"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.
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.
I know some people who work at cinemas who would kick the shit out of any kids making a fuss about being not let into a certificated movie.
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
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
Well, consider the context.
When the constitution was first drafted, "Freedom of Speech" was intended so that no person would be persecuted for his beliefs, and that he was free to speak out, either for his beliefs or against another. If he wanted to say he believed in a giant tree frog from the Xyxxxitx galaxy, and that anyone from the Xtixxxyx galaxy were homps, he was free to.
I don't quite think it was intended to say that a multi million dollar corporation should be allowed to sell Testicle Smasher VI to kids.
Food for thought at least.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
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*
PWNT
Way to take what I said out of context. Also, pwnt in a serious debate? I'm starting to think you really are 16.
My point was, if you want to push a message out, do it for free. Its the difference, here, to me, between exploiting children's wishes to make money, and trying to put an idea in their heads. And don't get me wrong, making money is important in the US, but if a child can't sign a contract, or choose to damage himself with alcohol and cigarettes, I don't think he should be allowed to be exploited by companies like that.
Without parental consent, of course.
Edit: Somehow, wolfman beat me to my own argument O.o
"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.
Now, to be fair, we've been pretty good about the third amendment. I don't recall any big, ambiguous court cases about the National Guard on our patios.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
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
Well, consider the context.
When the constitution was first drafted, "Freedom of Speech" was intended so that no person would be persecuted for his beliefs, and that he was free to speak out, either for his beliefs or against another. If he wanted to say he believed in a giant tree frog from the Xyxxxitx galaxy, and that anyone from the Xtixxxyx galaxy were homps, he was free to.
I don't quite think it was intended to say that a multi million dollar corporation should be allowed to sell Testicle Smasher VI to kids.
Food for thought at least.
Except there's the whole Freedom of the Press thing that's right in there too. I'm pretty sure pamphlets and newspapers were around back then, and they made money. It's not like they had no printing press and no media back then.
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*
PWNT
Way to take what I said out of context. Also, pwnt in a serious debate? I'm starting to think you really are 16.
My point was, if you want to push a message out, do it for free. Its the difference, here, to me, between exploiting children's wishes to make money, and trying to put an idea in their heads. And don't get me wrong, making money is important in the US, but if a child can't sign a contract, or choose to damage himself with alcohol and cigarettes, I don't think he should be allowed to be exploited by companies like that.
Without parental consent, of course.
Edit: Somehow, wolfman beat me to my own argument O.o
I was saying pwnt because Neva made a joke? "Free" speech? Get it? It's a joke. And basically, what you're railing against is capitalism as a whole, if selling something to a child is exploiting them. Possibly a valid avenue of discussion, not really what we're talking about here.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
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*
PWNT
Way to take what I said out of context. Also, pwnt in a serious debate? I'm starting to think you really are 16.
My point was, if you want to push a message out, do it for free. Its the difference, here, to me, between exploiting children's wishes to make money, and trying to put an idea in their heads. And don't get me wrong, making money is important in the US, but if a child can't sign a contract, or choose to damage himself with alcohol and cigarettes, I don't think he should be allowed to be exploited by companies like that.
Without parental consent, of course.
Edit: Somehow, wolfman beat me to my own argument O.o
I was saying pwnt because Neva made a joke? "Free" speech? Get it? It's a joke. And basically, what you're railing against is capitalism as a whole, if selling something to a child is exploiting them. Possibly a valid avenue of discussion, not really what we're talking about here.
Being a communist means I rail against capitalism alot, but thats not my point. The 1st amendment was made to protect people's right to express themselves, not to sell things. You don't have to make money(and I believe shouldn't, personally) to express yourself.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
This constitution of yours seems to be causing more problems than seems worthwhile. Why not get something new?
This would result in a very bloody conflict.
Not to mention that it's against the constitution.
How ironic.
actually i think the constitution says something along the lines of if the people don't like where the gov't takes the constitution they (the people) can rip it up and start again
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*
PWNT
Way to take what I said out of context. Also, pwnt in a serious debate? I'm starting to think you really are 16.
