Clinton introducing federal game regulation [Mobile/Archive]

Zoglog

11-29-2005, 07:27 PM

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140535.html

This afternoon, Clinton's office announced she has written a bill that would institute federal regulation of games sales. Co-authored by longtime game critic Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the Family Entertainment Protection Act will be jointly submitted by the two legislators when Congress reconvenes in two weeks.

If made law, the Family Entertainment Protection Act would be a "a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen." It would punish violators with unspecified fines, though it did not specify if the clerk who sold the game or the retailer where said clerk worked would be punished. "This provision is not aimed at punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system," read a statement from Clinton's office.

from joy a quick rundown of the proposed points

* Prohibition on Selling M and AO games to Minors - Retail enforcement of ESRB.
* Analysis of the ESRB - An annual independent analysis of the games rating system must be undertaken.
* FTC Investigation of Misleading Ratings - FTC would be empowered to see if there were more pervasive problems in the industry.
* Complaint Registration - The Bureau of Consumer Protection within the FTC will track complaints filed on behalf of consumers regarding misleading or deceptive content.
* Annual Retailer Audit - FTC will be empowered to conduct annual audits of retailers and have those results reported to congress.

I see nothing wrong with this bill. I'm sick of seeing kids turn retarded after playing too much GTA San Andreas.

ZForce

11-29-2005, 07:28 PM

If this bill would get Jack Thompson and these other idiots to Shut the hell up, I'm all for it

evanft

11-29-2005, 07:29 PM

Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame.

eldad9

11-29-2005, 07:29 PM

Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?

arsenalgear

11-29-2005, 07:33 PM

If games are supposed to be art, then is it up to the government to decide who can purchase art? This is blatant governmental censorship, in the same vein of Tipper Gore and the PMRC.

Reality's Fringe

11-29-2005, 07:37 PM

Here's a summary of the Bill's provisions(From gamepolitics):

I. Prohibition on Selling Mature and Adults Only video games to minors

The centerpiece of this bill is a prohibition against any business for selling or renting a Mature, Adults-Only, or Ratings Pending game to a person who is younger than seventeen. This provision is not aimed at punishing retailers who act in good faith to enforce the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) system. That's why retailers would have an affirmative defense if they were shown an identification they believed to be valid or have a system in place to display and enforce the ESRB system. Similar prohibitions have become law in the last several months in California, Michigan, and Illinois.

II. Annual Analysis of the Ratings System

Since the bill relies on the video game industry to continue rating the appropriateness of games for minors, this bill requires an annual, independent analysis of game ratings. This analysis will help ensure that the ESRB ratings system accurately reflects the content in each game and that the ratings system does not change significantly over time.

III. Authority for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to Investigate Misleading Ratings

Part of the genesis of this bill was the revelation that the makers of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had included, through embedded code that was discovered and made accessible to the public, sexually explicit content inconsistent with the game's Mature rating. This bill requires the FTC to conduct an investigation to determine whether what happened with GTA: San Andreas is a pervasive problem. It also includes a Sense of Congress that the Commission shall take appropriate action if it determines that there is a pervasive problem.

IV. Authority to Register Complaints

This bill requires the Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP) of the FTC to ensure that consumers can file complaints if they find content to be misleading or deceptive and requires the BCP to report on the number of such complaints to Congress.

V. Annual Retailer Audit

This bill authorizes the FTC to conduct an annual, random audit of retailers - sometimes referred to as a secret shopper survey – to determine how easy it is for young people to purchase Mature and Adults Only video games and report the findings to Congress.

It seems simple enough, but there's always the chance that things like this can slippery slope to hell and back. I'd rather read the actual bill...soon.

ryanbph

11-29-2005, 07:48 PM

I don't see a problem with the bill as there are some games that minors shouldn't be playing...listening to the last cagcast, I do agree with cheapy about some kids might be ready sooner then others for more mature content, but if setting strict guidelines on the sale of mature games to minors helps shut up the anti video game crowd I am all for it.

While it would be nice, IMO, the problem isn't the games themselves, it is the parents who let there kid do what ever the fuck they want. Yes there are parents that are involved, but the amount of parents that will buy whatever the kid asks for and not look into the content need to step it up. In my experiance, I have come across several mothers with sons under the age of 11, and have bought them a gta game. While I do feel there may be some 11 year olds that can handle mature games, these mothers knew nothing about the games, the games content, or if there kid could handle such material. I do not feel it is the gov't job to raise the youth of america.

Photomotoz

11-29-2005, 07:49 PM

Well I think it is dumb to make it a law. I think parents should be more involved. But I suppose if the bill is needed to keep stupid kids from buy GTA then fine. I mean everytime I go to EBgames some kid is always trying to buy GTA either himself or by asking his mom.

Duo_Maxwell

11-29-2005, 07:58 PM

Apparently some of you aren't looking at the worst case scenario or long terms effects of such legislation. First off this won't shut anyone up, the anti-video game nuts will only fight harder after a small victory to see if they can abolish games enirely. Not to mention it will likely bring others out of the woodwork to see if they can't do the same for TV or movies. If this is an overly enforced policy like government censorship often becomes, we could see larger retailers either try to censor games as best they can or just not risk the hefty fines at all and drop the sale of all M-rated games. This would have a huge effect on publishers not bothering to make mature games because there's not enough money in it. Sure it seems simple enough now, but laws are often changed before they become a real law, plus they are often expanded on later.

Long story short it's walking a narrow path, in a worst case scenario, all that needs to be done is change some wording and we don't get great games like RE 4 anymore no matter what your age. It's basically backdoor gov't censorship and IMO no one who plays games or anyone who even slightly opposes censorship should not support something like this or the policitians who come up with such legislation.

smalien1

11-29-2005, 08:03 PM

Wow, this came like days after my 17th b-day.
I officialy don't care.
I'll buy games for my cousins though!

Storamin

11-29-2005, 08:08 PM

i thought not selling M rated videogames to kids under 17 was somethig that many retailers already enforced...

eldad9

11-29-2005, 08:10 PM

FriskyTanuki

11-29-2005, 08:10 PM

http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/146225.html
ESA Responds to Clinton-Lieberman Bill

Doug Lowenstein of the ESA has issued a response to the Family Entertainment Protection Act, announced today by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Lowenstein's statement reads, in part:

"We share Senator Clinton's commitment to effective enforcement of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings by retailers, and we appreciate the fact that she has sought to draft a more thoughtful proposal in this area than most others. However, we strongly oppose the bill. We believe the combination of trustworthy ESRB ratings, parental education, voluntary retail enforcement of ESRB ratings, and, most recently, the major announcement that all next generation video game consoles will include parental control systems, makes Senator Clinton's bill unnecessary... "

"While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional. Beyond that, the bill clearly infringes the constitutionally protected creative rights of the video game industry. Thus, if enacted, the bill will be struck down as have similar bills passed in several states...."

"It is worth noting that on the same day David Walsh from the National Institute on Media and the Family called for overhauling the ESRB's video game rating system, two Senators called for a bill that would enshrine that same rating system into federal law, showing that they think the ESRB rating system is credible, trustworthy, and helpful. "
I agree with Doug.

eldad9

11-29-2005, 08:11 PM

i thought not selling M rated videogames to kids under 17 was somethig that many retailers already enforced...

Policy, not law.

smalien1

11-29-2005, 08:21 PM

They should make more games in which you can commit suicide. That way only the kid who was stupid enough to think the game was real life would die rather than innocents being killed.
That woulda actually be good for the gene pool.

Zoglog

11-29-2005, 08:25 PM

slapping a M sticker on the Bible would be halarious :D

Ikohn4ever

11-29-2005, 08:27 PM

yeah i believe there are these things called...parents, some people have one some have more, but usually they are responsible for those under the age of 18. Here is the funny thing these "parents" are supposed to monitor what their kids' do. Now wouldnt it be funny if the ones complaining about violent games did their jobs.

Brak

11-29-2005, 08:31 PM

Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

peteloaf

11-29-2005, 08:33 PM

Interesting fact: 451 degrees is the temperature at wich paper burns...

Noodle Pirate!

11-29-2005, 08:34 PM

Brak

11-29-2005, 08:34 PM

Interesting fact: 451 degrees is the temperature at wich paper burns...

Hahaha. Nice reference. ;)

RAMSTORIA

11-29-2005, 08:39 PM

im fine with it

thagoat

11-29-2005, 08:43 PM

Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?
Actually, yes. its not hurting kids by keeping them away from R rated material. They can take in as much smut and violence as they want once they hit 18. Either way kids are gonna get their grubby mits on em. they get a hold of cigarettes, beer, porn, etc. as it is, so this won't be any different. hell, there parents aren't paying attention to the labels anyway. theyll probably buy it for them.

thagoat

11-29-2005, 08:47 PM

YoshiFan1

11-29-2005, 08:52 PM

varsitygamer

11-29-2005, 08:58 PM

RAMSTORIA

11-29-2005, 09:05 PM

there should remain a distinction between making something store policy, or corporate policy, and making something illegal. I agree with the arguments stating that allowing this bill to pass would be entirely unconstitutional. Imagine, if you will, that it was ILLEGAL to go see an R-rated movie at the age of 16. Imagine you were breaking the law as a 15 year old buying an Eminem album. Or, more appropriately, imagine if the movie theater was breaking the law for letting you into an R rated movie, or that FYE was breaking the law by selling you that CD. What kind of sense does that make? If there's no law against being a bad parent, there shouldn't be a law against selling videogames to kids. Admitted, stores should use their best judgement, but lets not get started on the slippery slope of governmental censorship.

it wouldnt be illegal for a 16 year old to PLAY an M rated game, it would be illegal for them to BUY an M rated game. the bill wouldnt change things too much, the only people who care are 12-16 year olds that cant buy these games without their parents knowing now. while working at gamestop i noticed that most parents dont care that games are rated M. so all kids have to do is kid their parents, older siblings, cousins, friends etc, to buy the game for them. everything is fine.

Duo_Maxwell

11-30-2005, 12:27 AM

Stores card for liquor and alcohol. I don't see this going so far as to ban video games. It will just become another carding rule.
It won't hurt anything and only stops some stupid kids from buying stuff they shouldn't.
You people are reading too much into it.
It is obvious that parents are doing a crap job of parenting, so IMO this legislation will do what they should be doing for them. Hopefully it will shut JT up for a while.

No offense but you're off base on most accounts. For starters a comparison to alcohol is essentially unwarranted as alcohol is under a rule where it is also illegal for minors to consume and adults to give alcohol to them. A 16 year old can't be arrested for driving with a copy of the Warriors in his/her car. Secondly the economical effects are nothing like alcohol. It doesn't take millions of dollars to develop a bottle of alcohol and to be honest the profit margin on alcohol for retailers is probably just as big if not bigger than games. Not to mention when compared to the numbers that have been tossed around for similar bills the fines for selling alcohol to minors is considerably cheaper (something like $500-1000 compared to proposed nearly $3000 or so fines in some video game bills).

Also, last I checked the gov't is not supposed to be a fallback babysitter for crappy parenting and like I said earlier if something like this is passed it likely won't shut up nuts like Thompson. You've no doubt seen his views of games and things in general, after winning a small battle do you think he's just stop his crazy crusade there? My guess is him and those like him will fight harder and bring even more things up for censorship and abolishment that they feel is wrong.

Mr Unoriginal

11-30-2005, 12:35 AM

ya had to bring out that argument. weak.

I don't think the Bible argument is very weak. If there is going to be legislation over video games, then it stands to reason that there very well may be legislation over movies and books in the near future. If that is the case, movies may be easy to differentiate because we already have a rating system. But books? That is one big fucking can of worms to try and rate every book. If we were to even try, you know that the Bible would not get an "M" rating even though it does contain all these things that these legislators feel is wrong.

camoor

11-30-2005, 01:04 AM

Kids shouldn't be reading the bible; it's got rape, incest, prostitutes, murder, torture... you name it. Obviously there has to be a body that rates books, and the government should make sure the ratings are enforced.

The christian bible is also dangerous. Reading the bible conditions people to take stupid and destructive actions such as

- The Crusades
- The Spanish Inquistion
- Witch Trials
- Manifest Destiny
- The Crusades II (AKA the Iraq war)

In short, it's a war/genocide/torture simulator!

CapAmerica

11-30-2005, 01:14 AM

I'm all for this.
Sadly parents can't do their job and stores don't give a shit half the time, so it had to come to this. I have no problem getting carded buying a rated M game. All ready have to show my ID when I go see a rated R movie.

varsitygamer

11-30-2005, 01:29 AM

it doesn't seem like anyone really understands the ramifications of a bill like this being passed. too many of you are just entirely apathetic.

"Oh, it's okay, I'm old enough to buy the game, a 16 year old shouldn't be allowed to play halo anyway."

"Already show my ID at an R-rated movie."

I entirely agree that there are some games (I'm not a huge fan of kids playing GTA, for example) that individuals of certain ages should not have access to. But whether or not those individuals have access to that game should not be something that is legislated by the United States government. THAT is the point that many of us are trying to make. It is an insult to the videogame industry, and the corporations that thrive from the industry's product. But more importantly, it's just generally destructive to the industry. The motion picture association of america implemented their own ratings system, and they have been allowed to self govern since. Does the videogame industry not deserve the same right (or to use a cliche, freedom)? The motion picture industry also practices self censorship. That is, if they think something is going to be too risque, they either cut it out, or give the film a stricter rating. Before jumping the gun and bringing the government into this, I think it's important to explore all possibilities. No system is perfect, but that is especially true of one with a heavy handed government.

camoor

11-30-2005, 01:33 AM

it doesn't seem like anyone really understands the ramifications of a bill like this being passed. too many of you are just entirely apathetic.... No system is perfect, but that is especially true of one with a heavy handed government.

Not to mention that we all get to fund another piece of bureaucracy - hope you guys like paying more taxes!

Skylander7

11-30-2005, 01:39 AM

I think that there are bigger things that are legislative body should worry about. Instead of worrying about some 15 year old fat kid fucking a damned hooker on his PS2, how about bringing about a flat tax, end of interest groups, a limit to congressional terms, etc.

Government regulation would not solve the poverty of good parenting in our society. Prime example.. you may have to be 18 to get porn, but did you not find a means to obtain it when you were 15? It's just another method of censorship and an attempt to secure votes if you ask me

kakomu

11-30-2005, 03:13 AM

It's just another method of censorship and an attempt to secure votes if you ask me

What is it censoring?

Secondly the economical effects are nothing like alcohol. It doesn't take millions of dollars to develop a bottle of alcohol and to be honest the profit margin on alcohol for retailers is probably just as big if not bigger than games.

I'd be willing to bet that the amount of alcohol produced to reach the same amount of people at the same price point would cost as much, if not more to produce. I'll toss out a figure here: 5 mil to produce a game, market it and press about 500k copies at $50 a pop. I'd be willing to bet that a company like Jack Daniels would spend the same amount of money to brew 500k $50 portions along with glass, bottling and advertising. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that cheap beers, like bud or Miller spend more on advertising than a game developer would spend on development, advertising and production all in one.

Not to mention when compared to the numbers that have been tossed around for similar bills the fines for selling alcohol to minors is considerably cheaper (something like $500-1000 compared to proposed nearly $3000 or so fines in some video game bills).

This bill has no defined amount to fine a retailer.

Also, last I checked the gov't is not supposed to be a fallback babysitter for crappy parenting and like I said earlier if something like this is passed it likely won't shut up nuts like Thompson. You've no doubt seen his views of games and things in general, after winning a small battle do you think he's just stop his crazy crusade there? My guess is him and those like him will fight harder and bring even more things up for censorship and abolishment that they feel is wrong.

The government has a right to impose restrictions based on what it deems appropriate. Such examples include underage pornography, bestiality, etc.

If there's no law against being a bad parent, there shouldn't be a law against selling videogames to kids. Admitted, stores should use their best judgement, but lets not get started on the slippery slope of governmental censorship.

