Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

New Bill Calls for Mandatory Video Game ID Checks

1468910

Posts

  • BrandXSaviorBrandXSavior Registered User
    edited May 2008
    This is a kind of interesting side note to the argument:

    Fewer minors buying M-Rated games

    Don't know if this is true or not since statistics can always be manipulated, but it's interesting.

    BrandXSavior on
    Brand%20X%20Savior.png
    XBOX Live: BrandXSavior
    Wii: 4629 5078 1523 8513
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    SithDrummer on
    It's an easy game to hate
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Bit of a sidetrack, but why is obscenity considered to be exempt from the First Amendment? It really doesn't make any more sense than allowing violence to be exempt, yet we're arguing in defence of violence while glossing over cases that are exactly as blatantly arbitrary. Would exempting violence from First Amendment protection be any worse or more hypocritical than what we're already doing with other types of content?

    jothki on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    What are you talking about? The original ruling in question was explictely to overturn a law about sales. It couldn't be more blatantly related to this issue.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    Thank you for making a cogent argument in that direction. Oh wait, you didn't, you just stated that I was wrong in a derisive way without explanation. What an awesome, mature way to go about things.

    Yes, sales is a different issue from being permitted to play the media, I don't see that distinction being clearly drawn in this quote.

    Please explain to me how preventing sales of a game is not "controlling the flow" of it. Granted, I'm going off just this quote and maybe there's something else in the decision that indicates this, but it certainly doesn't seem clear from that quote alone.

    PuddingSenator on
  • SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    What are you talking about? The original ruling in question was explictely to overturn a law about sales. It couldn't be more blatantly related to this issue.
    Why don't you re-read the portion Wolfman bolded (not what Caedere bolded): it specifically bans "permitting minors to play such games", and that's most likely why it was declared unconstitutional.

    SithDrummer on
    It's an easy game to hate
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    What are you talking about? The original ruling in question was explictely to overturn a law about sales. It couldn't be more blatantly related to this issue.

    A law that also included banning kids from even playing the games.

    I find it hard to believe that small aspect had no effect on their ruling.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I wonder...

    If the government were to ban the sale of a publication that is often critical of it and punish people who try to sell it but not actually the creators, would that be a violation of the First Amendment?

    My intuition says that it is, but that's fundamentally no different than restricting the sales of a video game that contains violent content that the government disapproves of. If the first is a violation, they should both be.

    jothki on
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    What are you talking about? The original ruling in question was explictely to overturn a law about sales. It couldn't be more blatantly related to this issue.
    Why don't you re-read the portion Wolfman bolded (not what Caedere bolded): it specifically bans "permitting minors to play such games", and that's most likely why it was declared unconstitutional.

    Yes, I saw that this particular law covered both sale and play by minors of video games. Saying that the play part is "most likely" why it was declared unconstitutional is totally different from saying that the decision clearly indicates this and that we are all retards. You're just speculating. I saw nothing in the quoted portions of the decision that said "by the way, we're only talking about the playing part, the not selling part is fine."

    PuddingSenator on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    What are you talking about? The original ruling in question was explictely to overturn a law about sales. It couldn't be more blatantly related to this issue.
    Why don't you re-read the portion Wolfman bolded (not what Caedere bolded): it specifically bans "permitting minors to play such games", and that's most likely why it was declared unconstitutional.

    Okay, fair enough. Of course, laws in California didn't include that element and were still declared unconstitutional.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bills_1792_%26_1793

    Or the same laws in Louisiana

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Association_v._Foti

    Or Illinois

    http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/02/judge-throws-out-safe-games-illinois-act/

    You get the idea. The precedent behind this argument is incredible now.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It was very clear to the point. That it is unconstitutional to make it illegal for youths to be subjected to violence or forms of speech. That's the crux of the argument. Or in laymans terms, it cannot be against the law for little Timmy to view a scene of someone getting gutted.

    That has nothing to do with SELLING him the scene. That should be restricted. Which is exactly what this current proposition wants to do.