My point was, if you want to push a message out, do it for free. Its the difference, here, to me, between exploiting children's wishes to make money, and trying to put an idea in their heads. And don't get me wrong, making money is important in the US, but if a child can't sign a contract, or choose to damage himself with alcohol and cigarettes, I don't think he should be allowed to be exploited by companies like that.
Without parental consent, of course.
Edit: Somehow, wolfman beat me to my own argument O.o
I was saying pwnt because Neva made a joke? "Free" speech? Get it? It's a joke. And basically, what you're railing against is capitalism as a whole, if selling something to a child is exploiting them. Possibly a valid avenue of discussion, not really what we're talking about here.
Being a communist means I rail against capitalism alot, but thats not my point. The 1st amendment was made to protect people's right to express themselves, not to sell things. You don't have to make money(and I believe shouldn't, personally) to express yourself.
That's fine for you, but the US Constitution clearly disagrees with you, and that is the context in which we are discussing whether this law is constitutional.
The US is a capitalist society, where, if you make something that people like, you have the right to ask them to pay for it.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. It's simply not true that the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers. There was fiction, opinion, even erotica. A vast variety of information, much like today.
This constitution of yours seems to be causing more problems than seems worthwhile. Why not get something new?
This would result in a very bloody conflict.
Not to mention that it's against the constitution.
How ironic.
actually i think the constitution says something along the lines of if the people don't like where the gov't takes the constitution they (the people) can rip it up and start again
...
Viva la Revolution?
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. It's simply not true that the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers. There was fiction, opinion, even erotica. A vast variety of information, much like today.
I'm wrong about something I didn't write?
Are you even reading my posts anymore?
Quote, for the love of god, where I said the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. It's simply not true that the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers. There was fiction, opinion, even erotica. A vast variety of information, much like today.
I'm wrong about something I didn't write?
Are you even reading my posts anymore?
Quote, for the love of god, where I said the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers.
You said that freedom of press is an exception and allows people to make money only because it costs money to make the news. That clearly implies that the freedom of press only applies to newspapers. I'm saying that's ridiculous, people were saying absurd and outlandish opinions, in the press, even at that time. People were writing fiction and such, and yes, their goal was *gasp* to make money! It's not like people wanting to make money is a new phenomenon, it existed then too, and there is no exception for it in the 1st Amendment because the people writing it believed that their citizens should be able to make money. You keep trying to map the constitution onto your beliefs, and it just won't work.
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*
PWNT
Way to take what I said out of context. Also, pwnt in a serious debate? I'm starting to think you really are 16.
My point was, if you want to push a message out, do it for free. Its the difference, here, to me, between exploiting children's wishes to make money, and trying to put an idea in their heads. And don't get me wrong, making money is important in the US, but if a child can't sign a contract, or choose to damage himself with alcohol and cigarettes, I don't think he should be allowed to be exploited by companies like that.
Without parental consent, of course.
Edit: Somehow, wolfman beat me to my own argument O.o
I was saying pwnt because Neva made a joke? "Free" speech? Get it? It's a joke. And basically, what you're railing against is capitalism as a whole, if selling something to a child is exploiting them. Possibly a valid avenue of discussion, not really what we're talking about here.
Being a communist means I rail against capitalism alot, but thats not my point. The 1st amendment was made to protect people's right to express themselves, not to sell things. You don't have to make money(and I believe shouldn't, personally) to express yourself.
That's fine for you, but the US Constitution clearly disagrees with you, and that is the context in which we are discussing whether this law is constitutional.
The US is a capitalist society, where, if you make something that people like, you have the right to ask them to pay for it.
Again, you pick a very small part of what I wrote, then write off my entire argument by disagreeing with it. I put that in parenthesis for a reason, it was unrelated to my argument.
The US is not a capitalist society, ask anybody with even the slightest clue. Its a mixed economy, with features from capitalist and socialist economic policies. If you make something that people like, you have the ability to ask them to pay for it. Unless its something the government deems you shouldn't be selling to that group.
Again, you pick a very small part of what I wrote, then write off my entire argument by disagreeing with it. I put that in parenthesis for a reason, it was unrelated to my argument.
The US is not a capitalist society, ask anybody with even the slightest clue. Its a mixed economy, with features from capitalist and socialist economic policies. If you make something that people like, you have the ability to ask them to pay for it. Unless its something the government deems you shouldn't be selling to that group.