Plenty of laws against being bad parents. However, I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic there, or not.

eldad9

11-30-2005, 03:19 AM

maddfrog

11-30-2005, 03:42 AM

I don't see why anyone is getting upset over this. It's just like Skylander said, look at the laws that are set up that aren't enforceable and truly can't be enforceable. If I wanted to, I could go to my friend right now and buy some weed. I could go to the store and buy alcohol for minors. And who can't remember trying to look up porn before you were 18?

If you want to get upset, you should be upset that instead of the government actually fixing the problems that we have today (the war, the economy, hurricane relief, etc.) they pick a very easy topic to try to create a stir. I've said it before; Hilary Clinton is not doing these conservative tactics for no reason (because if you’re going to run for president some day, you have to appeal to independent voters that went out in droves to support a conservative view). So whenever the candidates start coming out and wanting to be our next commander-in-chief, she can say that she neither conservative nor is she liberal.

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 04:11 AM

When I was like 13 or 14 I remember walking into suncoast with my mother. I picked up angel of darkness and dragon pink (both hentai) on vhs and bought them with my mother standing right there. The guy said "this is mature stuff, are you sure he should watch this?" or something like that. My mother said she didn't really care, since I can see worse on tv anyway, and that was the end of it. He didn't attempt to convey what it really was.

Basically if the guy had actually explained it to my mother she probably wouldn't have let me buy it. She did make a comment on the cover of angel of darkness about how it looked (girls with tattered clothing with sexual looks on their faces), she also noted that it said 18+ which she said usually means sex while 17+ is just violence, but this was as we wer walking out of the store and she wasn't overly concerned. She had no idea that it was an explicit hentai though (for the time anyway, some of the stuff is disgusting now), just that it may be sexy and have some nudity.

Though I think new hampshire may have some sort of law or something. I never got carded for a game in my life (though some old lady at best buy carded me for buying clearanced resident evil strategy guide once), but lately every time I buy a game in NH I get carded. It's extremely annoying since I've even been told I didn't look like I was 17 (not just that they were being certain). I just keep telling myself that when I'm 50+ I'll be glad I don't look my age.

Though I like this, not so much for what they want to implement, but simply because its hillary beating conservatives on their own territory. She's probably the most vocal on this "values" issue, other than thompson. Hillary in 08! Bill for first lady! (http://billforfirstlady.com/)

Dogpatch

11-30-2005, 10:16 AM

Well if they can help the "Gun" industry from lawsuits, maybe the government should do so for the entertainment industry. Just to add balance to the equation. I believe in the right to bear arms as most Americans do. I also believe in the right to play any friggin game I see fit. Hmmm, need that one voted on. :)

I think the game industry should police themselves just like the movie industry does. Just turned 31 yesterday and I still get carded at Walmart for games. If it keeps young kids from getting certain games, I'm all for it. Just hate to see government involvement. To much red tape and someone (Jack Thompson comes to mind) always mucks up the works.

kev

11-30-2005, 10:23 AM

chickenhawk

11-30-2005, 10:34 AM

http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/146225.html

I agree with Doug.

I also agree with Doug if consoles will have parental controls on them. That addresses a major issue because it gives parents an easy way to have control over what their kids play. I never opposed this type of legislation though but agreed that it wasn't a perfect fit. I also agree that it starts with the parents and they have to be as involved as possible. I did believe, however, that retailers should have some accountability in it as well, but I think the controls on consoles changes things significantly. Once that is implemented parents have zero excuse.

chickenhawk

11-30-2005, 10:45 AM

Lastly, conspiracy theorists and Bradbury fans be damned. Porn hasn't exactly been hurt by being relegated to the back walls you know.

This is an excellent point. I remember arguing back and forth with javeryh about this issue a while back and his problem with this type of legislation was the long-term and widespread effect it would have on the industry and I just didn't see it happening.

Wombat

11-30-2005, 11:18 AM

The sad thing is, is that none of this really has to do with Joe or Hillary's actual beliefs its just attempt to steal away some voters from the religious right, and create a religious left. After the last election they feel this is the only way to get a Dem in the white house. If this passes its only matter of time before both parties are for prayer in school and a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Video games are just a Red Herring, just desperate grab for votes by destoying a parties principles. Its a sad day indeed

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 11:45 AM

I also agree with Doug if consoles will have parental controls on them.

Doug neglected to point out that Xbox 360's parental controls don't work on Xbox games; so your overprotective parent can keep you from playing Condemned, but not San Andreas (if it's BC, of course ;)).

It will be interesting to see if PS3 has parental controls for PS2/1 games, and how the Revolution will implement it as well (especially considering that only very few SNES games were given ratings (didn't the ESRB start ratings in 1994 or so?).

I'd say this is much ado about nothing. It's important for you people who think that games will be outlawed (or some similar overreaction) if this bill passes to keep braying, however. Seriously.

ryanbph

11-30-2005, 11:48 AM

Kids shouldn't be reading the bible; it's got rape, incest, prostitutes, murder, torture... you name it. Obviously there has to be a body that rates books, and the government should make sure the ratings are enforced.

From what I read of the law, they won't be rating the games...the main theme is they want stores to follow the guidelines already set...If a game is rated mature, then anyone under 17/18 (whatever the age is) shouldn't be able to pick it up. If 42% of kids under the age are getting the games themselves, that needs to be fixed.

They did say they will file reports on the game industries rating system. While that may become scary, the way it is currently worded I don't have a problem with

bmulligan

11-30-2005, 11:51 AM

Actually, it's an attempt by the federal government to usurp more power from the States and the people. Another step in the total control of our society. Let this one pass, then another, then another, all for the 'greater good'. Next thing you know you're waking up in an exact replica of your room and buying state issued non-alcoholic vodka for 20 credits and everybody in the village calls you by your assigned numerical designation.

The Fed's have no right to be making such a law, but I'm sure the argument will be made under the interstate commerce clause. After all, they're only trying to help us from ourselves.

Be seeing you !

ryanbph

11-30-2005, 11:57 AM

Though I like this, not so much for what they want to implement, but simply because its hillary beating conservatives on their own territory. She's probably the most vocal on this "values" issue, other than thompson. Hillary in 08! Bill for first lady! (http://billforfirstlady.com/)

Is she really beating republicains in there own territory. The republicains have never been a main stay at pushing for rating systems, getting bad lyrics/songs out of kids hands. Most of those at the forefront of music/movie/tv/game attacks have been democrats. The republicains usually believe in less gov't (maybe not with GW Bush :roll: ) and the dems believe in bigger gov't. I don't see the need for the law, but I don't really have anything against it

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 12:02 PM

Is she really beating republicains in there own territory. The republicains have never been a main stay at pushing for rating systems, getting bad lyrics/songs out of kids hands. Most of those at the forefront of music/movie/tv/game attacks have been democrats. The republicains usually believe in less gov't (maybe not with GW Bush :roll: ) and the dems believe in bigger gov't. I don't see the need for the law, but I don't really have anything against it

I think you need to find me some prominent democrats who aren't Tipper Gore who were a part of the PMRC.

I can also state with confidence that the Meese commission wasn't embraced by many democrats, either.

uzumaki_star

11-30-2005, 12:08 PM

This legislation won't really help anything because most of the little kids that get M rated games are those who have parents that let them buy them or will go buy them for their children anyway.

Legislation is one step but the ultimate responsiblity will be on the parent that lets their child/children play these games and don't teach their children the values that a game is just a game and you shouldn't try to do what you see in the game.

varsitygamer

11-30-2005, 12:11 PM

Plenty of laws against being bad parents. However, I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic there, or not.

See, that's the thing abut vague terminology. My fault. When I see a parent buying their 11 year old San Andreas, I think to myself, "unless this parent is going to sit down with their kid and play this game solely in their company, and explain the real consequences, and reinforce to their child how it is JUST A GAME... unless the parent plans on doing all of that, then they are a bad parent."

I understand there are laws about child abuse, and neglect, but there is no law about leaving your gun in a sock drawer where a kid can get it. There is no law preventing you from supplying your kids with plenty of candy, but never bringing them to the dentist. There is no law about feeding your children mcdonald's for every meal, of every day. There is no law mandating that you provide your child positive reinforcement, as opposed to grounding them every time you're having a bad day. That's what I mean when I say there is no law about being a bad parent. The abuse and neglect laws are laws that would apply to you whether it was your child or not. Perhaps my emphasis should not be on the bad but rather, the parent. Or maybe you'd be more willing to accept the idea if i said there was no law against being an irresponsible parent.

basketkase543

11-30-2005, 12:25 PM

Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?

Doesn't the MPAA ratings system work this way? I thought there was a fine for theatres who sold R and NC-17-rated tickets to minors. If there is, then how is this different from what is being proposed for the gaming industry?

MaxBiaggi3

11-30-2005, 12:32 PM

Stores card for liquor and alcohol. I don't see this going so far as to ban video games. It will just become another carding rule.

The problem with this logic is that alcohol, tobacco, pornography, etc. (stuff stores usually card you for) are often set aside or sold separately from "respectable" merchandise, sometimes in completely separate stores. A family-friendly chain like Walmart (a big sales outlet for games) may decide not to sell risque products like M-rated games if carding and fines for selling to minors become law.

If big chain retailors like Walmart stop selling M-rated games, you can be sure developers will make a lot less M-rated titles simply because the profit potential has diminished considerably. It's simple economics at work. More sales restrictions on M-rated titles will mean fewer M-rated games will be developed and sold. :cry:

Mr Unoriginal

11-30-2005, 12:32 PM

Doesn't the MPAA ratings system work this way? I thought there was a fine for theatres who sold R and NC-17-rated tickets to minors. If there is, then how is this different from what is being proposed for the gaming industry?

I think the difference is that the movie industry is self regulated while the video game industry would be regulated by the govt.

varsitygamer

11-30-2005, 12:36 PM

Yes, it's the MPAA that imposes the fine on the theater if there is a blatant disregard of rating enforcement.

camoor

11-30-2005, 12:59 PM

The republicains usually believe in less gov't...

:lol:

Thanks man, I needed a good laugh!

gamereviewgod

11-30-2005, 01:03 PM

If 42% of kids under the age are getting the games themselves, that needs to be fixed.

The latest Media and the Faily report also stated that over 50% of parents were not with their children the last time they purchased a video game. The bigger question is, why are parents letting their kids into stores by themselves to let them do this in the first place? We don't need laws to "protect the children," we need them to stop parents from being lazy. We're placing the blame on the retailers, and that's not right.

Seriously, who lets their 9 year old child into Wal Mart by themselves for any reason?

kakomu

11-30-2005, 01:17 PM

The problem with this logic is that alcohol, tobacco, pornography, etc. (stuff stores usually card you for) are often set aside or sold separately from "respectable" merchandise, sometimes in completely separate stores. A family-friendly chain like Walmart (a big sales outlet for games) may decide not to sell risque products like M-rated games if carding and fines for selling to minors become law.

If big chain retailors like Walmart stop selling M-rated games, you can be sure developers will make a lot less M-rated titles simply because the profit potential has diminished considerably. It's simple economics at work. More sales restrictions on M-rated titles will mean fewer M-rated games will be developed and sold. :cry:

Oh no. I need my M-rated game fix! Why, per chance, does it really matter that we won't have as many M-Rated games? Do you NEED this gratuitous violence fix? Do you believe that the game rating somehow influences the quality of the game? I certainly don't (which is why, I guess, I've only got about 3 or 4 M rated PS2 games out of around 30)

I understand there are laws about child abuse, and neglect, but there is no law about leaving your gun in a sock drawer where a kid can get it. There is no law preventing you from supplying your kids with plenty of candy, but never bringing them to the dentist. There is no law about feeding your children mcdonald's for every meal, of every day. There is no law mandating that you provide your child positive reinforcement, as opposed to grounding them every time you're having a bad day. That's what I mean when I say there is no law about being a bad parent. The abuse and neglect laws are laws that would apply to you whether it was your child or not. Perhaps my emphasis should not be on the bad but rather, the parent. Or maybe you'd be more willing to accept the idea if i said there was no law against being an irresponsible parent.

Those are all extremely subjective points. Especially considering how many parents may not have the ability to be as good a parent as you wish they were. For instance, take low economic households, with parents that spend LONG hours at work. They may not have the ability to spend a lot of time with their children, but wish to make them happy. There are tons of scenarios that exist where one can plainly blame the parents as being irresponsible or bad without looking at the context at which these events take place.

Is she really beating republicains in there own territory. The republicains have never been a main stay at pushing for rating systems, getting bad lyrics/songs out of kids hands. Most of those at the forefront of music/movie/tv/game attacks have been democrats.The republicains usually believe in less gov't (maybe not with GW Bush :roll: ) and the dems believe in bigger gov't. I don't see the need for the law, but I don't really have anything against it

Republicans, and old-style conservatives believe in the lack of state control over everyday life and a greater emphasis on the private sector. The Democrats and American liberals (to differentiate from liberals everywhere else in the world) believe in a more socialistic approach where the government puts a hand into helping and regulating the the state to make it more equalitarian. However, you need to realize that Lieberman is probably one of the most conservative Democrats around. On top of which, it's typically conservatives and Republicans that feel it necessary to regulate media for the sake of decency. Current examples include Ashcroft and his war against lady Justice for slipping a nipple, or that statue that bears all somewhere in the house.

Actually, it's an attempt by the federal government to usurp more power from the States and the people. Another step in the total control of our society. Let this one pass, then another, then another, all for the 'greater good'. Next thing you know you're waking up in an exact replica of your room and buying state issued non-alcoholic vodka for 20 credits and everybody in the village calls you by your assigned numerical designation.

The Fed's have no right to be making such a law, but I'm sure the argument will be made under the interstate commerce clause. After all, they're only trying to help us from ourselves.

Be seeing you !

Somehow, I doubt regulating who can purchase M-Rated video games is going to turn America into a 1984 dystopia. If regulating who can buy pornography or cigarettes hasn't already done so, I doubt regulating video games will do so (especially considering how much smaller a segment of the population plays video games, compared to the segment that looks at porn). That being said, if ANYTHING will turn this society into a dystopia, it will be the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act, or any other such acts made by New World Order Neo-cons.

chakan

11-30-2005, 01:32 PM

kakomu

11-30-2005, 01:40 PM

Shouldn't the federal government be more concerned with, I don't know, terrorism and our dependence on foreign oil?

Seriously, even if you want to champion state sponsored censorship(don't kid yourself, that's what this is), this should be a state by state issue, not a huge federal law, The US Constition and separation of powers are being routinely ignored these days, and I'm fucking sick of it.

A) Exactly what do you expect them to do that they haven't already done? One cannot expect their congressman/senator to expend all their energy on to a single goal (like our Commander in chief does). American legislation and politics is an amalgamation of issues.

B) What exactly is it censoring? They're not stiffling the creativity of the artists/developers of video games. They're not imposing regulations on what can and cannot be put into video games. Censorship would be the outright banning of specific types of games.

C) how exactly is this case routinely ignoring the constitution and separation of powers? If you're going to talk about trampling the first amendment, keep in mind point B. There is no stiffling of the first amendment, since no one is told what they can and cannot create.

Mr Unoriginal

11-30-2005, 01:43 PM

B) What exactly is it censoring? They're not stiffling the creativity of the artists/developers of video games. They're not imposing regulations on what can and cannot be put into video games. Censorship would be the outright banning of specific types of games.

While it's not out and out censoring it can come close. If this legislation passes, there is a good chance that large chains like Walmart etc would not carry M rated games anymore. The sale of games through Walmarts may be a gaming companies primary source of income. If they no longer have this income they can't possibly make an M rated game since it will be esentially a money pit.

Scrubking

11-30-2005, 01:44 PM

This bill is stupid because it does a lot more than it needs to do or should do. All we need is a full time investigation committee that checks up on retailers and makes sure that they aren't routinely selling kids adult content and fining them if they do. Period. That's it. No more. No less.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 01:51 PM

While it's not out and out censoring it can come close. If this legislation passes, there is a good chance that large chains like Walmart etc would not carry M rated games anymore. The sale of games through Walmarts may be a gaming companies primary source of income. If they no longer have this income they can't possibly make an M rated game since it will be esentially a money pit.

