I'd guess it's more along the lines of the stores' right to run their business as they see fit. The adverse effects of videogames are nowhere near as clear as those of tobacco or alcohol, which is why I don't think it's nearly as necessary to bring this into the realm of law. And even if it does enter the realm of law, I think the public interest is not so compelling that I'd care to see it pushed down from the federal level. In many areas (even entire states) existing store policies seem to be working just fine.
But this begs the question, really, as to whether a store's right to sell whatever they want to whomever they want overrides a parent's right to restrict access to media purchases for their kids. I guess I just don't see that the emotional opposition to the issue has anything to do with proprietors' rights, and I don't see any compelling reason for politicians to fall on their swords in order to defend some basically irrelevant principle in this context. It's a popular and mostly unnecessary law with reasonable theoretical justification, and it probably empowers a more fundamental right than it undermines.
In the past, many cases of industry self-regulation in similar contexts have managed to avoid legislation (advertising of hard liquor on television is one), mostly because industries have a lot more lobbying power than parents' groups.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Why do people always mention Fred Thompson's height?
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
Why do people always mention Fred Thompson's height?
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
If only this had worked for Bill Bradley.
With his towering height he could slam dunk after dunk over his humiliated opponents.
Octoparrot on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Why do people always mention Fred Thompson's height?
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
If only this had worked for Bill Bradley.
With his towering height he could slam dunk after dunk over his humiliated opponents.
Bradley had turkey-neck though. That's like minus fifteen inches.
Say, do the flag-burning amendments that've been drafted so far make an exception for burning it ceremonially, since that is the traditional, accepted, patriotic means of disposing of an old flag? It seems like a flag burning amendment would have to actually say "You can't burn a flag specifically as a means of protest, you america-hating hippie" which would be such an obvious and egregious assault on free speech that I can't imagine it would ever pass.
There are 65 senators and over 2/3rd of the House that you need to talk to, then. (probably less, I forget who all voted for it and how many of them got thrown out)
moniker on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Say, do the flag-burning amendments that've been drafted so far make an exception for burning it ceremonially, since that is the traditional, accepted, patriotic means of disposing of an old flag? It seems like a flag burning amendment would have to actually say "You can't burn a flag specifically as a means of protest, you america-hating hippie" which would be such an obvious and egregious assault on free speech that I can't imagine it would ever pass.
There are 65 senators and over 2/3rd of the House that you need to talk to, then. (probably less, I forget who all voted for it and how many of them got thrown out)
It doesn't really matter. The next time it comes around, it'll still be over 2/3 of the house and 65 Senators voting for it.
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
I guess because it amounts to the right to say things to minors over the objections of their parents. Is our desire to protect minors from being exposed to content their parents might not like so great that we're willing to legislate what you can and can't say in their earshot? So, suppose the content of a videogame is something the videogame designers are "saying" and the possibility that a minor might buy and play that game is their earshot. If you can't sell games in such a way that minors might buy them, why can you put, say, cleavage on a billboard where minors might see it? Porn on your cable pay-per-view where minors might order it? And so on.
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
I'm not a legal scholar and I'm not that into following details of the cases, so given the fact each and every law that tried to make that argument is dismissed on First Amendment grounds, there's clearly a compelling argument you're ignoring.
If I had to guess, it's that the stores are being forced to curtail their free speech on the assumption that someone would not only object to it but that ignoring this objection would be a detriment to the minor. In other words, unless the parent intervenes directly to prevent the completion of a Constitutional and harmless act, no one is under obligation to refrain from the act in case the parent might object.
That seems somewhat convoluted, so if there's a major flaw I'd point you at any of the last dozen court decisions and let you find the answer yourself. Unless you assume everyone who tries to pass this legislation is an idiot who didn't think of making this a parental rights issue, there's clearly other overriding factors at work.
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
I guess because it amounts to the right to say things to minors over the objections of their parents. Is our desire to protect minors from being exposed to content their parents might not like so great that we're willing to legislate what you can and can't say in their earshot? So, suppose the content of a videogame is something the videocame designers are "saying" and the possibility that a minor might buy and play that game is their earshot. If you can't sell games in such a way that minors might buy them, why can you put, say, cleavage on a billboard where minors might see it? Porn on your cable pay-per-view where minors might order it? And so on.
Just because we can't restrict everything a minor is exposed to, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control the avenues we can control.
And there are laws about advertising in public places. When's the last time you saw full frontal nudity on a billboard?
In the end, what's wrong with making it a crime to sell games that industry has deemed "Not fit for minors" to minors without parental consent. If the parents don't care if their kid is exposed to it, they can go buy it for the kid. It simply puts the choice in the hands of the parents, instead of the store or the clerk.
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
You know, you keep saying things like this, and I continue to find it completely baffling, because "parental oversight" has never been the issue.
The issue is that parents will buy a game for their kids without having any inkling of the content, and then froth at the mouth later when they see their kid beating up hookers with a dildo on the teevee, and suddenly they're all OH NOES THEYRE CORRUPTIN OUR CHILLINS, never mind that the game says "Mature: 17+, contains graphic violence, blood, full frontal nudity, strong sexual innuendo, strong language, strong drug references, and seven uses of the word Belgium" right on the fucking thing.
