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

1457910

Posts

  • kniggeknigge Registered User
    edited May 2008
    All I'll say on the matter is that $5000 seems like a lot of fucking money for something that children are exposed to on a daily basis with network television, news, and school.

    P.S. Not to mention the internet.

    knigge on
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    Man, that was covered on the first goddamned page of this thread, and 20 more times after that. Those restrictions are based on an immediate and physical threat to the surrounding populous, which has absolutely nothing to do with vidya games, until a study comes out proving that the instant a 12-year-old loads up GTA4 he must go on a murderous rampage.

    As far as buying vs. playing, it's an important distinction, but I still don't think it magically makes it constitutional to limit how speech may be purchased and consumed.

    PuddingSenator on
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    I wish we would just drop the "freedom of speech" angle, since it has absolutely zero relevance in this at all. Nobody's freedom of speech or expression is being infringed here. Game makers are free to create their works. Minors are free to purchase them, and if they're a certain rating that is not recommended for them, they need parental consent.

    I fail to see how "Freedom of speech" equates to "15 year old Timmy should be able to buy anything he wants"

    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
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    Man, that was covered on the first goddamned page of this thread, and 20 more times after that. Those restrictions are based on an immediate and physical threat to the surrounding populous, which has absolutely nothing to do with vidya games, until a study comes out proving that the instant a 12-year-old loads up GTA4 he must go on a murderous rampage.

    As far as buying vs. playing, it's an important distinction, but I still don't think it magically makes it constitutional to limit how speech may be purchased and consumed.

    Bomb and Fire aren't a immediate threat if you're just kidding around in an airport and saying to the guy checking your luggages: "DON'T WORRY THERE'S NO BOMB HURR HURR". Nobody will panic if you're not yelling, but man, you are NOT getting on that plane.

    The point is that M-rated games have content that is not suitable for kids, hence the rating. I don't see any problem with restricting their ACQUISITION (and nothing more). It's exactly the very very very same as porn and R-rated movies. I'm totally for kids under R or 18 not being able to get R-rated movies or porn by themselves.

    I guess only porn with a plot should be given to minors, since it could be argued that they have artistic merit.

    Djiem on
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I fail to see how "Freedom of speech" equates to "15 year old Timmy should be able to buy anything he wants"

    Freedom of speech means that the publishers of video games, magazines, or any other form of speech or artistic expression should be able to sell their wares to 15 year old Timmy.

    Unless it's proven that what they are selling is classified as 'obscene'.

    And that isn't the case here.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    I wish we would just drop the "freedom of speech" angle, since it has absolutely zero relevance in this at all. Nobody's freedom of speech or expression is being infringed here. Game makers are free to create their works. Minors are free to purchase them, and if they're a certain rating that is not recommended for them, they need parental consent.

    I fail to see how "Freedom of speech" equates to "15 year old Timmy should be able to buy anything he wants"

    Pantsb and I had a discussion a few pages ago, now derelict, about how this fits into freedom of speech. Freedom of speech - the freedom to communicate information - is a worthless right if your right to purchase material is restricted, so it is well-established that access to information is a first amendment right.

    If they need parental consent, they aren't free to purchase those works, their parents are free to purchase those works. In fact, even in a formalistic sense you're wrong - kids may get to play the game if their parents buy it, but they themselves are restricted from accessing it. What kind of dumb distinction is it that makes it illegal to buy a work, but not to read it? Restricting access to information is as damaging as restricting the right to actually read the information.

    Content-based Restrictions on speech are OK for two reasons
    1) the speech is obscene - a high standard to meet.
    2) The state has a very, very good reason for doing something, and a very,very narrow means of accomplishing it.

    It's my opinion that #2 probably renders this law constitutional. But it's pretty clear that this is a restriction on speech that isn't OK absent a very good reason for it. Do you think prohibiting all children from reading catcher in the rye isn't a restriction on freedom of speech?

    kaliyama on
    fwKS7.png?1
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    Man, that was covered on the first goddamned page of this thread, and 20 more times after that. Those restrictions are based on an immediate and physical threat to the surrounding populous, which has absolutely nothing to do with vidya games, until a study comes out proving that the instant a 12-year-old loads up GTA4 he must go on a murderous rampage.

    As far as buying vs. playing, it's an important distinction, but I still don't think it magically makes it constitutional to limit how speech may be purchased and consumed.

    Bomb and Fire aren't a immediate threat if you're just kidding around in an airport and saying to the guy checking your luggages: "DON'T WORRY THERE'S NO BOMB HURR HURR". Nobody will panic if you're not yelling, but man, you are NOT getting on that plane.