I was pretty sure this argument would come up. In which case, one ought to ask about the censoring powers of capitalism and the all-mighty dollar, or the censoring powers of focus groups and marketing. Or, *gasp*, blaming the self-imposed censorship of the stores that feel the need to ban content rather than enforce it on their own accord.

I don't buy that it can be considered censorship because they can't make money off of it as easily. Also, I think we can certainly agree that M-rated games can make it very easily in today's world, what with Res Evil and GTA games practically flying off the shelves. Also, just because Wal-Mart doesn't sell it doesn't mean that every other store won't sell it, nor does it mean that availablity and quantities are suddenly going to drop.

Zoglog

11-30-2005, 01:55 PM

for those too lazy to read the whole bill, rundown for joystiq

* Prohibition on Selling M and AO games to Minors - Retail enforcement of ESRB.
* Analysis of the ESRB - An annual independent analysis of the games rating system must be undertaken.
* FTC Investigation of Misleading Ratings - FTC would be empowered to see if there were more pervasive problems in the industry.
* Complaint Registration - The Bureau of Consumer Protection within the FTC will track complaints filed on behalf of consumers regarding misleading or deceptive content.
* Annual Retailer Audit - FTC will be empowered to conduct annual audits of retailers and have those results reported to congress.

Basically I only like the first part. I actually like the 2nd part but they'd get some stupid religous group or overhyped psychologist who knows nothing about games to do it I bet. For the rest the FTC can go molest themselves to death.

Mr Unoriginal

11-30-2005, 02:02 PM

I was pretty sure this argument would come up. In which case, one ought to ask about the censoring powers of capitalism and the all-mighty dollar, or the censoring powers of focus groups and marketing. Or, *gasp*, blaming the self-imposed censorship of the stores that feel the need to ban content rather than enforce it on their own accord.

I don't buy that it can be considered censorship because they can't make money off of it as easily. Also, I think we can certainly agree that M-rated games can make it very easily in today's world, what with Res Evil and GTA games practically flying off the shelves. Also, just because Wal-Mart doesn't sell it doesn't mean that every other store won't sell it, nor does it mean that availablity and quantities are suddenly going to drop.

That's true and I don't totally side with calling it censorship, but a retailer like Walmart is big enough that it would make a sizable dent in a company's sales. 'Gamers' may purchase a lot of their games from EB or Gamestop whatever and the legistlation wouldn't have a big effect, but I'd bet you'd be surprised at how many mom/grandmas buy their crying kid whatever game they want walking through the isles of Walmart.

varsitygamer

11-30-2005, 02:13 PM

Oh no. I need my M-rated game fix! Why, per chance, does it really matter that we won't have as many M-Rated games? Do you NEED this gratuitous violence fix? Do you believe that the game rating somehow influences the quality of the game? I certainly don't (which is why, I guess, I've only got about 3 or 4 M rated PS2 games out of around 30)

I think the point people are making is that we have been blessed with some fun and addictive m-rated games, such as resident evil 4, halo, halo 2, and the grand theft auto series. If the market for M-rated games is destroyed, there would be no reason for developers to continue to produce them. It probably wouldn't kill the larger franchises like Halo, however it would either make it a niche market product, or it would be dumbed down significantly in order to get the lower rating, so it could still be sold to the masses. Imagine a Halo with no shotgun, because it parallels a real-life weapon. Or imagine we only got products like Simpson's Hit and Run, instead of Grand Theft Auto (which like it or not, has a fairly interesting storyline).

Those are all extremely subjective points. Especially considering how many parents may not have the ability to be as good a parent as you wish they were. For instance, take low economic households, with parents that spend LONG hours at work. They may not have the ability to spend a lot of time with their children, but wish to make them happy. There are tons of scenarios that exist where one can plainly blame the parents as being irresponsible or bad without looking at the context at which these events take place.

I have a feeling, that this bill regarding videogames (a fairly expensive hobby), is not targeted at influencing the households within the lower economic demographic. Also, I think we need to think about how children are walking into videogame vendors alone, with 53$ clenched in their fists. Where are the parents, and where did the kids get the money?

Cornfedwb

11-30-2005, 02:16 PM

Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?

We'll ignore the M rating for the moment, but...

As far as banning the sale of AO games.. do we not already have such legislation for movies and books?

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 02:20 PM

That's true and I don't totally side with calling it censorship, but a retailer like Walmart is big enough that it would make a sizable dent in a company's sales. 'Gamers' may purchase a lot of their games from EB or Gamestop whatever and the legistlation wouldn't have a big effect, but I'd bet you'd be surprised at how many mom/grandmas buy their crying kid whatever game they want walking through the isles of Walmart.

In the end, though, isn't any store's decision to carry or not carry M-rated titles completely unrelated to this piece of legislation? I can see why you would think that it *could* lead down that road, but at the same time, any decision Wal-Mart makes for itself is independent of this bill. The bill can pass or die, and Wal-Mart can choose to sell M games regardless of either outcome. So, in the end, it seems like the government is being blamed for decisions made by retailers. Right?

Wal-Mart's attitude towards music (and relative lax standards for books, movies, and games) os rather interesting, and I can't quite figure out who the fuck is dumb enough to consciously buy music from Wal-Mart (unless you're a 9-year old who demands to own a copy of 50 Cent's "The Massacre" or somesuch nonsense). From all measures, they *are* the biggest music sales source in the nation (which is why Hank Williams III's newest album was delayed from October to February, because goddamned WM wouldn't carry the clean version).

Fuckers.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 02:24 PM

It probably wouldn't kill the larger franchises like Halo, however it would either make it a niche market product, or it would be dumbed down significantly in order to get the lower rating, so it could still be sold to the masses. Imagine a Halo with no shotgun, because it parallels a real-life weapon. Or imagine we only got products like Simpson's Hit and Run, instead of Grand Theft Auto (which like it or not, has a fairly interesting storyline).

A) a storyline need not be "mature" to be interesting. In fact, I'm far more intrigued and interested in stories (novel or otherwise) that can be mature and deep without resorting to "mature" themes (sex, violence, language, etc).

B) That being said, I find the writing for the GTA series to be done by a hack who got all of his ideas from movies already made. Very uninteresting.

C) RPGs are rarely M-rated, yet are considered some of the best video game stories around.

D) since when does a game have to be "dumbed" down to be a T rating? In fact, I think we can argue that an M rated game could be dumbed down to appeal on a level apart from the game. For instance, take 50 cent's game. It appears to be getting terrible reviews, but I have no doubt that people are going to want to play the game, not for the gameplay, but for the fact that it's down n dirty, with lots of violence and it stars their favorite mumbling rapper. How many movies have grossed tons of dollars because of the violence? I think it's safe to say that Kill Bill is a good example (maybe not part 2, but certainly part 1).

E) Or, we can end up with games that are massively creative (like Katamari) rather than relying on how much gore, guns and violence they can put in the game.

I have a feeling, that this bill regarding videogames (a fairly expensive hobby), is not targeted at influencing the households within the lower economic demographic. Also, I think we need to think about how children are walking into videogame vendors alone, with 53$ clenched in their fists. Where are the parents, and where did the kids get the money?

A) That's pretty classist of you. There are plenty of low-income households that have video games. I came from one.

B) children are probably walking into stores with money the same way I did. I EARNED it. Either by mowing lawns, tossing papers, doing chores, getting birthday money, getting a job at a grocery store (I've been working since I was 14 and only stopped in the last year because I took school over the summer to get some required credits out of the way). On top of which, I could make a killing some weeks and my mom had no say in how I spent it.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 02:33 PM

As far as banning the sale of AO games.. do we not already have such legislation for movies and books?

Movies deemed pornographic are not able to be sold to minors. Everything else is fair game and at the discretion of the store selling/renting the movies. As for books, I know that people aren't allowed to sell anything deemed pornographic, but there is little other regulation in that matter.

bmulligan

11-30-2005, 02:37 PM

Though I like this, not so much for what they want to implement, but simply because its hillary beating conservatives on their own territory. She's probably the most vocal on this "values" issue, other than thompson. Hillary in 08! Bill for first lady!
Another admirable stance on principleless philosophy. You really take the cake, alonzo, to thwart our personal freedoms so that a friend of yours can grab some spotlight. You exemplify moral bankruptcy. But I guess you've been taught by example that it's better to look good than to think good.

I can't wait to see all M rated games behind the counter with the "adult" shelving blocking the cover art and having them come wrapped in brown paper sleeves like a Hustler mag. Maybe there'd even be the same stigma of purchasing an M rated game as there is buying a box of rubbers and some personal lubricant.

-Clerk scans and hands back magnetically encoded drivers license to man purchasing Grand Sex Auto VI. Name is entered into federal database of violent and sexual content purchasers, and point totals are updated in the national potential offender list. -

"What's that man buying momma?"

"Nothing Johnny, it's nothing you need to see"

-mom covers child's eyes with her hands and gives disgusted look to man as he walks out with his videogame pornography-

"Sicko, dirty old man", she says under her breath.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 02:45 PM

I can't wait to see all M rated games behind the counter with the "adult" shelving blocking the cover art and having them come wrapped in brown paper sleeves like a Hustler mag. Maybe there'd even be the same stigma of purchasing an M rated game as there is buying a box of rubbers and some personal lubricant.

I don't know about you, but I've never had those stares whenever I bought condoms, nor have I met anyone that has done so.

On top of which, do we see these sorts of stares and gasps as people buy cigarettes and alcohol (another federally mandated restriction)?

You, truly, are the King of X-treme with Pad as your queen.

Cornfedwb

11-30-2005, 02:45 PM

Movies deemed pornographic are not able to be sold to minors. Everything else is fair game and at the discretion of the store selling/renting the movies. As for books, I know that people aren't allowed to sell anything deemed pornographic, but there is little other regulation in that matter.

My question was rather rhetorical. And that was my point, we do currently have legislation curtailing the sale of certain movies and books (all written/pictorial material for that matter) to minors.

Mr Unoriginal

11-30-2005, 02:54 PM

In the end, though, isn't any store's decision to carry or not carry M-rated titles completely unrelated to this piece of legislation? I can see why you would think that it *could* lead down that road, but at the same time, any decision Wal-Mart makes for itself is independent of this bill. The bill can pass or die, and Wal-Mart can choose to sell M games regardless of either outcome. So, in the end, it seems like the government is being blamed for decisions made by retailers. Right?

Wal-Mart's attitude towards music (and relative lax standards for books, movies, and games) os rather interesting, and I can't quite figure out who the fuck is dumb enough to consciously buy music from Wal-Mart (unless you're a 9-year old who demands to own a copy of 50 Cent's "The Massacre" or somesuch nonsense). From all measures, they *are* the biggest music sales source in the nation (which is why Hank Williams III's newest album was delayed from October to February, because goddamned WM wouldn't carry the clean version).

Fuckers.

That's a good point and probably a better way of looking at it. The weak argument may be that a government backed regulation has more sway with the Walmarts of the country so it forces their hand in a sense. Of course it is still their decision entirely, but if it begins to make less business sense to them (through fines etc) as a direct result of a federal law then I suppose the govt does have an effect on it all.

Overall though, I think your point is the over-arching one.

javeryh

11-30-2005, 02:59 PM

At least this law is somewhat defensible under the commerce clause of the Constitution. Say what you want about freedom of speech but it is also very clear that Congress has the right to regulate interstate trade. Normally I'd throw up the 10th ammendment to fight stupid laws but you just can't when it's about trade.

You are thinking about it a little backwards - to be constitutional a law has to be valid under all clauses and amendments, not supported by just one or a few. It is true that the law is permissible under the commerce clause (because let's face it, almost everything passes the under the commerce clause) however, it doesn't pass scrutiny under the first amendment so therefore it is simply unconstitutional.

Lastly, conspiracy theorists and Bradbury fans be damned. Porn hasn't exactly been hurt by being relegated to the back walls you know.

The "well they regulate porn and that's speech so why not regulate ______?" argument just doesn't hold up. There is pornography in print and on film and some would argue that certain rap CDs are pornographic. There's no doubt that eventually there will be porn video games - I bet right now someone is working on it. If there was a porn video game then I'm all for its regulation as pornography - not as a video game - but leave the medium as a whole alone.

ryanbph

11-30-2005, 03:23 PM

I think you need to find me some prominent democrats who aren't Tipper Gore who were a part of the PMRC.

I can also state with confidence that the Meese commission wasn't embraced by many democrats, either.
umm, the whole 1992/93 issue with mortal combat was spearheaded by Joe Lieberman (D)CT, and Senator Herbert H. 'Herb' Kohl (d)(WI). Chuck Schumer, and the other wing nut from NY have been taking shots at video games over the past 2 years, hillary clinton, tipper gore...yes there are republicains that get involved in this, but for the most part, the party doesn't want to get involved in censorship.

As for the nipple incident and ashcroft...it wasn't something they ran in front of and tried to take care of, there were millions of complaints about it. While I had no problem with it, parents watching the games with children, as well as some viewers did have a problem with it. The FCC got flooded with complaints on the subject, the public wanted to how something like that could happen, and ashcroft reacted to it.

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 03:36 PM

Wombat, I think you're going overboard. Taking one or two issues from the other side is very different than ignoring your parties core principles and adopting the other sides core principles.

Mulligan Littles rant about how the boot is falling was funny. No one else can go from stopping minors from playing graphic video games to making everyone a number in communist communities. Jolly good show, old chap! :applause:

Is she really beating republicains in there own territory. The republicains have never been a main stay at pushing for rating systems, getting bad lyrics/songs out of kids hands. Most of those at the forefront of music/movie/tv/game attacks have been democrats. The republicains usually believe in less gov't (maybe not with GW Bush :roll: ) and the dems believe in bigger gov't. I don't see the need for the law, but I don't really have anything against it

Just because the republicans don't adop it doesn't mean its not a concern to conservatives. It's a conservative "values" issue that they didn't bother with. Hillary, and others, have.

Though republicans only believe in smaller govenment in theory. In reality they've just expanded it in different areas, and that's not exclusive to dubya.

Wal-Mart's attitude towards music (and relative lax standards for books, movies, and games) os rather interesting, and I can't quite figure out who the fuck is dumb enough to consciously buy music from Wal-Mart (unless you're a 9-year old who demands to own a copy of 50 Cent's "The Massacre" or somesuch nonsense).

Kmart (didn't have walmart at the time) was the only reason I was able to buy some cd's as a kid. My mother wouldn't let me buy stuff with the explicits lyrics sign on the front, and kmart always sold the clean version. Aggravating now though, since perfectly good cd's that I want to listen to have all these blanked out words in it.

camoor

11-30-2005, 04:00 PM

I don't know about you, but I've never had those stares whenever I bought condoms, nor have I met anyone that has done so.

Then read this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/6694D70D17BEA283862570C9001884A9?OpenDocument

Make no mistakes, there is a determined minority of religious conservatives who want to introduce revisionist theocracy into our democratic republic.

This videogame bill is not a huge deal, but there is no question that it will introduce unnecessary government censorship and bureaucracy for the sole purpose of appeasing the religious conservatives. That ain't America.

Quillion

11-30-2005, 04:13 PM

The "well they regulate porn and that's speech so why not regulate ______?" argument just doesn't hold up. There is pornography in print and on film and some would argue that certain rap CDs are pornographic. There's no doubt that eventually there will be porn video games - I bet right now someone is working on it. If there was a porn video game then I'm all for its regulation as pornography - not as a video game - but leave the medium as a whole alone.

Agreed. There's also the whole argument about the chilling effect it would have on VG content.

The thing I am most concerned with is the federal regulation, and the stigma. As a storytelling medium, any regulation is bad regulation. Comparing VG to movies, how effective would "Clockwork Orange" be if Kubrick had to remove any depictions of violence, including the rape scene? VG to Literature, would "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" have had the same impact without the numerous murders? Would Eternal Darkness (an M rated game which I think handles the rating quite well) have been as compelling without insanity, suicide, and murder?