I didn't pick out a small part of what you wrote, I picked out your entire argument. You argument is that the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for something. That is clearly, clearly NOT true. I have never even heard someone try and make that claim before it's so absurd. I mean, if you don't LIKE the fact that the US allows you to charge for speech, than say that, but there is just no coherent argument that the founding fathers didn't intend to allow people to charge for what they wanted to say.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. It's simply not true that the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers. There was fiction, opinion, even erotica. A vast variety of information, much like today.
I'm wrong about something I didn't write?
Are you even reading my posts anymore?
Quote, for the love of god, where I said the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers.
You said that freedom of press is an exception and allows people to make money only because it costs money to make the news. That clearly implies that the freedom of press only applies to newspapers. I'm saying that's ridiculous, people were saying absurd and outlandish opinions, in the press, even at that time. People were writing fiction and such, and yes, their goal was *gasp* to make money! It's not like people wanting to make money is a new phenomenon, it existed then too, and there is no exception for it in the 1st Amendment because the people writing it believed that their citizens should be able to make money. You keep trying to map the constitution onto your beliefs, and it just won't work.
Books have been banned from minors before, furthering my argument. The news is a seperate thing. Yes, there were opinions as well in the news, but they weren't the main feature. Having a primary goal to make money is diametrically opposed to having a main goal to express an idea, or get information to the public.
The point of the 1st amendment was to allow people to express their idea's freely. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with selling. Nothing at all. Its not saying you can't, and its not saying you can. As long as you can express your idea's to the public, its not breaking the law. You have no right in this country to sell anything. Emphasis on right.
You keep putting words in my mouth, and until you stop doing it, there's no god damn point arguing with you. When you say that I wrote something, quote me on it, because I've lost count how many times you've accused me of saying something I didn't say.
Again, you pick a very small part of what I wrote, then write off my entire argument by disagreeing with it. I put that in parenthesis for a reason, it was unrelated to my argument.
The US is not a capitalist society, ask anybody with even the slightest clue. Its a mixed economy, with features from capitalist and socialist economic policies. If you make something that people like, you have the ability to ask them to pay for it. Unless its something the government deems you shouldn't be selling to that group.
I didn't pick out a small part of what you wrote, I picked out your entire argument. You argument is that the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for something. That is clearly, clearly NOT true. I have never even heard someone try and make that claim before it's so absurd. I mean, if you don't LIKE the fact that the US allows you to charge for speech, than say that, but there is just no coherent argument that the founding fathers didn't intend to allow people to charge for what they wanted to say.
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up. The 1st amendment does not give you the right to sell anything. It gives you the right to express your idea, or give out your information. If you can give your ideas out freely, but not sell them, its not unconstitutional.
This has nothing to do with liking, or trying push my personal beliefs. Thats why I put those in parenthesis, or seperate paragraphs, and label them as such.
The founding fathers didn't feel that the ability to sell anything you want, including speech and ideas, was something that needed to be enumerated in the constitution. They left that up to the government to decide with the elastic clause.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. It's simply not true that the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers. There was fiction, opinion, even erotica. A vast variety of information, much like today.
I'm wrong about something I didn't write?
Are you even reading my posts anymore?
Quote, for the love of god, where I said the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers.
You said that freedom of press is an exception and allows people to make money only because it costs money to make the news. That clearly implies that the freedom of press only applies to newspapers. I'm saying that's ridiculous, people were saying absurd and outlandish opinions, in the press, even at that time. People were writing fiction and such, and yes, their goal was *gasp* to make money! It's not like people wanting to make money is a new phenomenon, it existed then too, and there is no exception for it in the 1st Amendment because the people writing it believed that their citizens should be able to make money. You keep trying to map the constitution onto your beliefs, and it just won't work.
Books have been banned from minors before, furthering my argument. The news is a seperate thing. Yes, there were opinions as well in the news, but they weren't the main feature. Having a primary goal to make money is diametrically opposed to having a main goal to express an idea, or get information to the public.
