Clinton introducing federal game regulation

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

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?
 
[quote name='camoor']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.[/quote]

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 :whistle2:|
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[quote name='cyrix`']This is unconstitional.


They technically can't do it.


Case closed.[/QUOTE]

Games are 'enemy combatants' and the constitution does not apply to them.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']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?[/QUOTE]

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

Obscenity is defined by community standards.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']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]

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?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']delicatessen[/QUOTE]

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

[quote name='Quillion']javeryh isn't to be convinced because he is an attorney.[/QUOTE]

So, in his case, the job description is to be willfully ignorant of any arguments that are contrary to his position?
 
[quote name='Quillion']javeryh isn't to be convinced because he is an attorney.[/QUOTE]

So, in his case, the job description is to be willfully ignorant of any arguments that are contrary to his position?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Not to be rude, but delicatessen is either a store (a deli) or a food. Otherwise, you have a deli worker.
[/QUOTE]


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

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

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

No Problemo.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='chakan']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.[/QUOTE]

The FCC, radio and TV are different beasts altogether from video games.

Also, from what I can see, the government may have the ability to make ratings more stringent, but has no ability to censor games.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']
So, in his case, the job description is to be willfully ignorant of any arguments that are contrary to his position?[/QUOTE]

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
 
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.

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:
 
[quote name='jpuma1']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.

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:[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']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[/QUOTE]
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?
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='jpuma1']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.[/quote]

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:
Click to expand...

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


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.
 
[quote name='jpuma1']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.[/quote]

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

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.
 
[quote name='62t']I hope people are happy with a T version of Halo 3[/QUOTE]

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

halo_soaker_211.jpg.w180h239.jpg
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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.
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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 :)
 
[quote name='camoor']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)[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']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?[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Ozzkev55']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 :)[/QUOTE]

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

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."
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Capitalist_mao seeing as how you've obviously decided to follow your party line[/QUOTE]

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

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.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']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.[/QUOTE]

Because the magical tree fairies at the state level pay for it? What's yer fuckin' point?
 
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
 
[quote name='chakan']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[/QUOTE]

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

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/e...ussionStarters/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.
Click to expand...

This might be what you're looking for.
 
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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."[/QUOTE]

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.


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

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.


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

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

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

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

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

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)

[quote name='capitalist_mao']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.[/QUOTE]
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.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because the magical tree fairies at the state level pay for it? What's yer fuckin' point?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']http://www.constitutioncenter.org/e...ussionStarters/BanningViolentVideoGames.shtml
This might be what you're looking for.[/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Unproven in any prior case. See my previous lengthy post.

* Manufacturers already rate their games and prevent sales of mature games to minors.
Click to expand...
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!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']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. [/QUOTE]

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.

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

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