Mature themes could go away through "Economic Censorship" because of laws like this one.

javeryh

11-30-2005, 04:14 PM

Then read this:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/metroeast/story/6694D70D17BEA283862570C9001884A9?OpenDocument

Make no mistakes, there is a determined minority of religious conservatives who want to introduce revisionist theocracy into our democratic republic.

Shit like this makes my blood boil. He should have his pharmacology license or whatever it's called taken away for life. Who the hell is he to make these decisions for someone?

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 04:32 PM

Shit like this makes my blood boil. He should have his pharmacology license or whatever it's called taken away for life. Who the hell is he to make these decisions for someone?

There's a key line in that "That's why he referred women to other stores where he knew pharmacists would fill those prescriptions.", which is the policy of walgreens, and he followed the policy he was hired under. Unlike a previous case he did not verbally attack the customer, he did not tear up the prescription or anything. He acted in a professional manner.

The job he took had an option available so he would not have to violate his moral beliefs. Assuming he would not have taken the job if that was not an available option, then its hard not to sympathize with him.

Its not fair to him. Walgreens should have to have another staff member on hand to fill those prescriptions, or transfer him to another state, or walgreens (or the state) should pay for training or education in another area or field.

Personally I agree with these laws, but they should not force pharmacists to fulfill prescriptions that they were told they would not have to fulfill when they took those jobs.

varsitygamer

11-30-2005, 04:44 PM

I really hate this tactic, but you've convinced me of it's efficiency.

A) a storyline need not be "mature" to be interesting. In fact, I'm far more intrigued and interested in stories (novel or otherwise) that can be mature and deep without resorting to "mature" themes (sex, violence, language, etc).
I agree entirely that a storyline doesn't have to be mature to be interesting. However, does that mean people with incredible stories that DO have adult themes should not be able to market them?

B) That being said, I find the writing for the GTA series to be done by a hack who got all of his ideas from movies already made. Very uninteresting.
You may find that to be true, but I enjoy the stories they tell. I think the game offers enough to be considered interesting. Of course, that's just my opinion.

C) RPGs are rarely M-rated, yet are considered some of the best video game stories around.
I don't think I understand how this relates to the argument. Just because a certain genre has less m-rated titles than another does not warrant passing an unconstitutional bill. What if someone prefers first person shooters? Too bad for them?

D) since when does a game have to be "dumbed" down to be a T rating? In fact, I think we can argue that an M rated game could be dumbed down to appeal on a level apart from the game. For instance, take 50 cent's game. It appears to be getting terrible reviews, but I have no doubt that people are going to want to play the game, not for the gameplay, but for the fact that it's down n dirty, with lots of violence and it stars their favorite mumbling rapper. How many movies have grossed tons of dollars because of the violence? I think it's safe to say that Kill Bill is a good example (maybe not part 2, but certainly part 1).
So individuals wanting to play 50 cent's game because they want to assume the role of their favorite rapper is wrong? I am not arguing that violence is not prevalent in our media, videogames as a medium in particular, but we're in a newer industry. If the government is going to police a medium, shouldn't it be film, as you suggested? Since violence in film is much more longstanding and prevalent than even videogames, that is. What I'm saying is if the MPAA can be self governing, why does the videogame industry not deserve the same right?

E) Or, we can end up with games that are massively creative (like Katamari) rather than relying on how much gore, guns and violence they can put in the game.
I love Katamari Damacy, Guitar Hero, Donkey Konga, all of these original titles. But just because games CAN be made with no violence, doesn't mean they should have to be. I understand under the bill the games should still be made, but fact is, it's a slippery slope issue. If the government can get it's foot in the door, they're not going to just be content with that.

A) That's pretty classist of you. There are plenty of low-income households that have video games. I came from one.
I came from a lower-middle class family, who was able to buy me a game boy for christmas one year. I traded that and all my games in for a super nintendo, and worked my way up. Until recently, I never owned more than a single console (or two games simultaneously) at any given time. (I still only own about 3 GC games at a time). Tracing this argument back, you were saying that you can't blame these lower-income parents for being bad parents, since they spend long hours at work and spend a portion of their pittance on videogames to make their children happy. My argument then, and still, is that there is a distinction between parents who try to buy their childrens love with material things, and those who invest the time to teach them between right and wrong, or even just go to the mall with them to see what videogame they're getting. Fact is, if my 16 year old can drive to the mall, and he wants to buy himself a game, I would be fine with him having a mature title, provided we've discussed it and I knew what kind of content it included. By my parenting standards, if a child is old enough to drive a vehicle (where he is endangering real life people, and thusly, must be responsible) I would allow him to go to EB on his own to purchase Halo 2. Maybe I'd write a friendly little note, and include my home phone number, so the clerk could actually check with me. Of course, standards vary, and that is only acceptable by my standards. That's part of the problem with this law. There is no room for variance.

B) children are probably walking into stores with money the same way I did. I EARNED it. Either by mowing lawns, tossing papers, doing chores, getting birthday money, getting a job at a grocery store (I've been working since I was 14 and only stopped in the last year because I took school over the summer to get some required credits out of the way). On top of which, I could make a killing some weeks and my mom had no say in how I spent it.
My issue is not with the kids whose parents teach them how to earn money, my issue is with the parents who drop the kids off at the mall at 11 years old, and pick them up 4 hours later. I work retail (one of three jobs I have at the moment actually, see, I'm a college student) and this happens far too frequently to count. The kids come in with the money in hand (whether it is theirs or their parent's is irrelevant) and asks for Grand Theft Auto. Sorry kid, I reply. You're not old enough.

I think somewhere you and I veered away from the original argument. My point was just that the government should have no place in deciding they can restrict certain media and not others. I could send my 16 year old sister into Target, and she could walk out with an R-rated movie. I'm not saying that's right, but I'm saying it is not the government's job to enforce that. The MPAA knew what they were doing when they devised the rating system, even if it seems antiquated now. Parental Guidance Suggested. Thank's for the heads up!

My argument, simplified: Corporate policy, fine. Another piece of legislation that slowly whittles away at out constitutional rights, not fine.

javeryh

11-30-2005, 04:52 PM

There's a key line in that "That's why he referred women to other stores where he knew pharmacists would fill those prescriptions.", which is the policy of walgreens, and he followed the policy he was hired under. Unlike a previous case he did not verbally attack the customer, he did not tear up the prescription or anything. He acted in a professional manner.

The job he took had an option available so he would not have to violate his moral beliefs. Assuming he would not have taken the job if that was not an available option, then its hard not to sympathize with him.

Its not fair to him. Walgreens should have to have another staff member on hand to fill those prescriptions, or transfer him to another state, or walgreens (or the state) should pay for training or education in another area or field.

Personally I agree with these laws, but they should not force pharmacists to fulfill prescriptions that they were told they would not have to fulfill when they took those jobs.

The time wasted on a referral might be all the difference in the world in a situation like this. I understand that he can weasel out by claiming it was store policy (very very weak) but as a pharmacist he should be a little more detached from the people coming in to buy medicine. If he felt it was immoral to give out say, epinephrine, to treat someone going into anaphylactic shock over an allergic reaction because God decides when it's your time to go or something equally ludicrous, would it be OK to claim store policy? People should keep their damn morals to themselves.

camoor

11-30-2005, 05:04 PM

Its not fair to him. Walgreens should have to have another staff member on hand to fill those prescriptions, or transfer him to another state, or walgreens (or the state) should pay for training or education in another area or field.

I've read alot of baloney in this thread but this paragraph takes the cake.

The reason a pharmacist has the right to refuse to serve medication is so that they can avoid prescribing medicine that would be harmful to the patient's health - not so that they can object on moral or religious grounds.

How would you feel if you went to the local supermarket at the last minute for a holiday-dinner baked ham and the delicatessen wouldn't sell it to you because he's Jewish? Would it be the supermarket's fault for not having an extra ham-serving non-Jew delicatessen in reserve? Should the supermarket go ham-free so that the Jewish delicatessen can keep his job?

EDIT: So I have meat on my mind. I've been sick the past few days, all I've eaten is bread and applesauce :-|

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 05:15 PM

extra ham-serving non-Jew delicatessen
That phrase makes me smile.

for the most part, the party doesn't want to get involved in censorship.
Do you even know what the Meese commission *was*?

Yes, there are plenty of democrats pointing the fingers at video games, and there have been in the past; what they are discussing is REGULATION, which is *remarkably* different from CENSORSHIP. Please do keep that in mind when you want to make claims that are wrong.

There's no doubt that eventually there will be porn video games - I bet right now someone is working on it.

I'll bet someone in the far off future of 1982 will do it:
Custer's Revenge
Beat 'em and Eat 'em
Bubble Bath Babes
The Other Nudie NES Game
Virtual Valerie
Leisure Suit Larry I - XL (give or take)
The Guy Game
BMX XXX
Bloodrayne (shaddup, you bought it 'cuz it had cleavage on the box)
Probably at least two dozen others (not counting adult "CD-ROM" titles) some of you can think of. It isn't much of a market, but that's probably because nobody's made a pocket pussy that supports USB 2.0 yet.

FriskyTanuki

11-30-2005, 05:16 PM

I also agree with Doug if consoles will have parental controls on them. That addresses a major issue because it gives parents an easy way to have control over what their kids play. I never opposed this type of legislation though but agreed that it wasn't a perfect fit. I also agree that it starts with the parents and they have to be as involved as possible. I did believe, however, that retailers should have some accountability in it as well, but I think the controls on consoles changes things significantly. Once that is implemented parents have zero excuse.
I meant I agreed with him especially about the bill being unconstitutional and the fact that all bills before (the newest ones are close to being overturned) have been deemed as such. That's why I bolded those parts of the response. I pretty much agree with what javeryh's saying.

javeryh

11-30-2005, 05:19 PM

I'll bet someone in the far off future of 1982 will do it:
Custer's Revenge
Beat 'em and Eat 'em
Bubble Bath Babes
The Other Nudie NES Game
Virtual Valerie
Leisure Suit Larry I - XL (give or take)
The Guy Game
BMX XXX
Bloodrayne (shaddup, you bought it 'cuz it had cleavage on the box)
Probably at least two dozen others (not counting adult "CD-ROM" titles) some of you can think of. It isn't much of a market, but that's probably because nobody's made a pocket pussy that supports USB 2.0 yet.

:D I know... I guess I was referring to someone working on making porn games more mainstream although I definitely see a difference between nudity and pornography. There's nothing wrong with either, IMO, but mainstream nudity is certainly something I'm all for... hooray for boobies!

62t

11-30-2005, 05:21 PM

This would be bad news for gamers. How many movies got tone down to get a PG-13 rating? Unlike unrated DVD, there will be no way to play the unedit version. If this pass many rated M games could get tone down for a T rating.

I hope people are happy with a T version of Halo 3

FriskyTanuki

11-30-2005, 05:21 PM

The latest Media and the Faily report also stated that over 50% of parents were not with their children the last time they purchased a video game. The bigger question is, why are parents letting their kids into stores by themselves to let them do this in the first place? We don't need laws to "protect the children," we need them to stop parents from being lazy. We're placing the blame on the retailers, and that's not right.

Seriously, who lets their 9 year old child into Wal Mart by themselves for any reason?
The latest ESA report has that figure at 92% of all parents being with their child at the point of purchasing. So it definitely seems to be a suggestive statistic based on who's being surveyed.
Doesn't the MPAA ratings system work this way? I thought there was a fine for theatres who sold R and NC-17-rated tickets to minors. If there is, then how is this different from what is being proposed for the gaming industry?
I'd think it's because they can control who's going to see that movie right there at the theater. In stores, however, the same cannot be said.

RelentlessRolento

11-30-2005, 05:22 PM

simply put: if a kid can't handle or respect a M/AO game, then blame the parents. Back off government, you're just making parent's more dumb minded by taking their place.

CYRiX

11-30-2005, 06:07 PM

This is unconstitional.

They technically can't do it.

Case closed.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 06:10 PM

This is unconstitional.

They technically can't do it.

Case closed.

Explain how it is.

javeryh

11-30-2005, 06:30 PM

Explain how it is.

It violates the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." There's not enough server space to fully explain it but video games are definitely a form of speech. This means in order to enact a law regulating it you need to satisfy a very high level of review called "strict scrutiny." This is a two-part test and is damn near impossible to pass especially in the area of speech. First you need a "compelling governmental interest." This doesn't mean strong or rational - it means compelling - a very high standard. The second part (which is always the killer) is that the law must be "narrowly tailored to achieve that interest" so if the law is in anyway over-broad or unclear or can be interpreted differently by different people or if there is a more effective means of achieving the same goal, etc. it will be struck down. There also must be a "clear and present danger" to the public or government for regulation of speech, blah, blah, blah.... It's just unconstitutional.

ryanbph

11-30-2005, 06:44 PM

Do you even know what the Meese commission *was*?

Yes, there are plenty of democrats pointing the fingers at video games, and there have been in the past; what they are discussing is REGULATION, which is *remarkably* different from CENSORSHIP. Please do keep that in mind when you want to make claims that are wrong.

.

I clearly remeber the mortal combat issue, and the stated if you don't take care of it, we will...Schumer and Wrangle Dems from NY have issue with the upcoming game where you can kill cops. They have tossed phrases such as banning around. Please keep that in mind one you try to cut someone down with false claims.

Like I said in one of my original posts, the law hillary is pushing at this moment doesn't bother me, yes it could open up a can of worms for the future, but as of now the bill put forth doesn't bother me. I don't believe it is the gov't job, but hell they do a lot of shit the gov't and federal tax money shouldn't be used for. I strongly believe the parents need to be more involved, the only problem with that is how do get the voting parents to become more involved in there childrens life. If a politician on either side of the aisle came out saying parents are to blame, and they have to be better parents, that person will not be (re)elected to office. Even if voting parents accepted statements like those, how can we fix the problem. A lot of families have parent(s)that are working 40 + hours a week. They also need to clean, feed, buy groceries/clothes/toys, bring them to activities (sport practice/games, dancing etc...) Parents usually learn on the job how to raise a child, there is no be all end all book/class on the proper way to raise a child. With time so limited how could a parent be involved enough to know what to do, monitor what they watch/listen to/play with, who there friends are. It is a complicated issue, and there is no answer that will fix the problem.

Yes the meese commission, I do know what it is, and stop being so condescending. I don't agree with that either. It isn't the role of the gov't. But if you look at porn from the 1960's and the porn of today, a LOT has changed. A former business associate of my father, now works in the porn industry. He films/produces porn. Some of the shit that he talked about several years ago, that at the time were BANNED in the US from the 1970 laws, were pretty nasty stuff. I personally wouldn't want to watch the movies he was telling me about, and most likely the movies he was talking about would be bought by some sort of twisted person/sexual predator, but I don't feel it should be banned. If the participants were willing, and nobody died, I have no problem with it. I just won't be buying it.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 06:50 PM

It violates the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." There's not enough server space to fully explain it but video games are definitely a form of speech. This means in order to enact a law regulating it you need to satisfy a very high level of review called "strict scrutiny." This is a two-part test and is damn near impossible to pass especially in the area of speech. First you need a "compelling governmental interest." This doesn't mean strong or rational - it means compelling - a very high standard. The second part (which is always the killer) is that the law must be "narrowly tailored to achieve that interest" so if the law is in anyway over-broad or unclear or can be interpreted differently by different people or if there is a more effective means of achieving the same goal, etc. it will be struck down. There also must be a "clear and present danger" to the public or government for regulation of speech, blah, blah, blah.... It's just unconstitutional.

There's no regulation of the video games themselves. The 'speech' that is video game is not being abridged. What is being regulated is the sale of video games! These are extremely different realms. The sale of a video game is not considered a speech, otherwise the restriction of any sale of any item would be unconstitutional!

javeryh

11-30-2005, 07:08 PM

There's no regulation of the video games themselves. The 'speech' that is video game is not being abridged. What is being regulated is the sale of video games!