The point of the 1st amendment was to allow people to express their idea's freely. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with selling. Nothing at all. Its not saying you can't, and its not saying you can. As long as you can express your idea's to the public, its not breaking the law. You have no right in this country to sell anything. Emphasis on right.
You keep putting words in my mouth, and until you stop doing it, there's no god damn point arguing with you. When you say that I wrote something, quote me on it, because I've lost count how many times you've accused me of saying something I didn't say.
I haven't lost count. The count is zero.
I'm not sure when it was ever upheld that it was constitutional to ban books from minors, unless you are referring to pornography I suppose, but as I've said elsewhere, the constitutionality of that is highly debatable.
I couldn't disagree more with the statement that making money is "diametrically opposed" to making a statement. If the statement you are making is found provocative then people will pay for it. But like I said, debating communism against capitalism is way OT and there's really no point in it. Make a new thread for that.
You keep putting words in the mouths of the people that wrote the Constitution. I'm not sure why they would specifically include a clause referencing the press, a media format which makes money, if they thought that making money rendered an idea invalid.
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up.
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.
I can't imagine what else you could possibly be trying to say with that statement. If you are trying to make money, you can't claim freedom of speech. That is precisely what you said.
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up.
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.
I can't imagine what else you could possibly be trying to say with that statement. If you are trying to make money, you can't claim freedom of speech. That is precisely what you said.
No, it isn't. I said if your primary goal is making money, then your primary goal isn't making a statement. You can only have one primary goal. What I said, in what you quoted, is if you're making a game so that you can make money, crying freedom of speech is really just complaining that you're going to make less money because you can't sell it to certain people.
If you're mainly trying to get a message out, you're still allowed to. Just because you're not allowed to sell it doesn't mean you aren't free to spread your message.
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up.
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.
I can't imagine what else you could possibly be trying to say with that statement. If you are trying to make money, you can't claim freedom of speech. That is precisely what you said.
No, it isn't. I said if your primary goal is making money, then your primary goal isn't making a statement. You can only have one primary goal. What I said, in what you quoted, is if you're making a game so that you can make money, crying freedom of speech is really just complaining that you're going to make less money because you can't sell it to certain people.
If you're mainly trying to get a message out, you're still allowed to. Just because you're not allowed to sell it doesn't mean you aren't free to spread your message.
How do you determine primary goal, though? And how do you prove it? And what if turning a profit is necessary to obtain funding to communcate other ideas you want to express?
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up.
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.
I can't imagine what else you could possibly be trying to say with that statement. If you are trying to make money, you can't claim freedom of speech. That is precisely what you said.
No, it isn't. I said if your primary goal is making money, then your primary goal isn't making a statement. You can only have one primary goal. What I said, in what you quoted, is if you're making a game so that you can make money, crying freedom of speech is really just complaining that you're going to make less money because you can't sell it to certain people.
If you're mainly trying to get a message out, you're still allowed to. Just because you're not allowed to sell it doesn't mean you aren't free to spread your message.
I totally, totally disagree that you can't make a product to make money and still have the goal of making a statement. For an example, look at almost any piece of media ever. GTA4 cost $100 million to make, and if you play it you will find that they had a very distinct, well-though out, and complex message to convey. So do almost all music, movies, and books. Look at the vast number of albums made since the Iraq war started that oppose it, during the Vietnam War that opposed that war. Just because they made the albums in a studio and charged money for them, it means that the message means nothing?
The argument that the fact that there is money involved nullifies the intention behind the message is just ludicrous.
Basically your whole argument boils down to LAWL MONEY SUX, and since I disagree wholeheartedly there is really nothing to discuss in that area. Whatever you think about people making money, it's the system we have, and unless you can point out anything that supports your viewpoint, it remains simply your opinion.
In Canada you can get fined $250,000 if you're a retailer and sell games to minors without the parent making the purchase.
Really? I've never seen a clerk asking for ID for a game around here. In fact the only time I saw a clerk ask the parent to make the purchase of a game was when I was on a buisness trip in the USA.
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up.
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.
I can't imagine what else you could possibly be trying to say with that statement. If you are trying to make money, you can't claim freedom of speech. That is precisely what you said.