With that said, it seems to me there's a fundamental difference between limiting what an 8-year-old can buy and what a 16-year-old can, but that's a discussion for a different time.
Target Practice on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
I guess because it amounts to the right to say things to minors over the objections of their parents. Is our desire to protect minors from being exposed to content their parents might not like so great that we're willing to legislate what you can and can't say in their earshot? So, suppose the content of a videogame is something the videogame designers are "saying" and the possibility that a minor might buy and play that game is their earshot. If you can't sell games in such a way that minors might buy them, why can you put, say, cleavage on a billboard where minors might see it? Porn on your cable pay-per-view where minors might order it? And so on.
But you, generally speaking, cannot put nips on a billboard. Public indecency laws have a long and storied tradition, but have generally been upheld, especially in regards to minors. In general, we really prioritize parental rights to choose what their kids are exposed to over the right to engage in a commercial transaction with the minors. If the issue were cable porn, the balance of reasonable interests and restrictions would be different. We're not yet at the point where commercial transactions are wholly and without reservations regarded as "speech," and we're also not at a point where "speech" with regards to minors is completely protected.
I mean, in the end here, the rights of adults to purchase industry-defined adult media (M-rated games) is not being hampered in the slightest by the government.
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
Because the legislation tends to act less about enforcing parents rights to use the existing ratings system that the industry provides and is more about telling the industry provided ratings system to sit and spin they aren't objectively telling parents (who aren't paying attention) about the true evils of their murder simulators on little Billy. If only we had the FCC involved, then we'd have a more accurate ratings system and criminally punish stores that don't follow its guidelines.
Plus, M ratings are 17 and up so minors should be able to purchase them regardless.
Geez, Will, way to take my comment and run with it.
What I meant was that politicians who support legislation on this issue single out video games, rather than making a blanket statement about all media. If there were one board who rated all things (games, movies, etc.) and the same ratings were enforced for all media, I wouldn't perceive it as a political move.
Singling out video games just sounds like pandering to old people.
I support regulation of the industry wrt what it sells minors. There's room for honest disagreement about whether self-regulation or regulation by the government is better, but that's a practical discussion.
I just understand that whenever you legislate what content we can and can't expose each other to in the private sector, you have to weigh that legislation very, very carefully against the goals of the first amendment. There is a tension between obscenity laws and the first amendment, and there should be. Whether or not you can put nudity on a billboard is something we should have to be careful about; it's a premise the bill of rights forces us to consider in a pretty sophisticated way, and that's a good thing. Free speech has a clear place in this discussion, as it has in the discussion of boobs on billboards; it represents check on our impulse to censor, a legislative hurdle we have to overcome before we can go banning this or that kind of speech.
In the past, many cases of industry self-regulation in similar contexts have managed to avoid legislation (advertising of hard liquor on television is one), mostly because industries have a lot more lobbying power than parents' groups.
This is true. And for some reason, I fail to see why industry self-regulation can't work in this case. I'd say the ESRB is doing a good job at providing a ratings scheme for parents to use, and nearly every national chain (which, due to low margins, are generally the only ones that carry games anyway) has strict policies enforcing carding for M-rated titles. In other words, they're taking care of it on their own.
The issue is largely overblown because of a lack of familiarity with videogames in the older set, and a little good ol' fashioned "oh noes! the chiiiiildren!" overreaction. The only aspect of a legally enforced carding policy that I think might make some difference is that it would use criminal penalties to dissuade older shoppers from buying M-rated games for kids they don't know. Maybe. I mean, I tell these kids to pound sand as it is, but I suppose some people must be buying for them or they wouldn't bother to try it. But is the public interest here so compelling that we want to bring criminal charges against such people?
Personally, I say no. Especially considering that, as I said, a vast majority of kids playing M-rated games are getting them from either their parents or other relatives. Which this law would be highly unlikely to stop.
And even assuming that the public interest is so compelling as to require legal enforcement based on ESRB ratings (which seems sketchy anyway...the government enforcing the ratings of a private body, rather than their own governmentally-set standards...which I'd certainly not want to see) then this is something I'd rather see done at the state level, and not even touched at the federal level.
What I meant was that politicians who support legislation on this issue single out video games, rather than making a blanket statement about all media. If there were one board who rated all things (games, movies, etc.) and the same ratings were enforced for all media, I wouldn't perceive it as a political move.
Singling out video games just sounds like pandering to old people.
This. Legal enforcement of ratings for Grand Theft Auto while failing to do the same for Pulp Fiction is some serious Grade A pandering to reactionary old people.
mcdermott on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
In the end, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not there's a statutory requirement for stores to card. If they're doing a bang-up job as it is, the law might be unnecessary from a policy point of view, but it still might be necessary from a public-perception point of view. And as far as I'm concerned, it's not terribly pernicious legislation to empower parents with oversight over their kids media purchases.