A regulation on the sale of video games is a regulation on video games. You have to consider secondary effects of the law, etc. That's like saying we're not going to regulate the content of any movie but we are going to make owning and operating a movie theater illegal - movie theaters aren't speech!

kakomu

11-30-2005, 07:21 PM

A regulation on the sale of video games is a regulation on video games. You have to consider secondary effects of the law, etc. That's like saying we're not going to regulate the content of any movie but we are going to make owning and operating a movie theater illegal - movie theaters aren't speech!

No, the regulation of the sale of video games is not a regulation of the content. They are two seperate entities. The first amendment protects the content of the video game. That is inalienable and the government is rarely allowed to step in and deem it indencet (the cases being underaged pornography and other such decency regulations. Only the Guy Game has been lifted from the shelves because of that, and I heard very few raise a stink about that). However, freedom of speech doesn't protect the regulation of sale. It only protects games from being outright banned.

Also, your hypothetical situation is completely off base and irrelevent. Not to mention, you don't need a movie theater to see movies.

javeryh

11-30-2005, 07:33 PM

No, the regulation of the sale of video games is not a regulation of the content. They are two seperate entities.

No, they are not. If you regulate the sale of video games based on content (which is what is going on here) stores will quickly learn that it's easier to not carry the game instead of worrying about getting fined all the time, etc. If the stores don't carry the game, guess what? The companies will not make them anymore. The secondary effect of any content-based law regarding a form of speech (the video game) that could ultimately lead to the speech not being heard at all will make the law unconstitutional.

It's like when some city (NYC, I think) decided to ban the sale of all pornography within 500 ft. of a school or church. It looks good on it's face... protect the kids, porn is evil, blah, blah, blah. However, you couldn't go 500 feet in any direction in NYC without hitting a school or church. The law effectively banned all pornography in the city so the court deemed the law unconstitutional.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 07:46 PM

No, they are not. If you regulate the sale of video games based on content (which is what is going on here) stores will quickly learn that it's easier to not carry the game instead of worrying about getting fined all the time, etc. If the stores don't carry the game, guess what? The companies will not make them anymore. The secondary effect of any content-based law regarding a form of speech (the video game) that could ultimately lead to the speech not being heard at all will make the law unconstitutional.

Your argument is flawed:

A) The law being proposed does not force stores to stop selling video games. If the stores feel like doing so, then you blame the stores, not the fed gov.

B) The link between government regulation of video games and changing the content is INDIRECT at best. That is to say, if we are to look at the causality of that happening, we seem to have to go through 2-3 events AT LEAST before you arrive at your claim that games are being censored, which leads me to:

C) Slippery Slope argumentative fallacy. All of these are assumptions. Take a grocery store, for example. SOmeone has to show their ID to the register monkey before they can check out pornography (if they sell it) or alcohol. What's to say that a giant like Wal Mart, Target or any other chain won't just have their programmers put some failsafe into the register?

In conclusion, your argument is flawed. You've provided no DIRECT link between regulation of sale to regulation of content.

It's like when some city (NYC, I think) decided to ban the sale of all pornography within 500 ft. of a school or church. It looks good on it's face... protect the kids, porn is evil, blah, blah, blah. However, you couldn't go 500 feet in any direction in NYC without hitting a school or church. The law effectively banned all pornography in the city so the court deemed the law unconstitutional.

One reason why this does not apply to the case at hand: The magic word "ban". As I've already said, the government is NOT banning violent video games. They are restricting the sale of violent games to minors. Banning video games would be unconstitutional. Restricting is not.

I don't know the specifics about the case, but I can assure you that wherever pornography is being sold now, it's being sold under the exact same restrictions that the government would be putting in place for mature themed video games.

Also, since you brough up pornography, I'm surprised you didn't decry the unconstitutionality of not selling them to minors. Not to mention, pornogrpahy has got to be one of the LARGEST industries around, generating billions of dollars per year. Not to mention, porn is restricted to minors, and stores still sell it, and people still buy it!

javeryh

11-30-2005, 07:54 PM

kakomu

11-30-2005, 08:05 PM

OK, clearly you are not to be convinced so I'm done here. FYI, pornography is really a made-up term (not legal). What is being regulated is obcenity (which is not speech and has no first amendment protection at all). Also, alcohol is not speech so I don't know how that comes into play. I know what I know and I know what you think so we'll leave it at that.

It's quite obvious you aren't to be convinced either. But, the problem you have is that you've not established a DIRECT link between censorship of a game and restriction of a sale to minors. What you have established, however, is a slippery slope of events that may or may not happen.

However, if you're going to claim that porn is obscene, what's to stop people from classifying violent video games as obscene?

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 08:07 PM

I've read alot of baloney in this thread but this paragraph takes the cake.

The reason a pharmacist has the right to refuse to serve medication is so that they can avoid prescribing medicine that would be harmful to the patient's health - not so that they can object on moral or religious grounds.

Do you read what you type, or are just just oblivious to the pro life viewpoint? To them they are killing somene by doing that (the article even stated he viewed it as a form of abortion). On the assumption that it was understood they would not have to give this prescription when they took the job, then they should not be reprimanded for it.

How would you feel if you went to the local supermarket at the last minute for a holiday-dinner baked ham and the delicatessen wouldn't sell it to you because he's Jewish? Would it be the supermarket's fault for not having an extra ham-serving non-Jew delicatessen in reserve? Should the supermarket go ham-free so that the Jewish delicatessen can keep his job?

EDIT: So I have meat on my mind. I've been sick the past few days, all I've eaten is bread and applesauce :-|

Actually I'd be thrilled.

But, I know the point you're making. If the jewish delicatessen was hired with the condition that he would not have to serve ham, then it should be the supermarkets responsibility to ensure someone else is there to serve the ham when he's on duty. He should not be forced to violate his religious beliefs, especially when that was understood when he was hired. The jewish delicatessen did nothing wrong, he was simply acting the way the company was told he would act, and they accepted those conditions.

So to simplify, yes, it would be the supermarkets fault for not having a ham serving delicatessen in reserve.

Now if he suddenly developed these morals after he was hired, or did not tell his employer before he was hired, then its a different story entirely.

The time wasted on a referral might be all the difference in the world in a situation like this. I understand that he can weasel out by claiming it was store policy (very very weak) but as a pharmacist he should be a little more detached from the people coming in to buy medicine. If he felt it was immoral to give out say, epinephrine, to treat someone going into anaphylactic shock over an allergic reaction because God decides when it's your time to go or something equally ludicrous, would it be OK to claim store policy? People should keep their damn morals to themselves.

Well thats irresponsible on the part of the store. If they want to hire someone who tells them, prior to hiring, that they will not fullfill all the prescriptions, then anything resulting from that should be blamed on the store. They took the risk by hiring them, assuming the employee fully disclosed what they would not do prior to being hired.

There's a difference between keeping morals to yourself and actively assisting in the termination of life, which this pharmacist believed he was doing. From what I understand he conducted himself in a professional manner, and his moral objection was known by walgreens.

I think these laws should fully apply to new employees, but employees who were hired previously with the condition they would not have to violate those moral beliefs should be given leeway.

eldad9

11-30-2005, 08:11 PM

This is unconstitional.

They technically can't do it.

Case closed.

Games are 'enemy combatants' and the constitution does not apply to them.

Quillion

11-30-2005, 08:11 PM

It's quite obvious you aren't to be convinced either. But, the problem you have is that you've not established a DIRECT link between censorship of a game and restriction of a sale to minors. What you have established, however, is a slippery slope of events that may or may not happen.

However, if you're going to claim that porn is obscene, what's to stop people from classifying violent video games as obscene?

javeryh isn't to be convinced because he is an attorney.

Obscenity is defined by community standards.

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 08:13 PM

I clearly remeber the mortal combat issue, and the stated if you don't take care of it, we will...Schumer and Wrangle Dems from NY have issue with the upcoming game where you can kill cops. They have tossed phrases such as banning around. Please keep that in mind one you try to cut someone down with false claims.

Like I said in one of my original posts, the law hillary is pushing at this moment doesn't bother me, yes it could open up a can of worms for the future, but as of now the bill put forth doesn't bother me. I don't believe it is the gov't job, but hell they do a lot of shit the gov't and federal tax money shouldn't be used for. I strongly believe the parents need to be more involved, the only problem with that is how do get the voting parents to become more involved in there childrens life. If a politician on either side of the aisle came out saying parents are to blame, and they have to be better parents, that person will not be (re)elected to office. Even if voting parents accepted statements like those, how can we fix the problem. A lot of families have parent(s)that are working 40 + hours a week. They also need to clean, feed, buy groceries/clothes/toys, bring them to activities (sport practice/games, dancing etc...) Parents usually learn on the job how to raise a child, there is no be all end all book/class on the proper way to raise a child. With time so limited how could a parent be involved enough to know what to do, monitor what they watch/listen to/play with, who there friends are. It is a complicated issue, and there is no answer that will fix the problem.

Yes the meese commission, I do know what it is, and stop being so condescending. I don't agree with that either. It isn't the role of the gov't. But if you look at porn from the 1960's and the porn of today, a LOT has changed. A former business associate of my father, now works in the porn industry. He films/produces porn. Some of the shit that he talked about several years ago, that at the time were BANNED in the US from the 1970 laws, were pretty nasty stuff. I personally wouldn't want to watch the movies he was telling me about, and most likely the movies he was talking about would be bought by some sort of twisted person/sexual predator, but I don't feel it should be banned. If the participants were willing, and nobody died, I have no problem with it. I just won't be buying it.

I have no reason to be condescending if you would acknowledge points I make in my posts. When I bring up the Meese commission, and you respond with tripe that claims that Republicans aren't interested in censorship, then what the hell else can I do to get your attention?

So two senators have bandied the phrase "banning" about. Let's see not only substantive proof of that (if you don't mind), and we should also discuss how this bill is even relevant to the concept of banning or censorship. It seeks to regulate, which, as I pointed out, is very different from banning. So, I suppose the question is this: this bill has nothing to do with censorship, so what's your point?

kakomu

11-30-2005, 08:13 PM

delicatessen

Not to be rude, but delicatessen is either a store (a deli) or a food. Otherwise, you have a deli worker.

javeryh isn't to be convinced because he is an attorney.

So, in his case, the job description is to be willfully ignorant of any arguments that are contrary to his position?

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 08:26 PM

Not to be rude, but delicatessen is either a store (a deli) or a food. Otherwise, you have a deli worker.

:oops: I forgot. I tend to just copy whatever word is used to describe it then use it myself. I don't actually proofread what I type or anything, and since I haven't been to a deli (other than buying cheese at a supermarket) in years it wasn't something I'd realize without actually thinking about it.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 08:30 PM

So two senators have bandied the phrase "banning" about. Let's see not only substantive proof of that (if you don't mind), and we should also discuss how this bill is even relevant to the concept of banning or censorship. It seeks to regulate, which, as I pointed out, is very different from banning. So, I suppose the question is this: this bill has nothing to do with censorship, so what's your point?

You seem to be agreeing with me. can you tell me what you think of my reasoning on page 5?

:oops: I forgot. I tend to just copy whatever word is used to describe it then use it myself. I don't actually proofread what I type or anything, and since I haven't been to a deli (other than buying cheese at a supermarket) in years it wasn't something I'd realize without actually thinking about it.

No Problemo.

chakan

11-30-2005, 08:39 PM

I think the slippery slope argument can be demonstrated by the actions the FCC (an agency created in 1934 to ensure public safety, ie flood warnings, not to "protect" us from Howard Stern's sophmoric stunts or Janet Jackson's nipple)has taken over the last year toward broadcasters. Let me remind you of two of the provisions of the proposed bill:

* Analysis of the ESRB - An annual independent analysis of the games rating system must be undertaken.
* FTC Investigation of Misleading Ratings - FTC would be empowered to see if there were more pervasive problems in the industry.

That CLEARLY opens the door for a government body(the FTC, or a newly created agency)to step in and censor a particular game.

ryanbph

11-30-2005, 08:40 PM

I have no reason to be condescending if you would acknowledge points I make in my posts. When I bring up the Meese commission, and you respond with tripe that claims that Republicans aren't interested in censorship, then what the hell else can I do to get your attention?

So two senators have bandied the phrase "banning" about. Let's see not only substantive proof of that (if you don't mind), and we should also discuss how this bill is even relevant to the concept of banning or censorship. It seeks to regulate, which, as I pointed out, is very different from banning. So, I suppose the question is this: this bill has nothing to do with censorship, so what's your point?
I never stated this bill was about censorship...the statement where I commented on censorship had to deal with the democratic party in general, not about this bill. Here is an example for you about schumer and 25 to life.

this is from ign

Senator Calls for 25 to Life Ban
Eidos' gang-themed title has at least one big-wig riled.
by David Adams
June 20, 2005 - Senator Charles Schumer of New York is seeking to ban 25 to Life, the upcoming crime-themed title from Eidos, according to various reports today. Schumer says that the game "lowers common decency" by having players kill police officers and use innocents as human shields.

maybe i mistyped, maybe you misunderstand what I wrote, I never claimed this bill that hillary is putting forth has anything to do with censorship/banning.

Schumer is trying to prevent stores from stocking the game, and is asking console manufacturers Sony and Microsoft to pull Eidos' license to publish the title.

25 to Life lets players fight as either cops or gangsters. In the latter scenario, you'll lead a life of crime to climb the ranks of your fellow thugs.

The game is clearly inspired by crime-ridden titles such as Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto series, but Schumer sees Eidos' offering as much worse: "25 To Life makes Grand Theft Auto look like Romper Room," he said.

Of course, games with violent or mature content are appropriately labeled by the ESRB's rating code. 25 to Life has been given a rating of "M" for Mature, meaning the game is only intended for players age 17 and older.

So far, no other politicians or community leaders have publicly joined Schumer in his campaign against the game.

kakomu

11-30-2005, 08:55 PM

Duo_Maxwell

11-30-2005, 09:28 PM

So, in his case, the job description is to be willfully ignorant of any arguments that are contrary to his position?

Capitalist_mao seeing as how you've obviously decided to follow your party line on this one and seemingly have have little concept of what is censorship, legal/illegal or even captialism apparently no one is going to be able to convince you of anything. You are like the PAD of this thread... there I said it. I'll pose this question, if this law is totally constitutional why have laws just like or similar to it, passsed in certain states, been deemed unconsitiutional, even by the ACLU apparently?

http://www.aclu-il.org/legislative/alerts/hb4023.pdf
http://www.jenner.com/news/news_item.asp?id=13086424
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/content/6204.cfm
http://www.theesa.com/archives/2004/07/us_district_cou.php
http://fact.trib.com/1st.01.02supr.html
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/11/18

jpuma1

11-30-2005, 09:38 PM

Duo_Maxwell

11-30-2005, 09:43 PM

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 10:06 PM

I never stated this bill was about censorship...the statement where I commented on censorship had to deal with the democratic party in general, not about this bill. Here is an example for you about schumer and 25 to life.

this is from ign
EDITED FOR BREVITY; SCHUMER CALLS FOR BAN ON 25 TO LIFE
Alright, delightful. You found an article that discusses Schumer wanting to ban a single game. Kudos to you. Seriously.

However, that part at the end? The snide little "we have to angle this article to our readers" part that points out that no senators have seconded Schumer's claims? Them's Democrats and Republicans too.

I don't recall saying that, without fail, no democrat ever suggested banning a video game. What I did say was that your claim that Republicans, in order to stay true to their concept of limited government roles, tend to stay away from censorship is simply untrue.