No, it isn't. I said if your primary goal is making money, then your primary goal isn't making a statement. You can only have one primary goal. What I said, in what you quoted, is if you're making a game so that you can make money, crying freedom of speech is really just complaining that you're going to make less money because you can't sell it to certain people.
If you're mainly trying to get a message out, you're still allowed to. Just because you're not allowed to sell it doesn't mean you aren't free to spread your message.
How do you determine primary goal, though? And how do you prove it? And what if turning a profit is necessary to obtain funding to communcate other ideas you want to express?
As for determining, the market will take care of that. If a developer is simply trying to make money, they will alter the content or take the hit. If they want to push their idea, they will find a way to get their message out without altering it.
Turning a profit, necessary to communicate your idea? Breaking even, sure, though there are plenty of ways to cheaply, or freely, express your ideas.
While I think this is a good idea to a degree (I think most parents are more apt to listen to the government than what a gamebox tells them, at least making this a law would cause them to stop and think for a moment), I find it a bit weird that the government would look to the ESRB ratings, an industry rating from the industry, as their guidelines.
Improvolone on
Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
I think when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, they expected that it would be guidelines for grown men and not children. Correct me if I'm wrong OP, but that's what I'm inferring in your post -- that information, rights and benefits should be given freely to anyone regardless of age.
Well, basically that would mean parents wouldn't be able to control or tell their kids what they can or can't watch... Which I'm sure wasn't the intended use of the First Amendment. Either way, I don't see the big deal with it. There are mandatory age checks for R-rated movies in the theaters in my area. Maybe that differs on a state by state basis?
No, it wouldn't restrict parents. The 1st Amendment prevents the government from restricting speech, it doesn't prevent anyone else, including parents, from doing so. Parents can prevent their kids from doing anything they want, except for eating I guess...
There are no government-enforced age checks for movies, movie theaters voluntarily check ID, just like many retailers do now for video games.
Right, but it also means a minor who is unsupervised can buy and do whatever he wants. But if a parent feels the child is responsible enough to be exposed to things he's restricted to, the government allows the minor to watch porn, smoke, drink, etc. There are legal ages to access these vices, but no legal age restricting anyone from doing these things.
Which is perfectly fine. Why should games be any different? Some of the content can get pretty graphic.
intercept on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
Republican Lee Terry and Democrat Jim Matheson have introduced a bill into the U.S. House of Representatives which would require all video game retailers to make identification checks on those buying video games intended for adults.
According to a Variety report, the proposed Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act would require ID checks for any game rated M for mature or AO (adults only) and would also require stores to prominently display explanations of the existing ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings system. Failure to comply in either case would result in a $5,000 fine.
Terry is optimistic that the act will not fall foul of first amendment concerns because it does not attempt to rate or define the content itself, but instead legally enforce the existing age ratings. The bill has already gained support from the Parents Television Council.
“The images and themes in some video games are shocking and troublesome. In some games, high scores are often earned by players who commit ‘virtual’ murder, assault and rape,†said Terry.
“Many young children are walking into stores and are able to buy or rent these games without their parents even knowing about it. Many retailers have tried to develop voluntary policies to make sure mature games do not end up in the hands of young kids, but we need to do more to protect our children,†he added.
I've seen a lot of gamers say they support this, and I don't understand why. I couldn't be more against it. It's such a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. I mean, it's not like the 1st Amendment has unclear wording, or a gray area or something. It's perfectly, brilliantly clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You can't restrict speech! Ever! In any way! If you do support this, please tell me how morally you can possibly think it's a good thing to have government deciding what speech may be consumed by individuals, and how you think it's constitutional in light of the 1st Amendment.
Well as an adult I can see the upside to this being that there will be less resistance to the types of games I want geared towards me. Legally though I dont know, I dont think children are really protected under free speech... It gets kinda gray there but in all honesty children dont really have FULL rights if I remember correctly, their parents take responsibility for alot of their rights. Either way whatever, meh.
Posts
You want vague amendments? Always go ten.
I know some people who work at cinemas who would kick the shit out of any kids making a fuss about being not let into a certificated movie.
Seriously.
PWNT
Well, consider the context.
