stiff fines.

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-bitch", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

Your Dad's not entirely out in left field. Self-regulation does often produce crappy results. When the fox is in charge of guarding the hen-house, don't be surprised if he helps himself to a hen for dinner.

I'm sure self-regulation does and doesn't work at times depending on the thing that's being regulated, but the point here is that video games as is are doing fine in self-regulation. There are certainly discrepancies with the ESRB at times, but it's doing a good job as is and with an 80% compliance rate to boot by most retailers. He was just saying why isn't it 100%, when that's just a fallacious statement.

EDIT: Cleaned up the post, whops.

Jumplion:

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-bitch", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

I know how you feel, trust me. I love my Aunt. She's a smart woman. But she turns everything into a conservative talking point on the evils of liberals and communism (which she sees everywhere). And I don't really want to fight, but sometimes I just want to SCREAM at her. Oddly enough, she's always on about small government and the state out of our lives, but supports banning violent video games.

Zachary Amaranth:

Jumplion:

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-bitch", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

I know how you feel, trust me. I love my Aunt. She's a smart woman. But she turns everything into a conservative talking point on the evils of liberals and communism (which she sees everywhere). And I don't really want to fight, but sometimes I just want to SCREAM at her. Oddly enough, she's always on about small government and the state out of our lives, but supports banning violent video games.

I guess you could classify by dad as a "leeburall!", though I personally consider myself in the "common sense" department :P

You know what makes me sad? The bit where they ranted "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that." Last time I checked, videogames like that get banned or not made EVER. Seriously, what kind of messed up ideas do they have about gaming? People who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't be asked to talk.

JDKJ:

LarenzoAOG:

Levethian:

LarenzoAOG:
..And I am still in high school...

Really nosey - but is this true? Profile says your 28. Maybe 'High School' means something different in the USA.

Thanks JDKJ.

How might this affect online steam-like distribution of games?

I never put my actual birthday on anything online, I don;t want people making assumptons about me because of my age, I am under 21 however.

EDIT: sorry the first time I qouted you it didn't show up so now we have 2, my bad.

Can't say I blame you. I don't disclose personal information online, either. But I'm less concerned about assumptions and more concerned about someone getting a credit card in my name and then using it for a week-long, all-inclusive ski trip to Aspen.

Ah, also a good reason, If you're wondering why I picked 1982, I believe that is the year Bladerunner (my favorite movie) came out.

skywalkerlion:
I'm not very worried. In GameStops you're not allowed to sell M games to minors. My mom still gets carded. I also highly doubt this means people won't be able to purchase games like that via stores like GameStop because they'll stop stocking it, which is very doubtful. Guys, GameStop stocks tons of shitty games that never sell. I highly doubt they're gonna stop selling some of the most popular games on the earth because now kids will just send out their oblivious parents (like they always have) to fetch their games. Not to mention, just because California passes it doesn't mean every state in the U.S. is gonna pass it.

The only reason I'd be worried is that this case is even being considered. No matter who wins, it's such a stupid thing to fight over, because the constitutional option is the most obvious. Hell, it's not even worrying, just frustrating how broken the system is in this country.

I will make this short since I have responded to this same type of comment many times before. There are about 11 states that want the California law to pass. This is FACT. If this passes, each of these 11 states will make their own laws that determine what kind of content is acceptable. If you think they will stop at simple human violence, you would be wrong. Some states will choose to ban drug use, violence toward women, stereotypes, or demeaning of the U.S. government.

There are also an unknown amount of states that are on the fence about what laws they should make on video games. Just think about that very carefully for a bit.

EDIT: Stereotypes=Degrading minorities/ethics.
Oh and don't forget religion. Since it is not a protected free speech degrading any modern religion would be unacceptable for some states. We ALL know how nit picky modern religion can be when it comes to portraying them.

Baaaaah. People are being useless again.

I guess I feel SLIGHTLY better about them arguing over video games than political correctness. (SANTA? THE SYMBOL OF CHRISTMAS. HE MUST BE THE JOLLY NON-AFFILIATED WINTER HOLIDAY FIGURE FROM NOW ON!)

Still...they're missing the point. I don't see why everyone over a certain age (I'm guessing about thirty here) remains ignorant of teenagers and young adult's...I want to say pop culture, but I feel like that's the wrong word.

Example, (While back) when a kid buried himself under the sand and suffocated for pretending to be like Gaara or something, the news report claimed it was the fault of a show called Narewo that was about sand ninjas or something. Another one is a story on CNN saying Touhou and everything relating to it was ripped/attributed to a stop-motion thing on Youtube playing to the song Bad Apple.

I really don't get how they screw up so badly when five minutes on google could give them far more...and I loathe to say this, because it implies they got it something right, accurate information.

Lost where I was going with this...point is, maybe someone should force a few of them to sit down and play a few games from each genre. You know...so they actually know what they're talking about.

Jumplion:
I guess you could classify by dad as a "leeburall!", though I personally consider myself in the "common sense" department :P

I'm mostly just liberal by my family's standards. Voting for anything a Democrat would support makes you an evil commie marxist leftist in my family. not that I don't have left leanings, it's just that I'm nowhere near what they seem to think I am. I'm closer to a Libertarian than a socialist, but guess which one I'm pegged as?

;)

Let them regulate.
I still don't see why you can't regulate the sale of videogames to a certain group (ie. minors) whilst having them still be protected by the free speech thing.
I would assume pornography is legally not available to minors, it comes in both text (magazine) and movie formats, yet books/magazines and movies havn't been banned. Not to mention anything less than outright pornography is still available to minors (depending on how hard the stores enforce the ratings).

Why is it not possible to say "create whatever you want just don't sell it to minors"
Why is this apparently the equivalent to saying "don't sell this to minors, oh and that game's banned completely cuz we don't like it"

In other words, why does everything have to be in absolutes, if you lose the right to legally sell games to minors do you really lose the right to free speech entirely?
If the answer is yes, someone needs to review that ammendment.

after listening to the recording, I had three thoughts-

1) it's good to see a couple of them may be on our side, but it looks like the majority aren't

2) I laughed how they all just talk over the one really old lady justice (whose name escapes me atm)

3) I really wish Postal 2 didn't exist.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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