    "Speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."

    I don't know what it sounds like to you, but nothing in there sounds like they exclusively are talking about the part of the law regarding playing the game. Preventing sale of a game sure sounds like "controlling the flow of information" and "suppression" to me. At the very least you must admit that it is a debatable point. Unless there's something I'm missing.
    It's hilarious that you think this, but it's clearly talking about having access to the game. Sales is an entirely different issue from being permitted to play/view the media in question, and it's clear that's what they are saying cannot be suppressed.

    Thank you for making a cogent argument in that direction. Oh wait, you didn't, you just stated that I was wrong in a derisive way without explanation. What an awesome, mature way to go about things.

    Yes, sales is a different issue from being permitted to play the media, I don't see that distinction being clearly drawn in this quote.

    Please explain to me how preventing sales of a game is not "controlling the flow" of it. Granted, I'm going off just this quote and maybe there's something else in the decision that indicates this, but it certainly doesn't seem clear from that quote alone.

    I'll be honest with you, I'm drawing a blank on that part as well. But I can't see it how it's limiting the flow of information by selling content to minors that everybody universally agrees they shouldn't be watching in the first place. I mean, it's not censorship because works aren't being outright banned. They can still be viewed and consumed by anyone. If minors wish to, they freely can, they just need parental consent to purchase it.

    I just... I don't see how that's unconstitutional or how anybody's speech is being restricted. They're just saying get parental consent first. It's not an outright ban or anything.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Random question, but does the UK have a law like this? Or is it the shops own decision to ask for ID.


    Also i support this law if it makes parents more accountable for thier kids fucking up instead of blaming a scapegoat.

    Karl on
    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Karl wrote: »
    Random question, but does the UK have a law like this? Or is it the shops own decision to ask for ID.


    Also i support this law if it makes parents more accountable for thier kids fucking up instead of blaming a scapegoat.

    Hell, the UK has laws that can ban games completely. Manhunt 2 almost didn't come out there as a result. And you don't want to get started on Greek and German laws...

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008

    I'll be honest with you, I'm drawing a blank on that part as well. But I can't see it how it's limiting the flow of information by selling content to minors that everybody universally agrees they shouldn't be watching in the first place. I mean, it's not censorship because works aren't being outright banned. They can still be viewed and consumed by anyone. If minors wish to, they freely can, they just need parental consent to purchase it.

    I just... I don't see how that's unconstitutional or how anybody's speech is being restricted. They're just saying get parental consent first. It's not an outright ban or anything.

    If everyone universally agreed, there wouldn't be a law, now would there? Why shouldn't, say, a sixteen year old play God of War? It's unconstitutional because it's still the government curtailing legal expression; not in the form of the minors, but in the merchants.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Karl wrote: »
    Random question, but does the UK have a law like this? Or is it the shops own decision to ask for ID.


    Also i support this law if it makes parents more accountable for thier kids fucking up instead of blaming a scapegoat.

    Hell, the UK has laws that can ban games completely.

    No we don't.

    Leitner on
  • KarlKarl Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Random question, but does the UK have a law like this? Or is it the shops own decision to ask for ID.


    Also i support this law if it makes parents more accountable for thier kids fucking up instead of blaming a scapegoat.

    Hell, the UK has laws that can ban games completely.

    No we don't.

    Well we should. Hooligans: Storm Over Europe should have never seen the light of day.

    Karl on
    YOU'RE ALL BABIES.
    SO MUCH POTENTIAL TO WASTE.
    Koshian wrote: »
    JOKE'S ON YOU
    MY POTENTIAL IS ALREADY WASTED
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Random question, but does the UK have a law like this? Or is it the shops own decision to ask for ID.


    Also i support this law if it makes parents more accountable for thier kids fucking up instead of blaming a scapegoat.

    Hell, the UK has laws that can ban games completely.

    No we don't.

    It is my understanding the if the BBFC refuses to rate a game, as it did with Manhunt 2 initially, it is illegal to buy, sell, or own said game.