    The point is that M-rated games have content that is not suitable for kids, hence the rating. I don't see any problem with restricting their ACQUISITION (and nothing more). It's exactly the very very very same as porn and R-rated movies. I'm totally for kids under R or 18 not being able to get R-rated movies or porn by themselves.

    I guess only porn with a plot should be given to minors, since it could be argued that they have artistic merit.

    R-Rated movies are not enforced by the government. In fact, they are the best example of why we do not need a law like this. The movie industry has done such a good job of enforcing MPAA ratings that the majority of Americans think it's a law, when it's actually the free market.

    Also, I don't think there's a law against saying the word bomb in an airport. You may not be allowed to get on the plane if you have a particularly humorless TSA agent (TSA is also wildly unconstitutional, by the by), but I doubt you would be able to be prosecuted unless what you said created a panic. I could be wrong on that though, I don't really keep up with airport security law.

    PuddingSenator on
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    I fail to see how "Freedom of speech" equates to "15 year old Timmy should be able to buy anything he wants"

    Freedom of speech means that the publishers of video games, magazines, or any other form of speech or artistic expression should be able to sell their wares to 15 year old Timmy.

    Unless it's proven that what they are selling is classified as 'obscene'.

    And that isn't the case here.

    I would assume that developers know pretty early on who their intended audience is and just what kind of rating their game will receive. If they're making an M game, they know their intended customers are 17 and older.

    And once again, if it was a flat restriction that Timmy was not allowed at all to be in possession of the game until the age of 17, then that would be a restriction. He's not. He's free to purchase the game.

    With Parental Supervision.

    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
  • NevaNeva Registered User
    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.

    What do you mean? You need to be of age to see an R rated movie as well, unless with an adult.

    Also, the "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread shows that people shouldn't play video games at all. At least, no one in these forums.

    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
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    Man, that was covered on the first goddamned page of this thread, and 20 more times after that. Those restrictions are based on an immediate and physical threat to the surrounding populous, which has absolutely nothing to do with vidya games, until a study comes out proving that the instant a 12-year-old loads up GTA4 he must go on a murderous rampage.

    As far as buying vs. playing, it's an important distinction, but I still don't think it magically makes it constitutional to limit how speech may be purchased and consumed.

    Bomb and Fire aren't a immediate threat if you're just kidding around in an airport and saying to the guy checking your luggages: "DON'T WORRY THERE'S NO BOMB HURR HURR". Nobody will panic if you're not yelling, but man, you are NOT getting on that plane.

    The point is that M-rated games have content that is not suitable for kids, hence the rating. I don't see any problem with restricting their ACQUISITION (and nothing more). It's exactly the very very very same as porn and R-rated movies. I'm totally for kids under R or 18 not being able to get R-rated movies or porn by themselves.

    I guess only porn with a plot should be given to minors, since it could be argued that they have artistic merit.

    R-Rated movies are not enforced by the government. In fact, they are the best example of why we do not need a law like this. The movie industry has done such a good job of enforcing MPAA ratings that the majority of Americans think it's a law, when it's actually the free market.

    Also, I don't think there's a law against saying the word bomb in an airport. You may not be allowed to get on the plane if you have a particularly humorless TSA agent (TSA is also wildly unconstitutional, by the by), but I doubt you would be able to be prosecuted unless what you said created a panic. I could be wrong on that though, I don't really keep up with airport security law.

    I'll have to look it up, but I think it is against the law to say bomb in the airport.

    Djiem on
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Wolfman, I think you're missing my point.

    The reason that certain things are exempt from our constitutionally-protected freedom of speech is because they either show a clear and present danger of something - for instance, you aren't allowed to threaten to kill the president - or because it is found to be obscene.

    At this point, neither of these is the case when it comes to video games. What's happening here is some legislators are deciding, on their own, that M-rated games are obscene. Are they? Maybe. But that hasn't been proven. And that's why the law is unconstitutional.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    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.

    What do you mean? You need to be of age to see an R rated movie as well, unless with an adult.

    Also, the "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread shows that people shouldn't play video games at all. At least, no one in these forums.

    No, you don't. That's done by the theaters, not government

    PuddingSenator on
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Wolfman, I think you're missing my point.

    The reason that certain things are exempt from our constitutionally-protected freedom of speech is because they either show a clear and present danger of something - for instance, you aren't allowed to threaten to kill the president - or because it is found to be obscene.

    At this point, neither of these is the case when it comes to video games. What's happening here is some legislators are deciding, on their own, that M-rated games are obscene. Are they? Maybe. But that hasn't been proven. And that's why the law is unconstitutional.