I also said that this piece of legislation is focused on making stores accountable. You can't really fine parents, because this law would make it totally permissible for a parent to purchase their little brat any piece of shit game they want, rating irrelevant. Focusing punitively on the parent would certainly be censorship, as it interferes with the very concept of parenting (as it relates to deciding on an individual level just what is best for your children). OTOH, many of us know that business and ethics are uncommon bedfellows. That is, the profit motive is something that is counteractive to ethical behavior. If you choose to not sell something, you aren't dedicated to the profit motive. Thus, seeing as that the profit motive is the cornerstone of business, and that *not selling* something is far worse than *selling* something, We find ourselves in an ethical conundrum. ((briefly consider the youngest age at which you purchased tobacco and/or alcohol products to see what I'm talking about))

We don't care that children play bad games, but we want to ensure that, to the best of our legal ability, children acquire these means with permission of a parent or guardian (which, in the terms of the legislation, simply wants to make certain that the parent is *directly* involved in that interaction). The fine and audit system are aims at deterrence, based strictly on the profit motive. If you fail to comply, the government will fine you, which will interfere with your profits. A store is not one person, it's really an abstract concept. Can you arrest a store for selling an adult game? Can you probate it? Can you suspend its sentence? Of course not; can you punish them financially for violating community standards (if we assume, that is, that the ESRB ratings accurately reflect those community standards)? Damn skippy. (whether it is up to punishing the store or the individual clerk is another matter entirely).

I don't quite get the "unconstitutional" argument. Nobody (aside from Chuck Schumer, and from that I think we should thank him, since ratings for 25 to life are in the shithole; or maybe that was 187: Ride or Die?) wants to ban you from having games; not even big bad Hillary Clinton. What she is doing (although those of you calling her out for political posturing are probably correct; idiotically redundant - SHE'S A GODDAMNED POLITICIAN! WHAT'S SHE SUPPOSED TO DO? ASK POLITELY? - but nonetheless correct) is creating and reinforcing legal standards that make sure that your parents are the only ones who decided what you do or don't play. Not Wal-Mart. Really, in the end, that's not so bad, is it?

mykevermin

11-30-2005, 10:07 PM

Wave of the future, Xbox 360 currently has parental controls for it's games. Also to whomever it was that complained it doesn't work on original xbox games as well (I honestly don't remember who it was), they are planning on issuing a patch for that in the coming months. Even without the patch there's the temp simple solution of r blocking the xbox website on your computer I'd imagine.
I pointed it out as a shortfall of parental controls, but I don't recall 'complaining' about it. I'd like to see them include parental controls, but I don't think that, in itself, is entirely foolproof.

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 10:11 PM

wow, this thread is long, and i haven't read every response, but i did see one person make the best suggestion out there. and a lot of others in on the pages 4-now that i didn't have time to read probably made the same suggestion:

PARENTAL CONTROLS ON GAMING SYSTEMS, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE ON AOL, OR COMCAST CABLE!!!!! :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

That way, parents have absolutely no excuse. If you don't want your kid playing rated M games, just set the gaming system so that M games can't be played without a security code.

and if parents can't read directions, then tough fucking shit for you. be more active in your children's upbringing instead of blaming everyone else.

Umm........ try doing that if you have no familiarity with videogames whatsoever. Making the solution a technological one only works for the people who are familiar with it. For example, when I was a kid I got a nintendo for christmas. My father took out the manual and went behind the tv. Four hours later it was up and running. And last week I spent one hour explaining how to use a vcr to my great aunt, she finally decided to right down the instructions step by step (she's was still struggling with eject). What seems easy to those familiar with it can be extremely difficult to those who have never encountered that stuff.

Give a kid and a parent a piece of technology and most of the time the kid will figure it out first. Hell I remember when those censors were introduced onto satellite. My father wanted to block some channels, problem was I had already blocked him from the main profile (the one that controlled everything). He wasn't overly concerned though (I wasn't that young), so he didn't really try to figure out why it wouldn't work. And as for AOL, I had his master account password figured out relatively quickly.

i can't stand this shit. it's just like parents blaming teachers instead of blaming their kids when their children are stupid when it comes to education. :bomb:

That's funny, I was under the impression that some schools had higher quality teachers, better atmosphere, more up to date equipment and books etc. I guess we can just continue to ignore our public schools, and there's no reason to send anyone to a private school either.

jpuma1

11-30-2005, 10:27 PM

Umm........ try doing that if you have no familiarity with videogames whatsoever. Making the solution a technological one only works for the people who are familiar with it.

That's funny, I was under the impression that some schools had higher quality teachers, better atmosphere, more up to date equipment and books etc. I guess we can just continue to ignore our public schools, and there's no reason to send anyone to a private school either.

As our generation ages, that excuse should become moot, as people in our generation know that technology is the cornerstone of today's society and that they must keep up with the times.

On Comcast Cable, late night Showtime, HBO, Cinemax, or TMC softcore porn is readily available to the kids that pick up technology faster than their parents. They could play that stuff during the daytime if they wanted to. Research shows that the majority of Comcast cable subscribers have the Silver package, which contains at least one of these channels. But I don't see any government regulation on censoring what Comcast provides as a part of its cable service. And movies have been given DECADES to self govern themselves with not-so-totally-adhered-to MPAA ratings. Yet, one mistake by a stupid company like Rockstar and the fledgling videogame ratings system needs government intervention. Stupid.

And as for the education quote, that's from my experience in urban schools and my girlfriend being a teacher (and hearing her first hand account on how all of Bush's education laws are unreasonable, while placing ALL blame fully on teacher's shoulders). There are a lot of school districts that are fine by themselves, but tell the public school systems in the southern, primarily black states, that our public school system is pretty good. I'm sorry if you were offended by my statement, that quote is just venting from my experience.

alonzomourning23

11-30-2005, 10:50 PM

As our generation ages, that excuse should become moot, as people in our generation know that technology is the cornerstone of today's society and that they must keep up with the times.

Well that's still a way off. Until our generation gets up to the 35-40 range there will still be a lot of parents with little familiarity with this stuff. And even in our generation there are people, often poor, who aren't very familiar with technology. My cousin's family just got a computer for the first time and he's 22, I had to show him how to use it. His sisters (29 and 33) have no idea how to use one and don't have one. Since his sisters have children, their kids (with one exception) don't know how to use computers that much either. There's also the issue of kids simply knowing more. My father has had a computer since the early 80's. I remember playing a flintstones game on it somewhere in the mid-late 80's. He's worked with computers for at least 25 years, and used to set them up at his old job (can't fix them or actually put them together or anything, just normal setting up) and he taught me how to use them. It's just I tried a lot more things (he'd go by the book) so I found all these different ways to get around things. And, since I just dove right in and tried stuff, I found stuff and figured it out much faster than he did. I'm not saying putting settings on them to lock out graphic software is a bad idea, it just can't be viewed as a cure all, and it can't be expected that the parents are going to even be able to exercise full control over.

It just seems that this solution plays into the hands of the kids. Also this feature is not even well known (most here didn't seem to know of it) so its unlikely the parents would even know there's something there than can block that material. And there's still the perception that its all just kids stuff, many parents don't think there is anything there to be concerned about. And unless they keep up on video game stuff how are they going to find out? To many keeping up with xbox would be like keeping up on the latest britney spears news, they have no reason to be concerned as far as they know. All this stuff isn't being picked up by those outside of the whole video game and obscenity debates, and those are the people who are more likely to control their kids gaming anyway. With the hectic lives of most parents, work, kids (and all the driving from place to place) etc. They don't have time to site there and keep up with all this stuff and they won't unless they are given reason to be concerned.

What they should do is change all the ratings to the movie ratings. M games should be rated R, T should be rated pg-13 etc. I heard they were supposed to do this in canada, not sure if they still plan to though (though with the canadian ratings of course). That should be coupled with widescale advertising campaigns designed to get parents to treat video games like movies. Plenty of parents let their kids watch r-rated movies, but at least they understand what R means. Even if they know what an "M"technically means, they don't take it as seriously.

Though many stores have long refused to sell r-rated movies to kids. With games many of the video game stores themselves don't take M rated games seriously. They're only recently being forced to.

Kfoster1979

11-30-2005, 11:16 PM

Lets not forget this as a long way to go before its law. When and IF and thats a BIG if this gets to the floor for a full vote forget if you have an R or a D next to your name it will pass with bipartisan support. This is what is called a "soft" issue people, NO elected official will want this on there record as voteing it down Be it Bill Frist or Hillary Clinton to easy it play it agenst them next time they have to run for office.

On that note as a gamer I have no issue with it, people are talking about this slippery slop where is your evidence? To me the Government is stepping up were the industry has let us down. To be honest I blame rock star if they would have been open to the ESRB this would have never happened. As far as censorship how do you see it that way the Government gets blamed for this all the time but lets not forget the FCC only deals with "public free airwaves" Thats why Cable can have all the Nudity and cussing it wants the FCC stays out of it, Same with Sat. Radio and the Internet. Wal Mart Censors its self no Ao Games no Explicit Lyrics Branded Music But yet they are still the #1 Music and Game retailer in the Country. But yet both industies make Money Hand over Fist and I have yet to see Rap or Hard rock tone down its act. As a parent I will stay informed on what my Child is doing if and when I think he old enough I will let him play and watch what he wants. But as said before the whole tech savvy part is almost a moot point with the digital generation becoming parents ex: ME.

One other thing about the pharmacist or the Deli Guy F that its your damn job if your Morals get in the way find another one. I have to hunt people down for a collection agency everything from deadbeats who don't give a damn to Little old ladies who really cant afford anything. And yes to me I have issue with it sometimes that come down to my opinions of things like this old lady cant pay us because she has a fixed income of Shit SSI and no good Heath care and cant get he meds she needs, but I knew that would happen when I took the job but I have to check it at the door everyday.

FriskyTanuki

11-30-2005, 11:18 PM

I don't quite get the "unconstitutional" argument. Nobody (aside from Chuck Schumer, and from that I think we should thank him, since ratings for 25 to life are in the shithole; or maybe that was 187: Ride or Die?) wants to ban you from having games; not even big bad Hillary Clinton. What she is doing (although those of you calling her out for political posturing are probably correct; idiotically redundant - SHE'S A GODDAMNED POLITICIAN! WHAT'S SHE SUPPOSED TO DO? ASK POLITELY? - but nonetheless correct) is creating and reinforcing legal standards that make sure that your parents are the only ones who decided what you do or don't play. Not Wal-Mart. Really, in the end, that's not so bad, is it?
So the fact that this same issue has been deemed unconstitutional by federal judges when individual states or cities tried it doesn't matter? How is it any different besides being done on a federal level instead of on a state or city level?

Reality's Fringe

11-30-2005, 11:19 PM

If the Miller Test says it isn't obscene, then damnit, it has 1st Amendment Rights!

camoor

11-30-2005, 11:21 PM

Well thats irresponsible on the part of the store. If they want to hire someone who tells them, prior to hiring, that they will not fullfill all the prescriptions, then anything resulting from that should be blamed on the store. They took the risk by hiring them, assuming the employee fully disclosed what they would not do prior to being hired.

There's a difference between keeping morals to yourself and actively assisting in the termination of life, which this pharmacist believed he was doing. From what I understand he conducted himself in a professional manner, and his moral objection was known by walgreens.

I think these laws should fully apply to new employees, but employees who were hired previously with the condition they would not have to violate those moral beliefs should be given leeway.

Well, if the guy did go into his Walgreens job after telling Walgreens that he would not be performing a vital part of his job, then some of the blame could be shifted to Walgreens (but seems VERY unlikely to me)

However I do know that in the real world a job role changes, and often times people need to change as well if they wish to keep their jobs. If I'm an old-school record clerk who only wants to sell Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin style records, then there really isn't any place for me in the modern Tower Records store that makes money selling 50 Cent and Trick Daddy. Tower Records shouldn't have to change their business model because me and my world outlook are stuck in the 50s.

camoor

11-30-2005, 11:23 PM

I hope people are happy with a T version of Halo 3

I'm going to need a bigger Super Soaker...

http://echo-fall0.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/halo_soaker_211.jpg.w180h239.jpg

jpuma1

11-30-2005, 11:36 PM

Well that's still a way off. Until our generation gets up to the 35-40 range there will still be a lot of parents with little familiarity with this stuff. And even in our generation there are people, often poor, who aren't very familiar with technology. My cousin's family just got a computer for the first time and he's 22, I had to show him how to use it. His sisters (29 and 33) have no idea how to use one and don't have one. Since his sisters have children, their kids (with one exception) don't know how to use computers that much either. There's also the issue of kids simply knowing more. My father has had a computer since the early 80's. I remember playing a flintstones game on it somewhere in the mid-late 80's. He's worked with computers for at least 25 years, and used to set them up at his old job (can't fix them or actually put them together or anything, just normal setting up) and he taught me how to use them. It's just I tried a lot more things (he'd go by the book) so I found all these different ways to get around things. And, since I just dove right in and tried stuff, I found stuff and figured it out much faster than he did. I'm not saying putting settings on them to lock out graphic software is a bad idea, it just can't be viewed as a cure all, and it can't be expected that the parents are going to even be able to exercise full control over.

I'm not saying this is a bad argument, what I am saying is take this argument and apply it to Digital Cable TV and they're basically interchangable. Only with cable tv, we're talking about actual people having sex and actual people shooting, raping, pillaging, kicking, punching, bleeding, etc. Comcast Cable is not being regulated by the government.

Movies have a ratings system that is not government enforced. It is basically left up to movie theaters and parents as to whether or not to let children watch certain movies. And MANY of us know how easy it was to get into R rated movies when we were underage. I sure do.

Videogames has a ratings system for games, and it is starting to have parental controls on newer systems.

If parents don't want to educate themselves on what that "M" on the front of the box means, then it's up to them. Videogame ratings are more visibile than movie ratings on DVD boxes. Those are on the back.

If the governement does not have laws on movies, then they shouldn't have laws on videogames. Both are novelty items.

Ozzkev55

11-30-2005, 11:58 PM

alonzomourning23

12-01-2005, 12:24 AM

Well, if the guy did go into his Walgreens job after telling Walgreens that he would not be performing a vital part of his job, then some of the blame could be shifted to Walgreens (but seems VERY unlikely to me)

It was walgreens policy to allow people who did not want to fulfill certain prescriptions (like the morning after pill) to be able to direct them to another walgreens or pharmacist (they couldn't just say no). It's a policy pharmacists are familiar with, and pharmacies have long accepted. It's very unlikely that this was never brought up.

However I do know that in the real world a job role changes, and often times people need to change as well if they wish to keep their jobs. If I'm an old-school record clerk who only wants to sell Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin style records, then there really isn't any place for me in the modern Tower Records store that makes money selling 50 Cent and Trick Daddy. Tower Records shouldn't have to change their business model because me and my world outlook are stuck in the 50s.

The record clerk isn't a good example, and it would be a mistake to dismiss anti abortion opinions as simply being outdated. You need an example that takes into account strong moral beliefs, policies that protected those who held those beliefs (when they were hired), and a previous agreement with the employer not to engage in those actions. For example, if I apply for a job at a pet store and tell them I do not want to sell mice or rats because I object to them being used as snake food (and I know multiple people in pets stores who have said this and been hired), they should not suddenly turn around and force me to either sell mice and rats as food or risk losing my job. If a law ties their hands but their is an alternative (ie. having another staff member on hand or transfering the employee to another location) then it should be their responsibility to offer that to the employee. This has nothing to do with new employees, but the ones who entered a field that they could perform due to the laws and policies existing at the time of their being hired.

I think the type of job factors in as well. You have a profession that requires a college education and years of training, and at least some of these people entered this field being told that they would not have to distribute these pills, these particular ones where told this by their employer.

There's a difference between changing markets and forcing someone to engage in extreme immorality and go against their religion when they were told they would not have to engage in those behaviors when hired.

Duo_Maxwell

12-01-2005, 12:40 AM

I pointed it out as a shortfall of parental controls, but I don't recall 'complaining' about it. I'd like to see them include parental controls, but I don't think that, in itself, is entirely foolproof.

Well didn't mean to put it in such a bad light, complaining was a poor choice of words perhaps. And while I agree it's not entirely foolproof, few things in life are, epseically when it comes to technology. However, to be honest, I think parental controls would do a lot more good int he long run than trying to limit sales in any capacity. Kids have always found away to get their hands on things they technically aren't supposed to have anyways. If you as a parent enable parental controls, little Timmy can't play that copy of GTA that his friend's parents let him buy on the system in your home. To be honest, if the government wants to create legislation so badly about this issue why not have the FCC or themselves issue a requirement for parental controls like they once did for televisions, instead of skating on consitutional thin ice and using strong regulation and backdoor censorship techniques. Still, I guess this would actually require parents to, ya know be parents and all that.