    At least that's how it was covered in all the gaming press.

    Is this not true?

    PuddingSenator on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Karl wrote: »
    Random question, but does the UK have a law like this? Or is it the shops own decision to ask for ID.


    Also i support this law if it makes parents more accountable for thier kids fucking up instead of blaming a scapegoat.

    Hell, the UK has laws that can ban games completely.

    No we don't.

    It is my understanding the if the BBFC refuses to rate a game, as it did with Manhunt 2 initially, it is illegal to buy, sell, or own said game.

    At least that's how it was covered in all the gaming press.

    Is this not true?

    Well, it's only a Wikipedia link again, but it does confirm what I said:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhunt_2#United_Kingdom

    In short, if Rockstar didn't change the game from its original version it would have been illegal to sell the game to anyone. I suppose they could have given it away and thus bypassed the law, but for all intents and purposes that's a ban.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • bloodrbloodr Registered User
    edited May 2008
    This is just another attempt by conservatives to pander to freaked out parents too lazy to parent their children. This bill will likely die in some committee by congress people bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

    What troubles me is the statement about rape in games, it implies it's commonplace. Matter of fact I'm trying to think of a game that has this and I can only come up with Custard's Revenge.

    bloodr on
    b1oodrose.png
    b1oodrose.png
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bloodr wrote: »
    This is just another attempt by conservatives to pander to freaked out parents too lazy to parent their children. This bill will likely die in some committee by congress people bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

    What troubles me is the statement about rape in games, it implies it's commonplace. Matter of fact I'm trying to think of a game that has this and I can only come up with Custard's Revenge.

    Much as I'd like to blame conservatives, it should be noted that Democrat Hillary Clinton and former Democrat Joseph Lieberman are among the more vocal supporters of video game legislation.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Digital distribution of the game would have been entirely legal.

    Leitner on
  • BrandXSaviorBrandXSavior Registered User
    edited May 2008
    bloodr wrote: »
    This is just another attempt by conservatives to pander to freaked out parents too lazy to parent their children. This bill will likely die in some committee by congress people bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

    What troubles me is the statement about rape in games, it implies it's commonplace. Matter of fact I'm trying to think of a game that has this and I can only come up with Custard's Revenge.

    "Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson"

    It's a bipartisan bill, so I guess you'd have to lump "liberals" into it as well (if you wanted to continue bringing arbitrary political labels into the discussion).

    BrandXSavior on
    Brand%20X%20Savior.png
    XBOX Live: BrandXSavior
    Wii: 4629 5078 1523 8513
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Digital distribution of the game would have been entirely legal.

    Ok then that makes it not an atrocious violation of free speech.

    Oh wait, no it doesn't.

    PuddingSenator on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Digital distribution of the game would have been entirely legal.

    Which is a good point if Manhunt 2 wasn't a console game.

    You have to admit that's a pretty damn way of ruling this anyway. It's like banning the game from being sold by any stores with names starting with A-M.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • GihgehlsGihgehls Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Dirty wrote: »
    Rape? Has anyone ever played a game where you, the player, have the option to physically rape another character?

    I have played several of them. They were all in Japanese though.

    Gihgehls on
    PA-gihgehls-sig.jpg
  • NevaNeva Registered User
    edited May 2008

    I'll be honest with you, I'm drawing a blank on that part as well. But I can't see it how it's limiting the flow of information by selling content to minors that everybody universally agrees they shouldn't be watching in the first place. I mean, it's not censorship because works aren't being outright banned. They can still be viewed and consumed by anyone. If minors wish to, they freely can, they just need parental consent to purchase it.

    I just... I don't see how that's unconstitutional or how anybody's speech is being restricted. They're just saying get parental consent first. It's not an outright ban or anything.

    If everyone universally agreed, there wouldn't be a law, now would there? Why shouldn't, say, a sixteen year old play God of War? It's unconstitutional because it's still the government curtailing legal expression; not in the form of the minors, but in the merchants.