    I find GTA much more troublesome (or obscene, if you will) than the "regular" pornography (meaning, no abuse or humiliation, just sex between two consenting adults).

    Djiem on
  • MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    Djiem wrote: »
    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.

    Man, that was covered on the first goddamned page of this thread, and 20 more times after that. Those restrictions are based on an immediate and physical threat to the surrounding populous, which has absolutely nothing to do with vidya games, until a study comes out proving that the instant a 12-year-old loads up GTA4 he must go on a murderous rampage.

    As far as buying vs. playing, it's an important distinction, but I still don't think it magically makes it constitutional to limit how speech may be purchased and consumed.

    Bomb and Fire aren't a immediate threat if you're just kidding around in an airport and saying to the guy checking your luggages: "DON'T WORRY THERE'S NO BOMB HURR HURR". Nobody will panic if you're not yelling, but man, you are NOT getting on that plane.

    The point is that M-rated games have content that is not suitable for kids, hence the rating. I don't see any problem with restricting their ACQUISITION (and nothing more). It's exactly the very very very same as porn and R-rated movies. I'm totally for kids under R or 18 not being able to get R-rated movies or porn by themselves.

    I guess only porn with a plot should be given to minors, since it could be argued that they have artistic merit.

    R-Rated movies are not enforced by the government. In fact, they are the best example of why we do not need a law like this. The movie industry has done such a good job of enforcing MPAA ratings that the majority of Americans think it's a law, when it's actually the free market.

    Also, I don't think there's a law against saying the word bomb in an airport. You may not be allowed to get on the plane if you have a particularly humorless TSA agent (TSA is also wildly unconstitutional, by the by), but I doubt you would be able to be prosecuted unless what you said created a panic. I could be wrong on that though, I don't really keep up with airport security law.

    I'll have to look it up, but I think it is against the law to say bomb in the airport.

    I am so going to test this out.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • NevaNeva Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    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.

    What do you mean? You need to be of age to see an R rated movie as well, unless with an adult.

    Also, the "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread shows that people shouldn't play video games at all. At least, no one in these forums.

    No, you don't. That's done by the theaters, not government

    To the consumer, there really isn't much difference.

    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
  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    Neva wrote: »
    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.

    What do you mean? You need to be of age to see an R rated movie as well, unless with an adult.

    Also, the "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread shows that people shouldn't play video games at all. At least, no one in these forums.

    No, you don't. That's done by the theaters, not government

    To the consumer, there really isn't much difference.

    I really wouldn't mind the government being the one saying R-rated movies are not for kids anyway.

    Djiem on
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Wolfman, I think you're missing my point.

    The reason that certain things are exempt from our constitutionally-protected freedom of speech is because they either show a clear and present danger of something - for instance, you aren't allowed to threaten to kill the president - or because it is found to be obscene.

    At this point, neither of these is the case when it comes to video games. What's happening here is some legislators are deciding, on their own, that M-rated games are obscene. Are they? Maybe. But that hasn't been proven. And that's why the law is unconstitutional.

    I find GTA much more troublesome (or obscene, if you will) than the "regular" pornography (meaning, no abuse or humiliation, just sex between two consenting adults).

    I'd like to point out, I'm not saying that kids should be playing these games. What I'm saying is that before congress goes around taking away or restricting our rights willy-nilly, they should go through the due process. In this case, that means showing that M-rated games are obscene. I absolutely think that a case could be made for GTA to be classified that way, but my problem here is that they haven't even bothered to try, and are just arbitrarily saying it is.

    Also, if they are going to impose legal restrictions on video games, I would like to see them do the same for other forms of media such as film and television.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    Wolfman, I think you're missing my point.

    The reason that certain things are exempt from our constitutionally-protected freedom of speech is because they either show a clear and present danger of something - for instance, you aren't allowed to threaten to kill the president - or because it is found to be obscene.

    At this point, neither of these is the case when it comes to video games. What's happening here is some legislators are deciding, on their own, that M-rated games are obscene. Are they? Maybe. But that hasn't been proven. And that's why the law is unconstitutional.

    Well, let's assume this law goes into place.

    A child of 15 years wants to purchase Manhunt 3. The store says he needs a parent or guardian to buy it for him. He asks his mom. She says no.

    Well... shit, that ain't the government restricting his speech. That's his mother doing that! Why aren't we getting on her case? She's restricting her son's freedom of speech to be able to purchase the game. Boo mom!

    Anyways, this discussion is pretty exhausting, so I think I'm gonna bow out. The main problem is I have 2 stances on the issue.

    1: I'm >17 years old, so this doesn't affect me in the slightest.