You know, you keep saying things like this, and I continue to find it completely baffling, because "parental oversight" has never been the issue.
The issue is that parents will buy a game for their kids without having any inkling of the content, and then froth at the mouth later when they see their kid beating up hookers with a dildo on the teevee, and suddenly they're all OH NOES THEYRE CORRUPTIN OUR CHILLINS, never mind that the game says "Mature: 17+, contains graphic violence, blood, full frontal nudity, strong sexual innuendo, strong language, strong drug references, and seven uses of the word Belgium" right on the fucking thing.
With that said, it seems to me there's a fundamental difference between limiting what an 8-year-old can buy and what a 16-year-old can, but that's a discussion for a different time.
Empowering parental oversight has always been the legal issue. The ESRB already rates every console game that gets published, and the rating is prominently displayed. That parents have taken a while to become educated to ESRB ratings isn't a huge deal; they're on the box. There is and will be absolutely nothing legally wrong with a parent choosing to buy an M-rated game for their kid.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Geez, Will, way to take my comment and run with it.
What I meant was that politicians who support legislation on this issue single out video games, rather than making a blanket statement about all media. If there were one board who rated all things (games, movies, etc.) and the same ratings were enforced for all media, I wouldn't perceive it as a political move.
Singling out video games just sounds like pandering to old people.
Eh; they largely do. Talkin' bout the rap music and the sexy movies and the violent vidja. I mean, it's a cultural issue that really resonates with parents and it always will be. It's kind of hard to imagine how this issue will expand post-internet, but humans have always been wonderfully inventive in their degeneracy.
If there were proposals of actual censorship, I'd be on the barricades to oppose it. But it's not broad censorship that's being proposed - it's just empowering parental discretion, which I'm solidly behind.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
In the past, many cases of industry self-regulation in similar contexts have managed to avoid legislation (advertising of hard liquor on television is one), mostly because industries have a lot more lobbying power than parents' groups.
This is true. And for some reason, I fail to see why industry self-regulation can't work in this case. I'd say the ESRB is doing a good job at providing a ratings scheme for parents to use, and nearly every national chain (which, due to low margins, are generally the only ones that carry games anyway) has strict policies enforcing carding for M-rated titles. In other words, they're taking care of it on their own.
The issue is largely overblown because of a lack of familiarity with videogames in the older set, and a little good ol' fashioned "oh noes! the chiiiiildren!" overreaction. The only aspect of a legally enforced carding policy that I think might make some difference is that it would use criminal penalties to dissuade older shoppers from buying M-rated games for kids they don't know. Maybe. I mean, I tell these kids to pound sand as it is, but I suppose some people must be buying for them or they wouldn't bother to try it. But is the public interest here so compelling that we want to bring criminal charges against such people?
Personally, I say no. Especially considering that, as I said, a vast majority of kids playing M-rated games are getting them from either their parents or other relatives. Which this law would be highly unlikely to stop.
And even assuming that the public interest is so compelling as to require legal enforcement based on ESRB ratings (which seems sketchy anyway...the government enforcing the ratings of a private body, rather than their own governmentally-set standards...which I'd certainly not want to see) then this is something I'd rather see done at the state level, and not even touched at the federal level.
I don't really see the public interest in this case as terribly impacted. Mostly, I like the law because it helps to inoculate the industry against parental complaints that their kids are playing the violent vidja and puts the responsibility more squarely on the parents.
Why do people always mention Fred Thompson's height?
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
If only this had worked for Bill Bradley.
With his towering height he could slam dunk after dunk over his humiliated opponents.
Bradley had turkey-neck though. That's like minus fifteen inches.
But he also had two NBA Championship rings, and led Princeton to the Final Four...that is plus 21 inches
Although I do have to say the turkey neck was rather distracting whenever I had to watch him speak.
Breyker4711 on
I don't have to take this abuse from you, I have hundreds of people dying to abuse me
Geez, Will, way to take my comment and run with it.
What I meant was that politicians who support legislation on this issue single out video games, rather than making a blanket statement about all media. If there were one board who rated all things (games, movies, etc.) and the same ratings were enforced for all media, I wouldn't perceive it as a political move.
Singling out video games just sounds like pandering to old people.
Eh; they largely do. Talkin' bout the rap music and the sexy movies and the violent vidja. I mean, it's a cultural issue that really resonates with parents and it always will be. It's kind of hard to imagine how this issue will expand post-internet, but humans have always been wonderfully inventive in their degeneracy.
If there were proposals of actual censorship, I'd be on the barricades to oppose it. But it's not broad censorship that's being proposed - it's just empowering parental discretion, which I'm solidly behind.
Actually, a number of the proposals involve a governmental ratings board which would essentially have the power to censor games and produce a chilling effect on the industry.
Why do people always mention Fred Thompson's height?
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
If only this had worked for Bill Bradley.
With his towering height he could slam dunk after dunk over his humiliated opponents.
Bradley had turkey-neck though. That's like minus fifteen inches.
