Wow, I can't believe I got to an OPM columnist.

[Scrubking]

In one of my recent blog entries I talked about how I thought it was foolish to throw around first amendmant rights when discussing laws to prevent stores from selling mature games to minors. Anyway, I mention an opm columnist, Johm Scalzi, cause he was the one threatening first amendmant rights and the next thing I know I get a huge essay like comment from him (supposedly). Of course it may not be him at all, but I thought it was pretty funny.

[rockhero]

His comment is correct.

[Scrubking]

Not being able to sell kids adult games is not censorship - just like not being able to sell porno to kids is not censorship, but I'm not going to argue this here.

[RedvsBlue]

Well like he said, the MPAA is self-censored. The video game industry should do the same or nothing at all. The government does enough useless crap as it is. The biggest problem with games getting into kid's hands right now is the retail stores.

[spyhunterk19]

I believe its the responsiblility of the parents to detirmine if the child is mature enough to play the games.

[Scrubking]

Man, I should have realized how screwed up this guy was when he bothered to reply - twice.

[Trakan]

His comment is correct.

Yes, yes it is.

[Wshakspear]

I replied...its not completely coherent (long f'ing day), but it gets the point accross

[Scrubking]

It is hard to believe this guy is a columnist for a magazine. I also find it funny how people are agreeing with him even though he is basically saying that it is okay for kids to buy adult material because even though a game is designed for a mature audience not letting kids buy it would be censorship.

Ginsberg v. New York:
In 1968 the Supreme Court held that the government can constitutionally prohibit children from accessing certain types of sexually explicit material that it can’t constitutionally ban for adults. It also noted, per Butler v. Michigan (1957), that the government can’t “reduce the adult population…to reading only what is fit for children.” (http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pp_li_pfa.html)

[WhipSmartBanky]

I wonder how he found your blog. I bet he was Googling himself or something.

[Scrubking]

I wonder how he found your blog. I bet he was Googling himself or something.

I was thinking the same thing.

[zionoverfire]

In one of my recent blog entries I talked about how I thought it was foolish to throw around first amendmant rights when discussing laws to prevent stores from selling mature games to minors. Anyway, I mention an opm columnist, Johm Scalzi, cause he was the one threatening first amendmant rights and the next thing I know I get a huge essay like comment from him (supposedly). Of course it may not be him at all, but I thought it was pretty funny.

So you want to post this comment? :D

[Milkyman]

he's got his own blog at scalzi.com and probably one of his readers pointed it out , or he might actually have been googling for his name.

[Scrubking]

In one of my recent blog entries I talked about how I thought it was foolish to throw around first amendmant rights when discussing laws to prevent stores from selling mature games to minors. Anyway, I mention an opm columnist, Johm Scalzi, cause he was the one threatening first amendmant rights and the next thing I know I get a huge essay like comment from him (supposedly). Of course it may not be him at all, but I thought it was pretty funny.

So you want to post this comment? :D

Actually I don't, but he is basically saying that laws to prevent kids from buying mature games is censorship and illegal. He also says that nudity in a museum and nudity in a game like 'The guy game' is the same.

[Milkyman]

the link to scrubking's blog is in his sig, you can go read it yourself

http://scrubking.blog-city.com/read/1063681.htm

[ElwoodCuse]

Actually I don't, but he is basically saying that laws to prevent kids from buying mature games is censorship and illegal. He also says that nudity in a museum and nudity in a game like 'The guy game' is the same.

It is illegal. The courts have said so over and over. For whatever reason, throughout the history of this country people have had a lot bigger problem with sex than violence. Thus, we have laws limiting sexual material but nothing about violence. By definition, violence cannot be obscene.

I'd have to hear more about comparing those kinds of nudity, but it is more likely to think that The Guy Game appeals to prurient interests rather than, say, Michelangelo's David.

[ElwoodCuse]

From IDSA v. St. Louis County:

Whether we believe the advent of violent video games adds anything of value to society is irrelevant; guided by the first amendment, we are obliged to recognize that "they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."

...

We reject the County's suggestion that we should find that the "graphically violent" video games in this case are obscene as to minors and therefore entitled to less protection.

...

Before the County may constitutionally restrict the speech at issue here, the County must come forward with empirical support for its belief that "violent" video games cause psychological harm to minors. In this case, as we have already explained, the County has failed to present the "substantial supporting evidence" of harm that is required before an ordinance that threatens protected speech can be upheld.

(This case also throws your Ginsberg example out the window).

We believe that Ginsberg, the primary case cited by the County in support of its position, is inapposite because it invokes the much less exacting "rational basis" standard of review. See Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 639, 641. In Ginsberg, the Supreme Court recognized that the government could legitimately regulate sexually explicit material that is obscene as to minors but not obscene as to adults. See Ginsberg, 390 U.S. at 636-640. But Ginsberg did not involve protected speech (like the speech at issue in this case), and thus the Supreme Court merely needed to determine whether "it was rational for the legislature to find that the minors' exposure to [sex] material might be harmful. . . . The legislature could properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example, who have this primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of laws designed to aid discharge of that responsibility." Id. at 639 (emphasis added). Nowhere in Ginsberg (or any other case that we can find, for that matter) does the Supreme Court suggest that the government's role in helping parents to be the guardians of their children's well-being is an unbridled license to governments to regulate what minors read and view."