    Just read the "Angriest you've ever gotten playing a videogame?" thread to see why a 16 year old shouldn't play God of War.

    I don't see how this is really that big of a deal. You can still play the game as long as momma or pappa gives you the a-ok. It's really no different than porn or R+ rated movies.

    Neva on
    SC2 Beta: Neva.ling

    "Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Digital distribution of the game would have been entirely legal.

    Which is a good point if Manhunt 2 wasn't a console game.

    You have to admit that's a pretty damn way of ruling this anyway. It's like banning the game from being sold by any stores with names starting with A-M.

    Pretty much, however, it really isn't all that important given Britain’s record on censorship of games. So saying that Britain can ban games is pretty disingenuous, we can but in practice we don't. You would have been better off going with a European country.

    Leitner on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »

    I'll be honest with you, I'm drawing a blank on that part as well. But I can't see it how it's limiting the flow of information by selling content to minors that everybody universally agrees they shouldn't be watching in the first place. I mean, it's not censorship because works aren't being outright banned. They can still be viewed and consumed by anyone. If minors wish to, they freely can, they just need parental consent to purchase it.

    I just... I don't see how that's unconstitutional or how anybody's speech is being restricted. They're just saying get parental consent first. It's not an outright ban or anything.

    If everyone universally agreed, there wouldn't be a law, now would there? Why shouldn't, say, a sixteen year old play God of War? It's unconstitutional because it's still the government curtailing legal expression; not in the form of the minors, but in the merchants.

    Just read the "Angriest you've ever gotten playing a videogame?" thread to see why a 16 year old shouldn't play God of War.

    I don't see how this is really that big of a deal. You can still play the game as long as momma or pappa gives you the a-ok. It's really no different than porn or R+ rated movies.

    It should be pointed out that "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread included many Teen or lower rated games. You might as well say sports and politics should be banned.

    And this IS different than R+ rated movies. There is no legal restriction on R rated movies. Why is that such a difficult concept for people to get? This law would explicitely say that video games are worse than movies in a legal sense.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Digital distribution of the game would have been entirely legal.

    Which is a good point if Manhunt 2 wasn't a console game.

    You have to admit that's a pretty damn way of ruling this anyway. It's like banning the game from being sold by any stores with names starting with A-M.

    Pretty much, however, it really isn't all that important given Britains record on cencorship of games. So saying that Britain can ban games is pretty disingenious, we can but in practice we don't. You would have been better off going with a European country.

    Except for the fact that they, you know, forced Rockstar to modify Manhunt 2 in order to allow it's sale. In other words, if Rockstar had not modified the game, it would have been banned.

    I'm not sure how much worse you can get on free speech than forcing artists to modify their art in order to allow it to be consumed.

    PuddingSenator on
  • EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Digital distribution of the game would have been entirely legal.

    Which is a good point if Manhunt 2 wasn't a console game.

    You have to admit that's a pretty damn way of ruling this anyway. It's like banning the game from being sold by any stores with names starting with A-M.

    Pretty much, however, it really isn't all that important given Britains record on cencorship of games. So saying that Britain can ban games is pretty disingenious, we can but in practice we don't. You would have been better off going with a European country.

    Except that Rockstar did have to repeatedly change the game and take legal action. I can understand you rarely don't, but in this case you very nearly did.

    I agree there are other European countries much worse than the UK here. The poster in question just asked about the UK specifically is all.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Hmmmm. So a couple of things.

    First. People mentioned right away that parents could still buy their kids 'mature' video games if they wanted to. Is that really the case? Here, at least, it's quite illegal to buy a minor cigarettes or alcohol. I don't imagine the dissemination of pornography is well regarded either, but I don't really know offhand.