But he also had two NBA Championship rings, and led Princeton to the Final Four...that is plus 21 inches
Although I do have to say the turkey neck was rather distracting whenever I had to watch him speak.
Like a goddamn goiter. Kind of like David "Cat in the Hat" Gergen.
Why do people always mention Fred Thompson's height?
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
If only this had worked for Bill Bradley.
With his towering height he could slam dunk after dunk over his humiliated opponents.
Bradley had turkey-neck though. That's like minus fifteen inches.
But he also had two NBA Championship rings, and led Princeton to the Final Four...that is plus 21 inches
Although I do have to say the turkey neck was rather distracting whenever I had to watch him speak.
Like a goddamn goiter. Kind of like David "Cat in the Hat" Gergen.
Yeah it is.....if he got that thing removed prior to the election, we might be discussing his VP for President.
Breyker4711 on
I don't have to take this abuse from you, I have hundreds of people dying to abuse me
I don't really see the public interest in this case as terribly impacted. Mostly, I like the law because it helps to inoculate the industry against parental complaints that their kids are playing the violent vidja and puts the responsibility more squarely on the parents.
Helps, maybe. But when Johnny's older brother or uncle buys him Killspree (which this law will not prevent) and then Johnny takes potshots at the cars on the interstate it'll still be the videogame studio's fault, because they shouldn't even be making games like that. And for the reasons already mentioned, these arguments will still gain more traction with games than with movies or music. Because you're talking about a medium (rather than simply a genre) that the people complaining about it (and the ones proposing laws about it) don't partake of at all.
You can only get so self-righteous about violent movies when you went to see Die Hard last week. You can only get so self-righteous about music when you listened to Hendrix or even Johnny Cash as a kid. Same with alcohol when you throw back a couple with lunch every now and again, and so on and so forth. But most of these people have never played pretty much any videogames (except maybe some Minesweeper). So they can see them all as evil.
Actually, a number of the proposals involve a governmental ratings board which would essentially have the power to censor games and produce a chilling effect on the industry.
It is short-sighted and ignorant to dismiss the South as unchangably Republican. Read up a little. You don't even have to go very far back in time. The South was fiercely Democratic for 100 years, before it made a gradual shift over the last 30 years or so. North Carolina was considered the most Deomcratic state in the entire country even during some of our lifetimes, before Billy Graham came along. And it was still only in recent elections that states like Georgia were voting in their first Republican Governor since the Civil War. The South is poor, remember, and all it might take is a small stiff breeze, or a couple more hurricanes, to blow their minds back off of God and back onto the social safety net.
As for Hillary, I believe she is part of a money and power structure that has a lot of pull with the media right now, which is why we will continue to get the story that she is the shoe-in. But I still hold firm to my belief that the Democratic party will nominate Edwards. Strip away all the drama, and he's the best shot they've got. Obama and Hillary are risks, for numerous reasons. Some of those reasons are valid, most of them aren't. But college kids and idealistic political journalists have a knack for building up hype for unrealistic candidates (Dean?), and that game often changes significantly after Iowa.
The Republicans do not and will not have a stand-out candidate. They are running the "any Republican" candidate that the Dems had to run last time around. And Hillary very well could lose to "Any Republican." But I think the Americans want a Democrat.
Man, Edwards is nothing but a talking head. There's nothing to him.
And please, do not invoke the dude from Connecticut. No, not Dodd, the other one. The less said about him, the better.
Totally disagree about Edwards, he was the first candidate to actually release a plan (not what I want to do, but a how I will do these things I wish to do plan). On top of that he has admitted it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Not a I was lied to, mistake...but a I made a mistake and I wish to correct it.
I know the guy looks like a little kid, but looks shouldn't matter. Just read up on each candidate and list each one with a listed set of goals and a plan to achieve said goals
Breyker4711 on
I don't have to take this abuse from you, I have hundreds of people dying to abuse me
It is short-sighted and ignorant to dismiss the South as unchangably Republican. Read up a little. You don't even have to go very far back in time. The South was fiercely Democratic for 100 years, before it made a gradual shift over the last 30 years or so. North Carolina was considered the most Deomcratic state in the entire country even during some of our lifetimes, before Billy Graham came along.
I'd put the Dixiecrats seceeding to the GOP less on Billy Graham and more on the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts.
Yes, this. Look towards the 40s and 50s to see this begin to happen.
Totally disagree about Edwards, he was the first candidate to actually release a plan (not what I want to do, but a how I will do these things I wish to do plan). On top of that he has admitted it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Not a I was lied to, mistake...but a I made a mistake and I wish to correct it.
I know the guy looks like a little kid, but looks shouldn't matter. Just read up on each candidate and list each one with a listed set of goals and a plan to achieve said goals
Can there be bonus points if the consistency of that position is put in an extra column? Because Edwards wasn't a fire breathing populist just 6 years ago. That's the main thing I dislike about him. Granted I'd rather someone be right than consistent, but come on.
Can there be bonus points if the consistency of that position is put in an extra column? Because Edwards wasn't a fire breathing populist just 6 years ago. That's the main thing I dislike about him. Granted I'd rather someone be right than consistent, but come on.