    2: I'm a Canadian citizen. So like, your silly American constitution and freedom of speech mean jack shit to me. :)

    I don't see anything wrong with carding youngsters and saying no to M rated games. In fact, this fixes a lot of problems. The major ones being people like Jack Thompson and the "Vidja games are bad mmmkay" crowd no longer have a leg to stand on. Minors can't purchase the games by themselves. So it's no longer the publisher's fault. Blame lies squarely on ma and pa. Like it always should have.

    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
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Wolfman, imagine your scenario there, except the mom says 'Sure honey, run on down there and pick it up.' Now that's the government stepping in, not his mother.

    All I'm saying is, prove that it is obscene and causes kids to turn bad, rather than just shitty parenting.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'll know it when I see it...

    Xenogears of Bore on
    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • JigrahJigrah Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I would have been really sad if the lady selling me Fallout & Fallout 2 was all "You need to be 18 for this". I was fourteen at the time.

    Instead she sold it to me and said, good choice.

    I was raised with violent movies, video games etc. It wasn't because my parents were shitty or bad it was because the content was fake and not real violence. Fake stuff doesn't bother me, I know its fake I know its acting. However seeing real gore still causes my stomach to clench.

    Forays into the adult world are what helps adolescents grow into adults. Yes there is some fucked up shit out in the world but the decision to get into it is on moral guidelines, not legal.

    Besides, books like American Psycho are by far more psychologically menacing.

    Jigrah on
    jigrah please. pass the pipe
    Ruckus wrote: »
    Jigrah please. take my hand.
    Butters wrote: »
    Jigrah please! You'll wake the children
    Mysst wrote: »
    jigrah, please, we won't have this moment again.
    Fire Truck wrote: »
    Jigrah, please, I have a headache
    Jigrah, please. Just the tip, I promise.
    jigrah please let me have your babies
    Grey Ghost wrote: »
    I'm going to name my next global pestilence "Jigrah"
    Mysst wrote: »
    jigrah, please don't stop
    Tasteticle wrote: »
    jigrah please invite me next time you watch robotech.
    Druhim wrote:
    Jigrah, please, our dinner is getting cold
    Well Jigrah, maybe if you said please.


  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    Neva wrote: »
    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.

    What do you mean? You need to be of age to see an R rated movie as well, unless with an adult.

    Also, the "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread shows that people shouldn't play video games at all. At least, no one in these forums.

    No, you don't. That's done by the theaters, not government

    To the consumer, there really isn't much difference.

    It's the difference between doing something voluntarily, and having a gun held to your head.

    That may not make a difference to you, but in my morality, that's a huge difference.

    PuddingSenator on
  • The Sneak!The Sneak! Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    that is because you are a filthy hippy

    The Sneak! on
  • OSUJumpManOSUJumpMan Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I fail to see how this gives video game publishers/designers a free pass on content. As has been stated many times in this thread, the goverment requires proper ID to purchase cigarettes, but that hasn't stopped people from accusing the tobacco companies of selling their product to children. All a law would do is place a stigma on the M rated video game.

    OSUJumpMan on
    camo_sig2.png
  • TheDissolutionTheDissolution Registered User
    edited May 2008
    I distinctly remember getting IDed years ago buying Twisted Metal: Black and one of the GTA's on the PS2. That said, I'm not against it. I used to get IDed trying to buy CDs with parental advisory on them where I live. No biggie.

    TheDissolution on
  • LarkaLarka Registered User
    edited May 2008
    I was fairly certain you couldn't buy these games if you were under 17/18 in the first place...why is there a carding need?
    The only bad thing about this is it sets a precedent for the government getting involved where there is no need.

    Larka on
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I guess the main reason I'm siding with this law is because its limiting the sale of content. Not the flow, not the right to view/use, but simply the sale.

    If someone wants to get their message across, give it away for free. If you're making a game to make money, thats fine, don't wave the freedom of speech banner, because your goal isn't to get a message across, it's to make money. If you're making a game to spread a message, then do that instead.

    Raslin on
    I cant url good so add me on steam anyways steamcommunity.com/id/Raslin

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • NevaNeva Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    Neva wrote: »
    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.

    What do you mean? You need to be of age to see an R rated movie as well, unless with an adult.

    Also, the "Angriest you've ever gotten" thread shows that people shouldn't play video games at all. At least, no one in these forums.

    No, you don't. That's done by the theaters, not government

    To the consumer, there really isn't much difference.

    It's the difference between doing something voluntarily, and having a gun held to your head.

    That may not make a difference to you, but in my morality, that's a huge difference.

    What the hell. Maybe if we punish pity crimes with execution, you could say that. But even then, it doesn't really matter. The theater telling you you can't see this movie without an adult is the game as the government telling you that you can't see this movie without an adult. Either way, if you're a minor, you ain't seeing that movie without an adult.