    Second. Isn't submission for rating to the ESRB voluntary? The ESRB is, as I understand it, a private entity and not regulated or in any way by the government or the public, nor is it answerable to them. If you want to rate and restrict video games, that's super, but I think you should come up with set criterion for doing so. Edit: Or at least you should before passing a law that fines people thousands of dollars for not participating in something that's voluntary.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    bloodr wrote: »
    This is just another attempt by conservatives to pander to freaked out parents too lazy to parent their children. This bill will likely die in some committee by congress people bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

    What troubles me is the statement about rape in games, it implies it's commonplace. Matter of fact I'm trying to think of a game that has this and I can only come up with Custard's Revenge.

    Isn't there a mission in the original GTA where you assist in kidnapping someone who then gets raped in the back seat of the vehicle while you're driving it? That seems close enough.

    jothki on
  • HembotHembot Registered User
    edited May 2008
    On one hand I don't mind the law because I can see how irresponible a lot of people are with their kids...but do I really want to pay any sort of tax increase (be it even half a penny) on this? No! Because on the whole it doesn't stop them from being bad parents. I think a violent mother or father (or both) is more prone to breeding a violent child.

    I don't agree with the laws on porn, guns, alcohol or drugs. Driving is another thing though. Once you get on a motorcycle you realize that American drivers are fucktards who got their license way to easily. The trippy part is you recognize that you were one of those fucktards...until of course you realized a mini cooper could run you off the road.

    Kids would find their way around the law anyways. I know I would if it passed and I was still a kid.

    Hembot on
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Ego wrote: »
    Hmmmm. So a couple of things.

    First. People mentioned right away that parents could still buy their kids 'mature' video games if they wanted to. Is that really the case? Here, at least, it's quite illegal to buy a minor cigarettes or alcohol. I don't imagine the dissemination of pornography is well regarded either, but I don't really know offhand.

    Second. Isn't submission for rating to the ESRB voluntary? The ESRB is, as I understand it, a private entity and not regulated or in any way by the government or the public, nor is it answerable to them. If you want to rate and restrict video games, that's super, but I think you should come up with set criterion for doing so. Edit: Or at least you should before passing a law that fines people thousands of dollars for not participating in something that's voluntary.

    First point: This particular law does not contain any language banning the purchase of these games by an adult for a child, as far as I know. Of course, this applies not just to parents but also siblings, kids at your school,etc, so if you think this law is going to end people complaining that kids are getting their hands on these games when they shouldn't, well, think again.

    Second: Yes, it is "voluntary" in a technical sense. However, I know of no retail chains that will sell unrated games, publications won't accept ads for unrated games, etc etc. Basically, if you don't get your game rated, you're fucked. And no, it is not regulated in any way, it's a totally private entity.

    PuddingSenator on
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Ego wrote: »
    Hmmmm. So a couple of things.

    First. People mentioned right away that parents could still buy their kids 'mature' video games if they wanted to. Is that really the case? Here, at least, it's quite illegal to buy a minor cigarettes or alcohol. I don't imagine the dissemination of pornography is well regarded either, but I don't really know offhand.

    Second. Isn't submission for rating to the ESRB voluntary? The ESRB is, as I understand it, a private entity and not regulated or in any way by the government or the public, nor is it answerable to them. If you want to rate and restrict video games, that's super, but I think you should come up with set criterion for doing so. Edit: Or at least you should before passing a law that fines people thousands of dollars for not participating in something that's voluntary.

    1: Yes, they could. It's when it becomes illegal for kids to even play those games that we really get into the whole unconstitutional stuff.

    2: Yes, submission is voluntary, but more or less required. Stores will not stock an unrated game, and none of the 3 console makers will allow an unrated game on their system. We saw something similar when Manhunt 2 was "banned" in America when it first got an AO rating. Rockstar was perfectly free to release it, but because it was a console game, nobody would ever sell it to begin with. The only games today that can get away with skirting the ESRB are PC games.

    edit: Once again, owned by slow typing skills.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • Greg USNGreg USN Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    You have to show ID if you want to buy Smokes, Beer, ect...
    I also don't buy the Freedom of Speech argument. No one is saying there can't be M rated games, just that Kids can't buy them.