Why would being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious error be a bonus?
People make mistakes all the time, and the normal person acknowledges the error made while making an attempt to correct said error. Anyone that consistently maintains a position of error is generally considered a moron.
Breyker4711 on
I don't have to take this abuse from you, I have hundreds of people dying to abuse me
This isn't a parental issue by any stretch, it's a First Amendment issue as (at least as far as I can remember) every single piece of videogame legislation has shown.
edit: mcdermott said it better than I, but the basic idea is the same
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
I guess because it amounts to the right to say things to minors over the objections of their parents. Is our desire to protect minors from being exposed to content their parents might not like so great that we're willing to legislate what you can and can't say in their earshot? So, suppose the content of a videogame is something the videocame designers are "saying" and the possibility that a minor might buy and play that game is their earshot. If you can't sell games in such a way that minors might buy them, why can you put, say, cleavage on a billboard where minors might see it? Porn on your cable pay-per-view where minors might order it? And so on.
Just because we can't restrict everything a minor is exposed to, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control the avenues we can control.
And there are laws about advertising in public places. When's the last time you saw full frontal nudity on a billboard?
In the end, what's wrong with making it a crime to sell games that industry has deemed "Not fit for minors" to minors without parental consent. If the parents don't care if their kid is exposed to it, they can go buy it for the kid. It simply puts the choice in the hands of the parents, instead of the store or the clerk.
What happens when parents start demanding the right to not have their kids "exposed" to evolution and sex ed at school? Parental consent before they're assigned Ulysses?
BubbaT on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
What happens when parents start demanding the right to not have their kids "exposed" to evolution and sex ed at school? Parental consent before they're assigned Ulysses?
This is also a controversial issue, but I'd say that there's a much broader public interest on the part of having a well-educated populous as opposed to the right to sell video games to whomever one wants to.
What happens when parents start demanding the right to not have their kids "exposed" to evolution and sex ed at school? Parental consent before they're assigned Ulysses?
This is also a controversial issue, but I'd say that there's a much broader public interest on the part of having a well-educated populous as opposed to the right to sell video games to whomever one wants to.
I agree with this point, but this reminds me of something I wanted to disagree about earlier.
I really don't think statutory enforcement of video game ratings supports parental discretion. It's a net zero, as far as I'm concerned. The ratings are already in the box, they're already in charge of the kid. We all know damn well that 12 year olds don't have jobs, and they don't have the transportation or the scratch to pick up Killtown 3: The Killening without their parents knowing about it.
Basically, I'm saying to parents: Watching your goddamn kids, and stop trying to make everyone else do it for you.
Can there be bonus points if the consistency of that position is put in an extra column? Because Edwards wasn't a fire breathing populist just 6 years ago. That's the main thing I dislike about him. Granted I'd rather someone be right than consistent, but come on.
Why would being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious error be a bonus?
It isn't, did you read the last line of my post? Here, I'll bold it. Now, what about being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious benefit to society which has simply been prevented for any number of reasons? Biden has been more of a labor candidate for longer and with more professional risk than Edwards has been. Is that a plus, a minus, or not applicable because that noise?
People make mistakes all the time, and the normal person acknowledges the error made while making an attempt to correct said error. Anyone that consistently maintains a position of error is generally considered a moron.
I didn't realize that not banging on the drum of economic populism was an error, or that Edwards had realized his foolish ways in order to become a fire breather so very recently for legitimate reasons rather than political ones.
moniker on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
What happens when parents start demanding the right to not have their kids "exposed" to evolution and sex ed at school? Parental consent before they're assigned Ulysses?
This is also a controversial issue, but I'd say that there's a much broader public interest on the part of having a well-educated populous as opposed to the right to sell video games to whomever one wants to.
I agree with this point, but this reminds me of something I wanted to disagree about earlier.
I really don't think statutory enforcement of video game ratings supports parental discretion. It's a net zero, as far as I'm concerned. The ratings are already in the box, they're already in charge of the kid. We all know damn well that 12 year olds don't have jobs, and they don't have the transportation or the scratch to pick up Killtown 3: The Killening without their parents knowing about it.
Basically, I'm saying to parents: Watching your goddamn kids, and stop trying to make everyone else do it for you.
Yeah there's a balance here, and I'm not absolving parents of all blame, but I don't think it's unreasonable to err on the side of helping parents enforce commonly-held standards on certain hot-button issues.
What happens when parents start demanding the right to not have their kids "exposed" to evolution and sex ed at school? Parental consent before they're assigned Ulysses?
This is also a controversial issue, but I'd say that there's a much broader public interest on the part of having a well-educated populous as opposed to the right to sell video games to whomever one wants to.
I agree with this point, but this reminds me of something I wanted to disagree about earlier.
I really don't think statutory enforcement of video game ratings supports parental discretion. It's a net zero, as far as I'm concerned. The ratings are already in the box, they're already in charge of the kid. We all know damn well that 12 year olds don't have jobs, and they don't have the transportation or the scratch to pick up Killtown 3: The Killening without their parents knowing about it.