When the constitution was first drafted, "Freedom of Speech" was intended so that no person would be persecuted for his beliefs, and that he was free to speak out, either for his beliefs or against another. If he wanted to say he believed in a giant tree frog from the Xyxxxitx galaxy, and that anyone from the Xtixxxyx galaxy were homps, he was free to.
I don't quite think it was intended to say that a multi million dollar corporation should be allowed to sell Testicle Smasher VI to kids.
Food for thought at least.
Way to take what I said out of context. Also, pwnt in a serious debate? I'm starting to think you really are 16.
My point was, if you want to push a message out, do it for free. Its the difference, here, to me, between exploiting children's wishes to make money, and trying to put an idea in their heads. And don't get me wrong, making money is important in the US, but if a child can't sign a contract, or choose to damage himself with alcohol and cigarettes, I don't think he should be allowed to be exploited by companies like that.
Without parental consent, of course.
Edit: Somehow, wolfman beat me to my own argument O.o
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Now, to be fair, we've been pretty good about the third amendment. I don't recall any big, ambiguous court cases about the National Guard on our patios.
Except there's the whole Freedom of the Press thing that's right in there too. I'm pretty sure pamphlets and newspapers were around back then, and they made money. It's not like they had no printing press and no media back then.
This would result in a very bloody conflict.
I was saying pwnt because Neva made a joke? "Free" speech? Get it? It's a joke. And basically, what you're railing against is capitalism as a whole, if selling something to a child is exploiting them. Possibly a valid avenue of discussion, not really what we're talking about here.
Not to mention that the whole freedom of the press thing gets rid of the argument that speech doesn't include things you pay for.
Being a communist means I rail against capitalism alot, but thats not my point. The 1st amendment was made to protect people's right to express themselves, not to sell things. You don't have to make money(and I believe shouldn't, personally) to express yourself.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Civil War?
Sounds awesome.
Not to mention that it's against the constitution.
How ironic.
Freedom of press is a seperate clause in the 1st amendment from freedom of speech. Expressing an idea is free, because its an idea. Expressing the news, etc, costs money, because you can't just make that up.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
actually i think the constitution says something along the lines of if the people don't like where the gov't takes the constitution they (the people) can rip it up and start again
That's fine for you, but the US Constitution clearly disagrees with you, and that is the context in which we are discussing whether this law is constitutional.
The US is a capitalist society, where, if you make something that people like, you have the right to ask them to pay for it.
I'm sorry but you're just wrong here. It's simply not true that the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers. There was fiction, opinion, even erotica. A vast variety of information, much like today.
...
Viva la Revolution?
I'm wrong about something I didn't write?
Are you even reading my posts anymore?
Quote, for the love of god, where I said the only thing coming off the printing press was newspapers.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
You said that freedom of press is an exception and allows people to make money only because it costs money to make the news. That clearly implies that the freedom of press only applies to newspapers. I'm saying that's ridiculous, people were saying absurd and outlandish opinions, in the press, even at that time. People were writing fiction and such, and yes, their goal was *gasp* to make money! It's not like people wanting to make money is a new phenomenon, it existed then too, and there is no exception for it in the 1st Amendment because the people writing it believed that their citizens should be able to make money. You keep trying to map the constitution onto your beliefs, and it just won't work.
Again, you pick a very small part of what I wrote, then write off my entire argument by disagreeing with it. I put that in parenthesis for a reason, it was unrelated to my argument.
The US is not a capitalist society, ask anybody with even the slightest clue. Its a mixed economy, with features from capitalist and socialist economic policies. If you make something that people like, you have the ability to ask them to pay for it. Unless its something the government deems you shouldn't be selling to that group.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I didn't pick out a small part of what you wrote, I picked out your entire argument. You argument is that the 1st Amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for something. That is clearly, clearly NOT true. I have never even heard someone try and make that claim before it's so absurd. I mean, if you don't LIKE the fact that the US allows you to charge for speech, than say that, but there is just no coherent argument that the founding fathers didn't intend to allow people to charge for what they wanted to say.
Books have been banned from minors before, furthering my argument. The news is a seperate thing. Yes, there were opinions as well in the news, but they weren't the main feature. Having a primary goal to make money is diametrically opposed to having a main goal to express an idea, or get information to the public.