    They should be carding for games and R rated movies.

    Greg USN on
    FFXIV Petra Ironheart
    Infinity Mog 21 and over Free Company Sargatanas Server. Recruitment currently closed.
    m1LuFkU.jpg
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Greg USN wrote: »
    You have to show ID if you want to buy Smokes, Beer, ect...
    I also don't buy the Freedom of Speech argument. No one is saying there can't be M rated games, just that Kids can't buy them.

    They should be carding for games and R rated movies.

    Restricting who can hear speech IS restricting freedom of speech.

    If you're at a protest criticizing the government, and they take you and put you in a tiny little soundproof room and say "You're still free to say whatever you want" your free speech is still being restricted, because people who may want to hear your message can't hear it.

    The comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, made many times in this thread, is still absurd. Comparing a physical product that causes proven physical damage to a piece of art is ridiculous.

    PuddingSenator on
  • bloodrbloodr Registered User
    edited May 2008
    bloodr wrote: »
    This is just another attempt by conservatives to pander to freaked out parents too lazy to parent their children. This bill will likely die in some committee by congress people bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.

    What troubles me is the statement about rape in games, it implies it's commonplace. Matter of fact I'm trying to think of a game that has this and I can only come up with Custard's Revenge.

    "Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson"

    It's a bipartisan bill, so I guess you'd have to lump "liberals" into it as well (if you wanted to continue bringing arbitrary political labels into the discussion).

    Just because you are a Democrat doesn't make you a liberal. The label is hardly arbitrary, it represents the views of the persons in question, NOT their party affiliation.
    jothki wrote:
    Isn't there a mission in the original GTA where you assist in kidnapping someone who then gets raped in the back seat of the vehicle while you're driving it? That seems close enough.

    I cannot say, GTA 4 is the first GTA that's held my interest for more than 5 minutes.

    Some people are comparing buying M rated games to buying smokes and booze. Those are drugs, there's nothing preventing the government from regulating that. However, the movie comparison is a more logical choice. But the minute the government starts regulating who can see what movies, where do you think it will end? Books? Newspapers? You give the government an inch and they'll take a mile. The only solution is industry self regulation. I think they are doing an excellent job considering how new the medium is.

    bloodr on
    b1oodrose.png
    b1oodrose.png
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Greg USN wrote: »
    You have to show ID if you want to buy Smokes, Beer, ect...
    I also don't buy the Freedom of Speech argument. No one is saying there can't be M rated games, just that Kids can't buy them.

    They should be carding for games and R rated movies.

    Restricting who can hear speech IS restricting freedom of speech.

    If you're at a protest criticizing the government, and they take you and put you in a tiny little soundproof room and say "You're still free to say whatever you want" your free speech is still being restricted, because people who may want to hear your message can't hear it.

    The comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, made many times in this thread, is still absurd. Comparing a physical product that causes proven physical damage to a piece of art is ridiculous.

    Nobody is saying they can't hear it!

    Somebody else has to buy it for them until they're old enough.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Greg USN wrote: »
    You have to show ID if you want to buy Smokes, Beer, ect...
    I also don't buy the Freedom of Speech argument. No one is saying there can't be M rated games, just that Kids can't buy them.

    They should be carding for games and R rated movies.

    Restricting who can hear speech IS restricting freedom of speech.

    If you're at a protest criticizing the government, and they take you and put you in a tiny little soundproof room and say "You're still free to say whatever you want" your free speech is still being restricted, because people who may want to hear your message can't hear it.


    The comparison to cigarettes and alcohol, made many times in this thread, is still absurd. Comparing a physical product that causes proven physical damage to a piece of art is ridiculous.

    What a bad analogy. That doesn't even relate to the issue. It'd work only if kids couldn't PLAY the games at all. We're talking about buying here.

    Shouldn't you be protesting the fact that we can't yell bomb or fire in public space? That's censorship, right? Because, as you, said, every single form of restriction is censorship.

    Djiem on
Sign In or Register to comment.