Basically, I'm saying to parents: Watching your goddamn kids, and stop trying to make everyone else do it for you.
Yeah there's a balance here, and I'm not absolving parents of all blame, but I don't think it's unreasonable to err on the side of helping parents enforce commonly-held standards on certain hot-button issues.
But that is what presently exists and any legislation would be at best extraneous and at worst opening a door to governmental censorship and a chilling effect on the free speech rights of the videogame industry. Any legislation would also be extremely ineffectual at this because of a wide variety of social externalities that just can't be accounted for.
Billies parents won't let him get Killguy: 3 but what if Jimmy, Billies bestest friend, has parents who don't care and let them both play it for hours and hours whilst they are busy sodomizing goats and practicing withcraft in the backyard? Poor little Billy will be corrupted by the powers of EA and his parents will still be just as helpless to do anything as they are today.
It is short-sighted and ignorant to dismiss the South as unchangably Republican. Read up a little. You don't even have to go very far back in time. The South was fiercely Democratic for 100 years, before it made a gradual shift over the last 30 years or so. North Carolina was considered the most Deomcratic state in the entire country even during some of our lifetimes, before Billy Graham came along. And it was still only in recent elections that states like Georgia were voting in their first Republican Governor since the Civil War. The South is poor, remember, and all it might take is a small stiff breeze, or a couple more hurricanes, to blow their minds back off of God and back onto the social safety net.
I totally agree. Hell, Texas is currently moving surprisingly quickly towards the left end of the spectrum. Our next Governor is likely to be a very liberal Republican, against another candidate that is already moderately liberal for Republicans here.
Can there be bonus points if the consistency of that position is put in an extra column? Because Edwards wasn't a fire breathing populist just 6 years ago. That's the main thing I dislike about him. Granted I'd rather someone be right than consistent, but come on.
Why would being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious error be a bonus?
People make mistakes all the time, and the normal person acknowledges the error made while making an attempt to correct said error. Anyone that consistently maintains a position of error is generally considered a moron.
And isn't this EXACTLY what so many people dispise about the current administration? Their whole "stick to your guns even when your wrong" attitude?
Can there be bonus points if the consistency of that position is put in an extra column? Because Edwards wasn't a fire breathing populist just 6 years ago. That's the main thing I dislike about him. Granted I'd rather someone be right than consistent, but come on.
Why would being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious error be a bonus?
People make mistakes all the time, and the normal person acknowledges the error made while making an attempt to correct said error. Anyone that consistently maintains a position of error is generally considered a moron.
And isn't this EXACTLY what so many people dispise about the current administration? Their whole "stick to your guns even when your wrong" attitude?
It isn't, did you read the last line of my post? Here, I'll bold it. Now, what about being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious benefit to society which has simply been prevented for any number of reasons? Biden has been more of a labor candidate for longer and with more professional risk than Edwards has been. Is that a plus, a minus, or not applicable because that noise?
We should not ignore that someone has been consistently right or not take that into account. Christ.
While I'm rather indifferent to him now I hope that he proves he's as cool as he is on Law and Order...
I haven't heard anything about his stance on ANYTHING, yet somehow he holds high positions in polls, proving, I think, that name and face recognition means much more than logic and leadership at this point in campaigning.
DoratheExplorer on
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane."
-Marcus Aurelius
While I'm rather indifferent to him now I hope that he proves he's as cool as he is on Law and Order...
I haven't heard anything about his stance on ANYTHING, yet somehow he holds high positions in polls, proving, I think, that name and face recognition means much more than logic and leadership at this point in campaigning.
Or it proves the saying that it's better to be thought a fool and keep quiet (don't campaign) than to open your mouth (campaign) and remove all doubt. Given the crop of Pubbies I'm surprised Thompson wasn't polling higher.
Posts
Seriously what the fuck does that have to do with an election? He is fucking tall...great, hows about mentioning his fucking plan?
(By the way I didn't read the entire thread, I just saw that last bit in the op and had to respond.)
In the past, many cases of industry self-regulation in similar contexts have managed to avoid legislation (advertising of hard liquor on television is one), mostly because industries have a lot more lobbying power than parents' groups.
The taller candidate generally wins election. I mean, in the Bush-Kerry debates, Bush negotiated a little step-stool behind his podium so he wouldn't look shorter than Kerry.
How is "the right to sell things to minors over the objections of their parents" a First Amendment issue?
If only this had worked for Bill Bradley.
With his towering height he could slam dunk after dunk over his humiliated opponents.
Bradley had turkey-neck though. That's like minus fifteen inches.
There are 65 senators and over 2/3rd of the House that you need to talk to, then. (probably less, I forget who all voted for it and how many of them got thrown out)
It doesn't really matter. The next time it comes around, it'll still be over 2/3 of the house and 65 Senators voting for it.
I'm not a legal scholar and I'm not that into following details of the cases, so given the fact each and every law that tried to make that argument is dismissed on First Amendment grounds, there's clearly a compelling argument you're ignoring.