    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
  • The Sneak!The Sneak! Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I distinctly remember getting IDed years ago buying Twisted Metal: Black and one of the GTA's on the PS2. That said, I'm not against it. I used to get IDed trying to buy CDs with parental advisory on them where I live. No biggie.



    maybe because it's common sense


    JUST SAYIN

    The Sneak! on
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    It would also make M rated games taboo and more attractive to rebellious teenagers. Which is all teenagers.

    Effectively worsening the situation.


    Like, if having sex was made illegal birth rates would double.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • RaslinRaslin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Larka wrote: »
    I was fairly certain you couldn't buy these games if you were under 17/18 in the first place...why is there a carding need?
    The only bad thing about this is it sets a precedent for the government getting involved where there is no need.

    Basically, they feel that companies aren't doing a good enough job carding/denying sales to people under the ESRB age.

    Raslin on
    I cant url good so add me on steam anyways steamcommunity.com/id/Raslin

    3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
  • OSUJumpManOSUJumpMan Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I think what needs to happen is that the video game companies need to enforce ratings with the same enthusiasm as they do street dates

    OSUJumpMan on
    camo_sig2.png
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Raslin wrote: »
    I guess the main reason I'm siding with this law is because its limiting the sale of content. Not the flow, not the right to view/use, but simply the sale.

    If someone wants to get their message across, give it away for free. If you're making a game to make money, thats fine, don't wave the freedom of speech banner, because your goal isn't to get a message across, it's to make money. If you're making a game to spread a message, then do that instead.

    WOW o_O

    So anything you charge money for doesn't count as speech? Incredible

    PuddingSenator on
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm curious how many people would support the institution of a government-enforced age check on material that features:

    Foul language
    Violence
    Sex
    Adult Themes


    The material?
    Penny Arcade

    Further, how many would be in favor of the government fining the distributors of PA $5000 for every minor who was able to access the comic?

    BubbaT on
  • The Sneak!The Sneak! Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    i think our founding fathers were like


    "let's make this freedom of speech shit as convoluted as fucking possible so our descendants can bitch about inane shit regarding how it's being abused centuries from now"

    The Sneak! on
  • NevaNeva Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Raslin wrote: »
    I guess the main reason I'm siding with this law is because its limiting the sale of content. Not the flow, not the right to view/use, but simply the sale.

    If someone wants to get their message across, give it away for free. If you're making a game to make money, thats fine, don't wave the freedom of speech banner, because your goal isn't to get a message across, it's to make money. If you're making a game to spread a message, then do that instead.

    WOW o_O

    So anything you charge money for doesn't count as speech? Incredible

    Not free speech, anyways.

    *rimshot*

    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
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    Raslin wrote: »
    I guess the main reason I'm siding with this law is because its limiting the sale of content. Not the flow, not the right to view/use, but simply the sale.

    If someone wants to get their message across, give it away for free. If you're making a game to make money, thats fine, don't wave the freedom of speech banner, because your goal isn't to get a message across, it's to make money. If you're making a game to spread a message, then do that instead.

    WOW o_O

    So anything you charge money for doesn't count as speech? Incredible

    Not free speech, anyways.

    *rimshot*


    oh man iceburn.

    The_Scarab on
    scarab you have mental problems
  • MistaCreepyMistaCreepy Registered User
    edited May 2008
    The Sneak! wrote: »
    i think our founding fathers were like


    "let's make this freedom of speech shit as convoluted as fucking possible so our descendants can bitch about inane shit regarding how it's being abused centuries from now"

    Thats pretty much the entire constitution in a nutshell. Look at the 2nd amendment.

    MistaCreepy on
    PS3: MistaCreepy::Steam: MistaCreepy::360: Dead and I don't feel like paying to fix it.
  • PuddingSenatorPuddingSenator Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Neva wrote: »
    What the hell. Maybe if we punish pity crimes with execution, you could say that. But even then, it doesn't really matter. The theater telling you you can't see this movie without an adult is the game as the government telling you that you can't see this movie without an adult. Either way, if you're a minor, you ain't seeing that movie without an adult.

    Everything the government does is force. That is the definition of the government. They fine you, and if you don't pay, you go to jail. The only way they get you in jail is physical force.

    Vs. the free market way where it is done voluntarily, and the only penalties are from the other operators in the free market.

    Really, look up capitalism. It's kind of the whole idea of the country.

    PuddingSenator on
  • The Sneak!The Sneak! Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    the government is going to fuck your mother, pudding

    The Sneak! on
Sign In or Register to comment.