Clinton introducing federal game regulation

[quote name='capitalist_mao']Plenty of laws against being bad parents. However, I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic there, or not.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='eldad9']Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Noodle Pirate!']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.[/QUOTE]

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:
 
[quote name='basketkase543']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?[/QUOTE]

I think the difference is that the movie industry is self regulated while the video game industry would be regulated by the govt.
 
If 42% of kids under the age are getting the games themselves, that needs to be fixed.
Click to expand...

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?
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi3']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:[/QUOTE]

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)

[quote name='varsitygamer']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='ryanbph']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[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='bmulligan']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 ![/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='chakan']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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)[/QUOTE]

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).

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='eldad9']Will you support similar legislation for movies and books?[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='varsitygamer'] 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).[/quote]

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.

[quote name='varsitygamer'] 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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']As far as banning the sale of AO games.. do we not already have such legislation for movies and books?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='alonzo']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![/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']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. [/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='kev']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='kev']Lastly, conspiracy theorists and Bradbury fans be damned. Porn hasn't exactly been hurt by being relegated to the back walls you know.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
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:

[quote name='ryanbph']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[/QUOTE]

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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='javeryh']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='javeryh']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?[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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).[/QUOTE]
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?

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']C) RPGs are rarely M-rated, yet are considered some of the best video game stories around.[/QUOTE]
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?

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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).[/QUOTE]
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?

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']A) That's pretty classist of you. There are plenty of low-income households that have video games. I came from one.[/QUOTE]
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.

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.[/QUOTE]

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 :whistle2:|
 
[quote name='camoor']extra ham-serving non-Jew delicatessen[/QUOTE]
That phrase makes me smile.

[quote name='ryanbph']for the most part, the party doesn't want to get involved in censorship.[/quote]
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.

[quote name='javeryh']There's no doubt that eventually there will be porn video games - I bet right now someone is working on it.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='chickenhawk']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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.[/QUOTE]

: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!
 
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
 
[quote name='gamereviewgod']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?[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='basketkase543']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?[/QUOTE]
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Explain how it is.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
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.

.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='javeryh']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.[/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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! [/QUOTE]

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!
 
[quote name='javeryh']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![/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']No, the regulation of the sale of video games is not a regulation of the content. They are two seperate entities.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='javeryh']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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[quote name='javeryh'] 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.[/QUOTE]

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!
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top