[punqsux]

In one of my recent blog entries I talked about how I thought it was foolish to throw around first amendmant rights when discussing laws to prevent stores from selling mature games to minors. Anyway, I mention an opm columnist, Johm Scalzi, cause he was the one threatening first amendmant rights and the next thing I know I get a huge essay like comment from him (supposedly). Of course it may not be him at all, but I thought it was pretty funny.

So you want to post this comment? :D

Actually I don't, but he is basically saying that laws to prevent kids from buying mature games is censorship and illegal. He also says that nudity in a museum and nudity in a game like 'The guy game' is the same.

clearly, david is comparable to bekki smith from girls gone wild...cant you see this?

http://www.asontvshop.com/girlsgonewildlg.jpghttp://www.joachim-gross.de/img/david.jpg

[punqsux]

also on the subject, i hate it when people call porography art...its not. there are certin types of art that many see as pornographic (pin up girls, or even just nude models sometimes) but it just really annoys me when people think everything can fallll under the catagory of art.

a game can be a work of art, on many levels even! (graphics, level design, puzzle layout) but theres no way the guy game is anything more than softcore porn.

[RedvsBlue]

Man, I should have realized how screwed up this guy was when he bothered to reply - twice.

Agreed. I may not agree with your stance on the video game legislation thing but I'm not gonna sit through and write 2 replies that long, no offense but it just ain't worth it. Obviously the guy has no life that he can sit here and debate the point on your blog all day.

Is it possible that he's got his blog set to trackback? ISn't that the thing where it finds other blogs that mention you or something? If that isn't the case and he was googling himself to see what people said, the guy REALLY needs to get a life, and quick.

[cheapass Gundam]

He also says that nudity in a museum and nudity in a game like 'The guy game' is the same.

No wonder he writes for some video game rag instead of sitting on the bench or work for the ACLU.

[Wshakspear]

also on the subject, i hate it when people call porography art...its not. there are certin types of art that many see as pornographic (pin up girls, or even just nude models sometimes) but it just really annoys me when people think everything can fallll under the catagory of art.

a game can be a work of art, on many levels even! (graphics, level design, puzzle layout) but theres no way the guy game is anything more than softcore porn.

I agree...but in the society were in everything has to be under some blanket name or concept. Kinda sad. We sell Erotic Art like Ryo and Oliva, but the lovely pissed off old people yell Smut Peddler when they leave...actually, thats because of some of the other comics and covers...but they'll look through them for an hour before yelling that. I dont sell smut. I have no copies of Rear End Rangers for sale...and if we did, they would be in a seperate area. Actually, our Ero is up out of reach and regular view as well.

I want/need the decision of what children look at and buy to come from thier parents, not me...but i wont hesitate to scare the crap out of them if they are in the DC/Marvel mature section.

[wubb]

I wonder how he found your blog. I bet he was Googling himself or something.

I was thinking the same thing.

If that's the case he'll probably be reading this thread too. :)

[RedvsBlue]

I wonder how he found your blog. I bet he was Googling himself or something.

I was thinking the same thing.

If that's the case he'll probably be reading this thread too. :)

In that case we can probably look forward to an ANTI-cheap video games article from him next month.

[beerguy961]

I pretty much think selling games should be like movie theaters. Mature games like R-rated movies, need a parent to get in if you're under 17 (or whatever age they suggest). Of course, I also think people should worry about more importanat things than the game Jimmy is playing (random Jimmy)

[Scrubking]

I think this guy was a hoax so I am going to delete all his messages. The fact that he kept harping on the same thing in other non-related entries on my site convinced me that this guy is a sham. Most people just rebutt what you say and never look back, but this guy was checking my site every five minutes to see if someone responded.

[Ugamer_X]

I think this guy was a hoax so I am going to delete all his messages. The fact that he kept harping on the same thing in other non-related entries on my site convinced me that this guy is a sham. Most people just rebutt what you say and never look back, but this guy was checking my site every five minutes to see if someone responded.
It seems that you took his comments of because you didn't like what he was saying, seeing that he tore your piece of writing to shreds, I can understand your angst.

[WhipSmartBanky]

I think this guy was a hoax so I am going to delete all his messages. The fact that he kept harping on the same thing in other non-related entries on my site convinced me that this guy is a sham. Most people just rebutt what you say and never look back, but this guy was checking my site every five minutes to see if someone responded.
It seems that you took his comments of because you didn't like what he was saying, seeing that he tore your piece of writing to shreds, I can understand your angst.

Personally, I think it was rather pretentious of the dude to take it upon himself and write essay upon essay in someone else's personal blog. He should've left a comment, then if he wanted to write a book on it, take it to his own blog.

[Scrubking]

I think this guy was a hoax so I am going to delete all his messages. The fact that he kept harping on the same thing in other non-related entries on my site convinced me that this guy is a sham. Most people just rebutt what you say and never look back, but this guy was checking my site every five minutes to see if someone responded.
It seems that you took his comments of because you didn't like what he was saying, seeing that he tore your piece of writing to shreds, I can understand your angst.

Personally, I think it was rather pretentious of the dude to take it upon himself and write essay upon essay in someone else's personal blog. He should've left a comment, then if he wanted to write a book on it, take it to his own blog.

That is why I think he was total bullshit. Why would a professional writer spend so much time on some blog arguing to no end? Why would he monitor my site to see if someone replied to his messages? I literally said four or five words about the guy and he has to write paragraph upon paragraph of rebuttal. The guy either has serious personal image issues or is some idiot using his name and trying to start shit.