If I had to guess, it's that the stores are being forced to curtail their free speech on the assumption that someone would not only object to it but that ignoring this objection would be a detriment to the minor. In other words, unless the parent intervenes directly to prevent the completion of a Constitutional and harmless act, no one is under obligation to refrain from the act in case the parent might object.
That seems somewhat convoluted, so if there's a major flaw I'd point you at any of the last dozen court decisions and let you find the answer yourself. Unless you assume everyone who tries to pass this legislation is an idiot who didn't think of making this a parental rights issue, there's clearly other overriding factors at work.
Just because we can't restrict everything a minor is exposed to, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control the avenues we can control.
And there are laws about advertising in public places. When's the last time you saw full frontal nudity on a billboard?
In the end, what's wrong with making it a crime to sell games that industry has deemed "Not fit for minors" to minors without parental consent. If the parents don't care if their kid is exposed to it, they can go buy it for the kid. It simply puts the choice in the hands of the parents, instead of the store or the clerk.
The issue is that parents will buy a game for their kids without having any inkling of the content, and then froth at the mouth later when they see their kid beating up hookers with a dildo on the teevee, and suddenly they're all OH NOES THEYRE CORRUPTIN OUR CHILLINS, never mind that the game says "Mature: 17+, contains graphic violence, blood, full frontal nudity, strong sexual innuendo, strong language, strong drug references, and seven uses of the word Belgium" right on the fucking thing.
With that said, it seems to me there's a fundamental difference between limiting what an 8-year-old can buy and what a 16-year-old can, but that's a discussion for a different time.
I mean, in the end here, the rights of adults to purchase industry-defined adult media (M-rated games) is not being hampered in the slightest by the government.
Because the legislation tends to act less about enforcing parents rights to use the existing ratings system that the industry provides and is more about telling the industry provided ratings system to sit and spin they aren't objectively telling parents (who aren't paying attention) about the true evils of their murder simulators on little Billy. If only we had the FCC involved, then we'd have a more accurate ratings system and criminally punish stores that don't follow its guidelines.
Plus, M ratings are 17 and up so minors should be able to purchase them regardless.
What I meant was that politicians who support legislation on this issue single out video games, rather than making a blanket statement about all media. If there were one board who rated all things (games, movies, etc.) and the same ratings were enforced for all media, I wouldn't perceive it as a political move.
Singling out video games just sounds like pandering to old people.
I just understand that whenever you legislate what content we can and can't expose each other to in the private sector, you have to weigh that legislation very, very carefully against the goals of the first amendment. There is a tension between obscenity laws and the first amendment, and there should be. Whether or not you can put nudity on a billboard is something we should have to be careful about; it's a premise the bill of rights forces us to consider in a pretty sophisticated way, and that's a good thing. Free speech has a clear place in this discussion, as it has in the discussion of boobs on billboards; it represents check on our impulse to censor, a legislative hurdle we have to overcome before we can go banning this or that kind of speech.
This is true. And for some reason, I fail to see why industry self-regulation can't work in this case. I'd say the ESRB is doing a good job at providing a ratings scheme for parents to use, and nearly every national chain (which, due to low margins, are generally the only ones that carry games anyway) has strict policies enforcing carding for M-rated titles. In other words, they're taking care of it on their own.
The issue is largely overblown because of a lack of familiarity with videogames in the older set, and a little good ol' fashioned "oh noes! the chiiiiildren!" overreaction. The only aspect of a legally enforced carding policy that I think might make some difference is that it would use criminal penalties to dissuade older shoppers from buying M-rated games for kids they don't know. Maybe. I mean, I tell these kids to pound sand as it is, but I suppose some people must be buying for them or they wouldn't bother to try it. But is the public interest here so compelling that we want to bring criminal charges against such people?
Personally, I say no. Especially considering that, as I said, a vast majority of kids playing M-rated games are getting them from either their parents or other relatives. Which this law would be highly unlikely to stop.
And even assuming that the public interest is so compelling as to require legal enforcement based on ESRB ratings (which seems sketchy anyway...the government enforcing the ratings of a private body, rather than their own governmentally-set standards...which I'd certainly not want to see) then this is something I'd rather see done at the state level, and not even touched at the federal level.
This. Legal enforcement of ratings for Grand Theft Auto while failing to do the same for Pulp Fiction is some serious Grade A pandering to reactionary old people.
Empowering parental oversight has always been the legal issue. The ESRB already rates every console game that gets published, and the rating is prominently displayed. That parents have taken a while to become educated to ESRB ratings isn't a huge deal; they're on the box. There is and will be absolutely nothing legally wrong with a parent choosing to buy an M-rated game for their kid.
Eh; they largely do. Talkin' bout the rap music and the sexy movies and the violent vidja. I mean, it's a cultural issue that really resonates with parents and it always will be. It's kind of hard to imagine how this issue will expand post-internet, but humans have always been wonderfully inventive in their degeneracy.