As for the argument raised by others that parents aren't familar with technology to enough to use parental controls, I don't totally buy this as well. Anyone who has a DVD player or has bothered to use a modern TV or cable box and cares about what their children sees/plays (after all this is the point) has probably used paretnal controls in some capacity before. Even if they haven't it's usually rather easy and is explained on the manual. OPlus there's the fact that many people age 25-50 often are at least somewhat computer orientated because they use one at least periodically in the workplace (and if not they usually know somebody who is). From working in retail I know there are some pretty technologially handicapped people so to speak, however most of those people can still figure things out if it's explained to them in some manner or they try it for themselves. So basically, if you can't take a couple hours out of your life to figure it out, you probably don't give a crap about what your kid watches/plays anyhow.

mykevermin

12-01-2005, 01:00 AM

So the fact that this same issue has been deemed unconstitutional by federal judges when individual states or cities tried it doesn't matter? How is it any different besides being done on a federal level instead of on a state or city level?

Well, I'm not certain of the *logic* behind its unconstitutionality, not whether it has been deemed so in the past. Perhaps you can be of some assistance?

bmulligan

12-01-2005, 01:04 AM

I am a firm believer in Video Games as a form of art. However, I do believe that this law might not pass, might even backfire in Clinton's face, showing her true ignorance. The only good that can come from this is less 8 year olds playing Halo 3 :)

It's doesn't matter if it passes or not. The objective isn't to do the right thing, it's to get your face on TV while feigning concern for 'family values', and eroding the rights of States and individuals along the way as a bonus. Very little is done in Washington for moral reasons. Political expediency rules the day.

mykevermin

12-01-2005, 01:05 AM

Well didn't mean to put it in such a bad light, complaining was a poor choice of words perhaps. And while I agree it's not entirely foolproof, few things in life are, epseically when it comes to technology. However, to be honest, I think parental controls would do a lot more good int he long run than trying to limit sales in any capacity. Kids have always found away to get their hands on things they technically aren't supposed to have anyways. If you as a parent enable parental controls, little Timmy can't play that copy of GTA that his friend's parents let him buy on the system in your home. To be honest, if the government wants to create legislation so badly about this issue why not have the FCC or themselves issue a requirement for parental controls like they once did for televisions, instead of skating on consitutional thin ice and using strong regulation and backdoor censorship techniques. Still, I guess this would actually require parents to, ya know be parents and all that.

Certainly. The legal application of Clinton's proposed legislation, moreso than parental controls, allows for greater sales, of course. That is, if we accept the logic that more sales will occur for those who are (and I use this term loosely) "deviant" enough to purchase games that their parents otherwise would not allow them to have. So, to take the pro-economy side of the argument, attempting to reduce the *acquisition* of games is better for game sales than preventing the *use* of said games on the console.

That having been said, I'm not a huge fan of many economic arguments, and I don't see why one (parental controls) should invalidate the other (legislative monitoring of game sales) as a means of preventing games from, *ahem*, "getting into the wrong hands."

kakomu

12-01-2005, 01:05 AM

Capitalist_mao seeing as how you've obviously decided to follow your party line

Which party would that be? I don't remember ever saying I was affiliated with any party.

Also, to everyone talking about parental control, I have one thing to say to you: "7444". That's the code used to override the parental controls on any playstation 2. Took me about 15 minutes of hunting, and is freely available on many different FAQs devoted to the playstation 2. This means that parental controls are simple to override. Which could especially be true if consoles have a hard reset function like a router may have.

bmulligan

12-01-2005, 01:15 AM

That having been said, I'm not a huge fan of many economic arguments, and I don't see why one (parental controls) should invalidate the other (legislative monitoring of game sales) as a means of preventing games from, *ahem*, "getting into the wrong hands."

States regulate the sale of alcohol, tobacco and porn to minors, why should the federal government magically have the power to do this for videogames? The next logical step in this slipperiness is a tax on every videogame to pay for this control, or regulation.

mykevermin

12-01-2005, 01:19 AM

States regulate the sale of alcohol, tobacco and porn to minors, why should the federal government magically have the power to do this for videogames? The next logical step in this slipperiness is a tax on every videogame to pay for this control, or regulation.

Because the magical tree fairies at the state level pay for it? What's yer fuckin' point?

chakan

12-01-2005, 01:21 AM

kakomu

12-01-2005, 01:25 AM

So big bother is the only answer? No personal or parental responsibility? Why don't I just hand over my child now to be suckled by the state?

"As far as censorship how do you see it that way the Government gets blamed for this all the time but lets not forget the FCC only deals with "public free airwaves" Thats why Cable can have all the Nudity and cussing it wants the FCC stays out of it, Same with Sat. Radio and the Internet."

FCC wants to regulate cable! Maybe Hillary can help!
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-OJOK1133302262209.html

Seems to me that the FCC wishes to CENSOR cable TV. Seriously a different matter than regulating the sale.

Oh yea, forgot about this:

http://www.techlore.com/article/10624/

Here's how to circumvent Xbox parental controls. I'm going to look out for how to circumvent Xbox360 parental controls and whether there's parental controls in Gamecub and how to circumvent those.

FriskyTanuki

12-01-2005, 01:28 AM

Well, I'm not certain of the *logic* behind its unconstitutionality, not whether it has been deemed so in the past. Perhaps you can be of some assistance?

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/DiscussionStarters/BanningViolentVideoGames.shtml

Why do video game manufacturers and lawmakers say that banning the sale of these video games to minors is unconstitutional?
Legislators and game manufacturers argue that:

It violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.
Violent or explicit cannot be defined in the laws, leaving no specific test to decide what is considered indecent.
Numerous court decisions have already declared such laws unconstitutional.
Banning video games is a slippery slope that leads to censorship.
Manufacturers already rate their games and prevent sales of mature games to minors.

This might be what you're looking for.

kakomu

12-01-2005, 01:33 AM

How do the manufacturers ban the sale of these games to minors? Only if you try to order Resident Evil from Capcom.com?

Also, while it's stated that violence cannot be defined in laws, that's why the non-profit organization called the ESRB exists to deem what types of games warrant an M rating, and which are merely T.

Duo_Maxwell

12-01-2005, 01:37 AM

Certainly. The legal application of Clinton's proposed legislation, moreso than parental controls, allows for greater sales, of course. That is, if we accept the logic that more sales will occur for those who are (and I use this term loosely) "deviant" enough to purchase games that their parents otherwise would not allow them to have. So, to take the pro-economy side of the argument, attempting to reduce the *acquisition* of games is better for game sales than preventing the *use* of said games on the console.

That having been said, I'm not a huge fan of many economic arguments, and I don't see why one (parental controls) should invalidate the other (legislative monitoring of game sales) as a means of preventing games from, *ahem*, "getting into the wrong hands."

Well I wasn't trying to argue it from an economical view anyways. My point was parental controls will simply more effective, in the long run epsecially, in preventing children from playing more mature games than regulating sales would because if said child manages to skit the new law they still, in theory (let's face it some crazy kids are like code-breakers), won't be able to play the game in your home. The difference between the two is simple though. It's true they aren't intertwined at all so technically one doesn't outright invalidate the other, but one would certainly be more effective IMo and the choice would be a household/parental decision, not something forced on people by government regulations. It would also skirt possible worst case scenario of M-rated games being phased out that I brought up sometime ago.

Well, I'm not certain of the *logic* behind its unconstitutionality, not whether it has been deemed so in the past. Perhaps you can be of some assistance?

Here's a quote from a ruling Judge on similar law in Washington (the state):

Judge Lasnik noted that similar portrayals of violence can be seen in literature, art, and the media and that "there is no indication that such expressions have ever been excluded from the protections of the First Amendment."

Judge Lasnik determined that "the...belief that video games cause violence is not based on reasonable inferences drawn from substantial evidence."

Basically they are unconsitutional because it's typically found they limit expression when it is not warranted and because of vague wordage. In this case the state tried to prove that games like GTA should be viewed as legally obscene and the court shot that down.

Which party would that be? I don't remember ever saying I was affiliated with any party.

Also, to everyone talking about parental control, I have one thing to say to you: "7444". That's the code used to override the parental controls on any playstation 2. Took me about 15 minutes of hunting, and is freely available on many different FAQs devoted to the playstation 2. This means that parental controls are simple to override. Which could especially be true if consoles have a hard reset function like a router may have.

Sorry that comment was sort of low, I gotta admit I was on edge about the Duke-IU game so I apoligize for that.

However, still disagree with you and that includes the comment amount parental controls. Can they be overridden? Certainly. Are they improving to make that more difficult? Yes, suprise, this thing called technology does advance. Here's the situation, if your code is overridden it resets the thing entirely, making it extremely easy to tell that your kid has done this. Is it too crazy a thought that you check up on your kid every now and again and if he/she has done this you *gasp* punish them in some manner? Even with the added ease of things through technology, until we have 24 hour robot nannies, some actual hands-on parenting is still required.

kakomu

12-01-2005, 01:45 AM

However, still disagree with you and that includes the comment amount parental controls. Can they be overridden? Certainly. Are they improving to make that more difficult? Yes, suprise, this thing called technology does advance. Here's the situation, if your code is overridden it resets the thing entirely, making it extremely easy to tell that your kid has done this. Is it too crazy a thought that you check up on your kid every now and again and if he/she has done this you *gasp* punish them in some manner? Even with the added ease of things through technology, until we have 24 hour robot nannies, some actual hands-on parenting is still required.

The problem with a purely technological means of lockout is that kids are going to figure it out before parents, and that many parents just won't be able to figure them out, period. Much like I was able to figure out how to program the clock when my mom asked me to do so with only a few minutes of fiddling, or how I've solved nearly every problem that my mom may have had with her computer (within reason. She complains how slow her computer is, but is unwilling to disable the 4 or 5 different programs that scan her HD for viruses, malware or firewall everything from starting up...which is obviously the problem).

Duo_Maxwell

12-01-2005, 01:58 AM

Seems to me that the FCC wishes to CENSOR cable TV. Seriously a different matter than regulating the sale.

Oh yea, forgot about this:

http://www.techlore.com/article/10624/

Here's how to circumvent Xbox parental controls. I'm going to look out for how to circumvent Xbox360 parental controls and whether there's parental controls in Gamecub and how to circumvent those.

Censor:

A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

Regulating sales even to minors would be considered borderline supression to me. When they tell tobacco/liquor companies they can't have ads on TV at certain times (or at all) in certain places, etc. is that censorship, because last I checked the gov't still calls is regulations. In Roman times a censor was a gov't official who went about telling people what they couldn't morally do (and they took census). Isn't that's what going on here? It's a thin line and a form of back door censorship, by forcing "regulations" on retailers (not to mention their technical right to sell to whomever they like) they hope to censor violence from children by supressing their right to freely view an open/acceptable medium.

Also the cube doesn't have parental controls IIRC. But seeing as how you're against the idea of parental controls it brings up a solid point. Why should an 8 or 9 year old be allowed to play a Teen rated game, but a 15 or 16 year old can't play a mature game? Parental controls can keep little kids from playing Teen or even E 10+ games, a proposed bill like this can't do that. So at least should you agree that parental controls should be included on consoles anyhow?

kakomu

12-01-2005, 02:13 AM

Also the cube doesn't have parental controls IIRC. But seeing as how you're against the idea of parental controls it brings up a solid point. Why should an 8 or 9 year old be allowed to play a Teen rated game, but a 15 or 16 year old can't play a mature game? Parental controls can keep little kids from playing Teen or even E 10+ games, a proposed bill like this can't do that. So at least should you agree that parental controls should be included on consoles anyhow?

I'm not against parental controls. However, I think that, as it stands, parental controls are deeply flawed and easily circumventable. Not to mention, there is a desire to set and forget, and who's to say that once kids learn to circumvent, they won't do it all the time (as a means of civil disobedience). Not sure how many parents can hold their children under lock and key for very long periods of time.

This argument, in conjunction with good parenting and video game review will quickly degenerate into a death spiral of circular logic. To me, I see no problem with restricting of sale to minors of violent video games. I will continue to have no problem until the government feels it necessary to dictate what can and cannot be in video games like an FCC censor. So far, this bill doesn't appear to do that, as any challenge to content is either steeped in slippery slope arguments or indirect logic.

varsitygamer

12-01-2005, 02:26 AM

Also, to everyone talking about parental control, I have one thing to say to you: "7444". That's the code used to override the parental controls on any playstation 2. Took me about 15 minutes of hunting, and is freely available on many different FAQs devoted to the playstation 2. This means that parental controls are simple to override. Which could especially be true if consoles have a hard reset function like a router may have.

That doesn't get parents off the hook! Kids are NOT like some Ron Popeil revolutionary invention. In fact, "set it, and forget it" is all too frequently the mentality in parenthood. Aside from setting the parental lockout, the parent should probably also CHECK to see what the kid is playing once in a while. The videogame system (and internet capable computers) should be in a family room, or common place, until the parent feels the child is able to handle the responsibility of those amenities within their own room. This way, aside from knowing what their children bought for videogames, they also have some idea of what the kid may be playing during their time spent on the console. (let's not forget, the only reason i got to play the Super Nintendo iteration of Killer Instinct is because a friend lent it to me)

Also, while it's stated that violence cannot be defined in laws, that's why the non-profit organization called the ESRB exists to deem what types of games warrant an M rating, and which are merely T.
EXACTLY! And this bill has a provision that would allow the FCC (a governmental entity) to audit the ratings system of the ESRB! Through that, the government is still defining what violence is, in this medium at least.

bmulligan

12-01-2005, 02:51 AM

Because the magical tree fairies at the state level pay for it? What's yer fuckin' point?

My fucking point is that the pro or con economic argument is moot when the end result is a federal stamp on every videogame made and sold in the USA that adds $$ to the price of videogames so that Uncle Sam can enforce regulation. Even State control would levy a tax per item, and maybe more for an M rated game than an E rated game. No other form of media or entertainment is regulated in this way, so why start with videogames?

Becuase it's an easy foot in the door. Regulating book sales isn't as ridiculous as previously thought when you realize the Feds will collect a fee for every book sold, or every movie ticket purchased, or every dvd purchased, all to protect our children from being exposed to what they determine is mal-content. It may look like just an attack on games, but it has the potential to be much more than that.

alonzomourning23

12-01-2005, 03:09 AM

Is anything not a slippery slope mulligan? I'm not even just talking about this, but most of your arguments are based on some sort of slippery slope.

mykevermin

12-01-2005, 07:43 AM

My fucking point is that the pro or con economic argument is moot when the end result is a federal stamp on every videogame made and sold in the USA that adds $$ to the price of videogames so that Uncle Sam can enforce regulation. Even State control would levy a tax per item, and maybe more for an M rated game than an E rated game. No other form of media or entertainment is regulated in this way, so why start with videogames?

Becuase it's an easy foot in the door. Regulating book sales isn't as ridiculous as previously thought when you realize the Feds will collect a fee for every book sold, or every movie ticket purchased, or every dvd purchased, all to protect our children from being exposed to what they determine is mal-content. It may look like just an attack on games, but it has the potential to be much more than that.

If I had a nickel for every "law of unintended consequences" and "slippery slope" argument you made, I'd be able to buy several naughty "M" rated games.

I don't see you complain about the extra cost for the recording industry in "cleaning" up lyrics (which involves *far* more than simply muddling/bleeping bad language) so their CD can be sold in Wal-Mart. I'm certain this is because it is company-based regulation, not government. OTOH, every CD you buy is potentially a bit more expensive because of the extra time spent in the studio to rerecord lyrics, to hire professionals to edit the lyrical content of an album, or to redesign the layout of an album. This isn't labor that's done for free as a service to the community; you're paying for it whether or not you buy cds at Wal-Mart, and you're paying for it whether or not you buy the "clean" or "naughty" versions. You libertarian types who capitulate so damned quickly when a business says jump, yet act like the government is the same vagrant you've seen begging for 15 years are so boring and so predictable, not to mention simple-minded, that it's not even fun to argue with you. I'm sure you'd love to see the day that our entire prison and military systems are fully privatized and in the hands of Kellogg, Brown, and Root.

That having been said, this legislation may be related to the (as of yet unrpoven) notion that playing violent video games leads to violent behavior. It may not be. I can't think of a single example that shows your "slippery slope to no more video games being made ever" argument holds even the tiniest sliver of validity. Is there something that can constitute speech (and not, I suppose, obscenity - though that's another issue) that, due to government regulation, has ceased to exist as a result of greater and greater pressure and censorship from the government? Well, possibly some types of controversial art; that has to do with censorship indirectly, however; although it may not have been banned, not having NEA funding can rapdily stifle an artist's career. In the end, it could be that artists subtly learn what to do to get NEA approval, and self-censor to adhere to their standards.

What we're talking about is the monitoring of sales, which is unrelated to that. Really, in the end, if people in this country are *dumb* enough to fight for a corporation's right to kill them in the form of tobacco, then I think that any sort of "slippery slope" argument is not only something that has no prior proof, but something we, as gamers and as parents, have very little to worry about.

mykevermin

12-01-2005, 07:57 AM

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/DiscussionStarters/BanningViolentVideoGames.shtml
This might be what you're looking for.

Thanks.

Why do video game manufacturers and lawmakers say that banning the sale of these video games to minors is unconstitutional?
Legislators and game manufacturers argue that:

* It violates the First Amendment’s freedom of speech.
That's the legal argument, that porn is "obscenity" and thus not speech. I'll repeat what I said earlier, and what capitalist_mao (see! I read your posts!) said; monitoring the sales of video games to minors does not violate free speech, but it does make certain that the parent or guardian of a minor must be directly involved in any transaction that involves the purchase of an "M" rated title. My argument may not be legally correct, but I'm not a lawyer. It's a simple enough concept, though. I can still buy "The Adventures of Sex Man Killing Everyone and Fornicating With the Ladies in Tough Guy Land" for Xbox if I wanted to, and damned near anywhere I wanted to (I do know of a few local toy stores that don't carry "M" titles). If I were 17, then mom or dad would have to buy it. I see this distinction being that, since the parents are deciding what is or isn't purchased, that parents are the ones doing the censoring.

* Violent or explicit cannot be defined in the laws, leaving no specific test to decide what is considered indecent.
I suppose that's a valid point, but they seem to be undermining the ESRB itself here. "We just make shit up" they seem to be saying, since, of course, standards of violence are arbitrary. Somehow, I think that, using the specific guidelines listed on the rating sheet on the back (where is says "foul language/drug use/blood and gore") could be used as criteria for this. The answer is under their noses.

* Numerous court decisions have already declared such laws unconstitutional.
That never stopped anybody before. I'd like to see what laws they proposed, and what context they were in; I don't have the time, admittedly, to look all that up. Sorry.

* Banning video games is a slippery slope that leads to censorship.
Unproven in any prior case. See my previous lengthy post.

* Manufacturers already rate their games and prevent sales of mature games to minors.
No mention of the 40% of minors who successfully purchased "M" titles? Oh, my, how could that statistic have been left off the argument? Could that be because it makes them look like buffoons and liars about that last argument? Oh, indeed!

camoor

12-01-2005, 11:11 AM

It was walgreens policy to allow people who did not want to fulfill certain prescriptions (like the morning after pill) to be able to direct them to another walgreens or pharmacist (they couldn't just say no). It's a policy pharmacists are familiar with, and pharmacies have long accepted. It's very unlikely that this was never brought up.

I agree with the last sentence. If there is such a policy that allows pharmacists to pick and choose which medications to serve based on their moral whims, then I vehemently disagree with this policy and am glad that laws are being put in place that guarantee the freedom of the consumer to buy in-stock medication.

I think the type of job factors in as well. You have a profession that requires a college education and years of training, and at least some of these people entered this field being told that they would not have to distribute these pills, these particular ones where told this by their employer.

There's a difference between changing markets and forcing someone to engage in extreme immorality and go against their religion when they were told they would not have to engage in those behaviors when hired.

Your idea that all job desciriptions should remain frozen in time, and never change from what was offered at the interview is a nice socialist viewpoint. Unfortunately for you, in the real world of American capitalism, job descriptions DO change and people with rigid moral views that are out of step with freedoms protected by law and our system of trade may find that they are no longer qualified to hold certain jobs. However with his fanatical and archaic perspective, I'm sure this pharmacist can get a job selling home remedies to the Amish. :D

Quillion

12-01-2005, 12:10 PM

This really drew the VS forum out of the safe little area with the padded walls.

:lol:

alonzomourning23

12-01-2005, 09:58 PM

Your idea that all job desciriptions should remain frozen in time, and never change from what was offered at the interview is a nice socialist viewpoint. Unfortunately for you, in the real world of American capitalism, job descriptions DO change and people with rigid moral views that are out of step with freedoms protected by law and our system of trade may find that they are no longer qualified to hold certain jobs. However with his fanatical and archaic perspective, I'm sure this pharmacist can get a job selling home remedies to the Amish. :D

I've never seen a liberal who constantly throws socialist around like you.

I get the feeling that if someone joined the military on the condition that they would work behind a desk and not fight, you wouldn't be so understanding if they suddenly sent them off to combat. Your logic allows employers to do whatever they want with employees regardless of what was originally agreed.

FriskyTanuki

12-01-2005, 11:29 PM

I suppose that's a valid point, but they seem to be undermining the ESRB itself here. "We just make shit up" they seem to be saying, since, of course, standards of violence are arbitrary. Somehow, I think that, using the specific guidelines listed on the rating sheet on the back (where is says "foul language/drug use/blood and gore") could be used as criteria for this. The answer is under their noses.
Isn't giving a private party (in this case the ESRB) governmental powers (giving power to their ratings) unconstitutional?

Beyond that, Lowenstein said it would be unconstitutional, and not just for infringing on the creative rights of game developers. The fact that Clinton intends to base what is and isn't acceptable to sell to minors on the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) ratings system gives the industry more grounds to attack the bill's constitutionality, according to Lowenstein.

"While we are gratified that the Senator holds the ESRB in such high regard that her bill would give these ratings the force of law, the courts have made clear that giving a private party governmental powers is unconstitutional," Lowenstein wrote.

Also:
The Seventh Circuit indicated that there would need to be scientific certainty that such games would actually harm a child before the child’s First Amendment rights could be restricted.
http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/conf2001/papers/walsh.html

That never stopped anybody before. I'd like to see what laws they proposed, and what context they were in; I don't have the time, admittedly, to look all that up. Sorry.
California law dafanged. (http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/t3redemption/news.html?sid=6108135)
Washington law taken down. (http://www.cbldf.org/articles/archives/000189.shtml)
Indianapolic law stopped. (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13519)
Michigan law blocked. (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/gta4/news.html?sid=6139517)
[url=http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/143981.html]Updates on the California, Michigan, and Illinois laws. Illinois's is not looking good, the labeling not looking good, Michigan described above, and the California law being decided next week.
There's several of them and there's probably a couple more that I missed, but these are what I can remember.

camoor

12-01-2005, 11:56 PM

I've never seen a liberal who constantly throws socialist around like you.

I get the feeling that if someone joined the military on the condition that they would work behind a desk and not fight, you wouldn't be so understanding if they suddenly sent them off to combat. Your logic allows employers to do whatever they want with employees regardless of what was originally agreed.

Nope - I just think that store clerks should be required to sell all of a store's in-stock merchandise, not just the merchandise that happens to coincide with their moral outlook. My vegatarian grocery clerk should not be allowed to refuse to sell me pork chops, and my Walgreen's pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse to sell me birth control.

If someone wants to open a vegetarian grocery store or a christian pharmacy, then that's their right, but if you take a job with a store owned by someone else, then you either agree to that store policy (even if it changes) and STFU or you just quit and take your morality with you.

BTW, who said I was liberal? ;)

alonzomourning23

12-02-2005, 12:53 AM

Nope - I just think that store clerks should be required to sell all of a store's in-stock merchandise, not just the merchandise that happens to coincide with their moral outlook. My vegatarian grocery clerk should not be allowed to refuse to sell me pork chops, and my Walgreen's pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse to sell me birth control.

If someone wants to open a vegetarian grocery store or a christian pharmacy, then that's their right, but if you take a job with a store owned by someone else, then you either agree to that store policy (even if it changes) and STFU or you just quit and take your morality with you.

BTW, who said I was liberal? ;)

But why should the employer get a free ride when they are the one who hired that employee?

For example, you walk into a small grocery store to buy pork but you find that there is only one employee on duty and they're vegetarian. Now not only that, they have been told by their employer, when hired, that they would not have to sell pork or other meat. Why would you place the blame on the employee moreso than the employer? I get the feeling that, if it was a cause you believe in (something other than anti abortion, or christian reasons) your opinion wouldn't be as strong.

Look, with something as important as medicine there should always be someone there to fulfill the prescription. But that does not mean the employer is exempt from agreements they made with the employee. This isn't a case of slow business, vanishing market etc. The employee is doing exactly what the employee and employer expected when they were hired. As long as there is an alternative, it should be the employers responsibility to offer that alternative to the employee.

Mono`

12-02-2005, 01:23 AM

No worries. Some video game vigilante freak will go right up to hilary clinton and fuck her shit up for sure.

bmulligan

12-02-2005, 03:02 AM

I don't see you complain about the extra cost for the recording industry in "cleaning" up lyrics (which involves *far* more than simply muddling/bleeping bad language) so their CD can be sold in Wal-Mart. I'm certain this is because it is company-based regulation, not government. OTOH, every CD you buy is potentially a bit more expensive because of the extra time spent in the studio to rerecord lyrics, to hire professionals to edit the lyrical content of an album, or to redesign the layout of an album. This isn't labor that's done for free as a service to the community; you're paying for it whether or not you buy cds at Wal-Mart, and you're paying for it whether or not you buy the "clean" or "naughty" versions.
I'm not complaining. It's a company's choice to put out 'clean' versions of their products. What's your fucking point?

You libertarian types who capitulate so damned quickly when a business says jump, yet act like the government is the same vagrant you've seen begging for 15 years are so boring and so predictable, not to mention simple-minded, that it's not even fun to argue with you.
Libertarians don't capitulate to business, they act to protect it. It's libs like you who automatically capitulate to government.

Government is a vagrant looking for ways to steal your money. The difference is that they don't beg for it, they just start taking it. The simple minded person is the one who fails to recognize that and thinks the government would only help us and never do anything to curtail our freedom.

I can't think of a single example that shows your "slippery slope to no more video games being made ever" argument holds even the tiniest sliver of validity. Is there something that can constitute speech (and not, I suppose, obscenity - though that's another issue) that, due to government regulation, has ceased to exist as a result of greater and greater pressure and censorship from the government?

I'm not making 'speech' arguments about censorship or about videogames becoming non-existent. Whores like Hillary don't give a crap about kids or violence in games, they just want their cut, or tax on every one produced. But you've made it clear that you don't care how many cuts the government takes, becuase it's better to give it to them than any evil corporation.

What we're talking about is the monitoring of sales, which is unrelated to that. Really, in the end, if people in this country are *dumb* enough to fight for a corporation's right to kill them in the form of tobacco, then I think that any sort of "slippery slope" argument is not only something that has no prior proof, but something we, as gamers and as parents, have very little to worry about.

What we're talking about is the federal monitoring of sales which is unprecedented, and a giant usurpation of individual and state control over an entertainment medium. Feds don't regulate alcohol, movies, or porn, states do. We should be questioning the motivation behind this legislation, not capitulating to it as being innocuous or benign simply becuase a few senators claim they only have good intentions.

camoor

12-02-2005, 08:20 AM

Look, with something as important as medicine there should always be someone there to fulfill the prescription. But that does not mean the employer is exempt from agreements they made with the employee. This isn't a case of slow business, vanishing market etc. The employee is doing exactly what the employee and employer expected when they were hired. As long as there is an alternative, it should be the employers responsibility to offer that alternative to the employee.

Read the article again - the law just changed as a result of the governor's sponsored legislation being passed. Now the law requires pharmacists to fill all in-stock prescriptions regardless of their personal morality, and this pharmacist is breaking the law every time he refuses medication to the store's customers.

Yet even if the company was just trying to maximize profits, I would still support their move of firing this dangerous pharmacist. A job is like a contract between a company and an employee*. As soon as one of the two parties can make more money elsewhere, they should be within their rights to modify or break this contract (assuming the contract does not have a specified lifespan). Verbal agreements are not worth the paper they are written on.

* Of course, there should be SOME limitations on companies enforced by government regulations. Safe working conditions, judicious compensation for overtime, and health benefits are a few of the regulations I approve of for employees. However I do not support upholding the moral whims of an employee over the rights of the consumer to purchase in-stock store items. Or in layman's terms - this pharmacist should know his damn role.

FriskyTanuki

12-04-2005, 08:41 PM

http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/147862.html
Another Senator joins the gang.

Duo_Maxwell

12-04-2005, 10:14 PM

http://www.livejournal.com/users/gamepolitics/147862.html
Another Senator joins the gang.

I voted for him too...

Actually this is a little disaapointing for me as I really like Senator Bayh alot. I'd still vote for him even though I disagree strongly with his approach here. I just hope he's not becoming like our Mayor here in the capital, who I don't like much at all partially for his trying to become Mayor Morals about once every other year and also how he handles many issues too though.

bmulligan

12-05-2005, 02:25 AM

It's almost time for Mr Spectre and Mr Hatch to bring up the flag burning ammendment again. You think game regulation is a dumb idea? Wait until they write out freedom of speech from the constitution.

kakomu

12-05-2005, 02:51 AM

bmulligan

12-06-2005, 01:02 AM

Still, another slippery slope argument.

Sorry, there's no slope to their ammendment. The only thing that's slipping is the resistance to it being passed and ratified.

bmulligan

12-06-2005, 01:20 AM

kakomu

12-06-2005, 02:03 AM

Mao, what exactly is your problem with 'slippery slopes', anyway? They are not arguments onto themselves and cannot be invalid by their existence alone. In some cases, they can be outrageous, but in some cases, they are relevant.

All potential legislation must be extrapolated to it's most extreme point of prudence in order to gauge it's effectiveness, preserve, or inhibit it's scope. Slippery slopes are simply logical progressions of the undermining of a chain of postulates in order to invalidate a principle. It should be our duty to investigate slilppery slopes to determine if they are intentional, or unintended, and to rectify them before they cause damage. Unfortunately, our legislators are more concerned with political expediency than unintended consequences.

Is it that you have a problem with certain princlples or absolutes?

Because, a slippery slope is an indirect route to get to an end. However, this end can vary wildly and is simply left up to the imagination of the person making the argument. Someone earlier made the argument that this legislation will lead a 1984 dystopian country, but apparently according to your reasoning that's a valid assumption. I have a hard time believing that (if anything, it will be the egregious breaches of protocol that P.A.T.R.I.O.T. has enacted that will lead to the downfall of society, but I digress).

Anyways, there's no reason to believe that just because event A happen, events B-F are going to happen. There are so many possibilities between the two disparate events (legislation enacted, and downfall of the first amendment and yes, they're quite disparate) that you would either have to argue each separate event, or make the casual link "because you said so".

As for writing out freedom of speech, Bush has already done so. Look at the free speech zones.

Essentially, slippery slopes break down into an illegitimate use of the if-then operators as each following "then" is more outrageous than the last.

I think I'll go to the next extreme. I believe that this legislation will not only help video gamers shed that nasty stereotype of being stinky letches that live in basements, but it will help bring the world together and end cultural strife. It's obvious that with less violence being shown to our nation's youth, we'll be a better society.