If there were proposals of actual censorship, I'd be on the barricades to oppose it. But it's not broad censorship that's being proposed - it's just empowering parental discretion, which I'm solidly behind.
I don't really see the public interest in this case as terribly impacted. Mostly, I like the law because it helps to inoculate the industry against parental complaints that their kids are playing the violent vidja and puts the responsibility more squarely on the parents.
But he also had two NBA Championship rings, and led Princeton to the Final Four...that is plus 21 inches
Although I do have to say the turkey neck was rather distracting whenever I had to watch him speak.
Actually, a number of the proposals involve a governmental ratings board which would essentially have the power to censor games and produce a chilling effect on the industry.
Like a goddamn goiter. Kind of like David "Cat in the Hat" Gergen.
Yeah it is.....if he got that thing removed prior to the election, we might be discussing his VP for President.
Helps, maybe. But when Johnny's older brother or uncle buys him Killspree (which this law will not prevent) and then Johnny takes potshots at the cars on the interstate it'll still be the videogame studio's fault, because they shouldn't even be making games like that. And for the reasons already mentioned, these arguments will still gain more traction with games than with movies or music. Because you're talking about a medium (rather than simply a genre) that the people complaining about it (and the ones proposing laws about it) don't partake of at all.
You can only get so self-righteous about violent movies when you went to see Die Hard last week. You can only get so self-righteous about music when you listened to Hendrix or even Johnny Cash as a kid. Same with alcohol when you throw back a couple with lunch every now and again, and so on and so forth. But most of these people have never played pretty much any videogames (except maybe some Minesweeper). So they can see them all as evil.
This too.
Totally disagree about Edwards, he was the first candidate to actually release a plan (not what I want to do, but a how I will do these things I wish to do plan). On top of that he has admitted it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Not a I was lied to, mistake...but a I made a mistake and I wish to correct it.
I know the guy looks like a little kid, but looks shouldn't matter. Just read up on each candidate and list each one with a listed set of goals and a plan to achieve said goals
Can there be bonus points if the consistency of that position is put in an extra column? Because Edwards wasn't a fire breathing populist just 6 years ago. That's the main thing I dislike about him. Granted I'd rather someone be right than consistent, but come on.
Why would being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious error be a bonus?
People make mistakes all the time, and the normal person acknowledges the error made while making an attempt to correct said error. Anyone that consistently maintains a position of error is generally considered a moron.
What happens when parents start demanding the right to not have their kids "exposed" to evolution and sex ed at school? Parental consent before they're assigned Ulysses?
This is also a controversial issue, but I'd say that there's a much broader public interest on the part of having a well-educated populous as opposed to the right to sell video games to whomever one wants to.
I really don't think statutory enforcement of video game ratings supports parental discretion. It's a net zero, as far as I'm concerned. The ratings are already in the box, they're already in charge of the kid. We all know damn well that 12 year olds don't have jobs, and they don't have the transportation or the scratch to pick up Killtown 3: The Killening without their parents knowing about it.
Basically, I'm saying to parents: Watching your goddamn kids, and stop trying to make everyone else do it for you.
It isn't, did you read the last line of my post? Here, I'll bold it. Now, what about being consistent about something that can be viewed as a serious benefit to society which has simply been prevented for any number of reasons? Biden has been more of a labor candidate for longer and with more professional risk than Edwards has been. Is that a plus, a minus, or not applicable because that noise?
I didn't realize that not banging on the drum of economic populism was an error, or that Edwards had realized his foolish ways in order to become a fire breather so very recently for legitimate reasons rather than political ones.
Yeah there's a balance here, and I'm not absolving parents of all blame, but I don't think it's unreasonable to err on the side of helping parents enforce commonly-held standards on certain hot-button issues.
But that is what presently exists and any legislation would be at best extraneous and at worst opening a door to governmental censorship and a chilling effect on the free speech rights of the videogame industry. Any legislation would also be extremely ineffectual at this because of a wide variety of social externalities that just can't be accounted for.
Billies parents won't let him get Killguy: 3 but what if Jimmy, Billies bestest friend, has parents who don't care and let them both play it for hours and hours whilst they are busy sodomizing goats and practicing withcraft in the backyard? Poor little Billy will be corrupted by the powers of EA and his parents will still be just as helpless to do anything as they are today.
I totally agree. Hell, Texas is currently moving surprisingly quickly towards the left end of the spectrum. Our next Governor is likely to be a very liberal Republican, against another candidate that is already moderately liberal for Republicans here.
And isn't this EXACTLY what so many people dispise about the current administration? Their whole "stick to your guns even when your wrong" attitude?
We should not ignore that someone has been consistently right or not take that into account. Christ.
I haven't heard anything about his stance on ANYTHING, yet somehow he holds high positions in polls, proving, I think, that name and face recognition means much more than logic and leadership at this point in campaigning.
-Marcus Aurelius
Or it proves the saying that it's better to be thought a fool and keep quiet (don't campaign) than to open your mouth (campaign) and remove all doubt. Given the crop of Pubbies I'm surprised Thompson wasn't polling higher.