The point of the 1st amendment was to allow people to express their idea's freely. The 1st amendment has nothing to do with selling. Nothing at all. Its not saying you can't, and its not saying you can. As long as you can express your idea's to the public, its not breaking the law. You have no right in this country to sell anything. Emphasis on right.
You keep putting words in my mouth, and until you stop doing it, there's no god damn point arguing with you. When you say that I wrote something, quote me on it, because I've lost count how many times you've accused me of saying something I didn't say.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Again, AGAIN, putting words in my mouth. I never said the 1st amendment doesn't count if you're charging money for it. Quote where I said that or shut the hell up. The 1st amendment does not give you the right to sell anything. It gives you the right to express your idea, or give out your information. If you can give your ideas out freely, but not sell them, its not unconstitutional.
This has nothing to do with liking, or trying push my personal beliefs. Thats why I put those in parenthesis, or seperate paragraphs, and label them as such.
The founding fathers didn't feel that the ability to sell anything you want, including speech and ideas, was something that needed to be enumerated in the constitution. They left that up to the government to decide with the elastic clause.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
I haven't lost count. The count is zero.
I'm not sure when it was ever upheld that it was constitutional to ban books from minors, unless you are referring to pornography I suppose, but as I've said elsewhere, the constitutionality of that is highly debatable.
I couldn't disagree more with the statement that making money is "diametrically opposed" to making a statement. If the statement you are making is found provocative then people will pay for it. But like I said, debating communism against capitalism is way OT and there's really no point in it. Make a new thread for that.
You keep putting words in the mouths of the people that wrote the Constitution. I'm not sure why they would specifically include a clause referencing the press, a media format which makes money, if they thought that making money rendered an idea invalid.
I can't imagine what else you could possibly be trying to say with that statement. If you are trying to make money, you can't claim freedom of speech. That is precisely what you said.
No, it isn't. I said if your primary goal is making money, then your primary goal isn't making a statement. You can only have one primary goal. What I said, in what you quoted, is if you're making a game so that you can make money, crying freedom of speech is really just complaining that you're going to make less money because you can't sell it to certain people.
If you're mainly trying to get a message out, you're still allowed to. Just because you're not allowed to sell it doesn't mean you aren't free to spread your message.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
In America they'll just fire the employee, or in the case of Gamestop, the employee and all the managers, if memory serves.
How do you determine primary goal, though? And how do you prove it? And what if turning a profit is necessary to obtain funding to communcate other ideas you want to express?
I totally, totally disagree that you can't make a product to make money and still have the goal of making a statement. For an example, look at almost any piece of media ever. GTA4 cost $100 million to make, and if you play it you will find that they had a very distinct, well-though out, and complex message to convey. So do almost all music, movies, and books. Look at the vast number of albums made since the Iraq war started that oppose it, during the Vietnam War that opposed that war. Just because they made the albums in a studio and charged money for them, it means that the message means nothing?
The argument that the fact that there is money involved nullifies the intention behind the message is just ludicrous.
Basically your whole argument boils down to LAWL MONEY SUX, and since I disagree wholeheartedly there is really nothing to discuss in that area. Whatever you think about people making money, it's the system we have, and unless you can point out anything that supports your viewpoint, it remains simply your opinion.
Really? I've never seen a clerk asking for ID for a game around here. In fact the only time I saw a clerk ask the parent to make the purchase of a game was when I was on a buisness trip in the USA.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
As for determining, the market will take care of that. If a developer is simply trying to make money, they will alter the content or take the hit. If they want to push their idea, they will find a way to get their message out without altering it.
Turning a profit, necessary to communicate your idea? Breaking even, sure, though there are plenty of ways to cheaply, or freely, express your ideas.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
http://www.audioentropy.com/
According to recent studies, 80% of stores visited by secret shoppers would not allow them to buy M-rated games. So yea, it's very, very unnecessary.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm
I would pay dollars money to not have a bunch of annoying 6 graders on GTA4.
I never asked for this!
Right, but it also means a minor who is unsupervised can buy and do whatever he wants. But if a parent feels the child is responsible enough to be exposed to things he's restricted to, the government allows the minor to watch porn, smoke, drink, etc. There are legal ages to access these vices, but no legal age restricting anyone from doing these things.
Which is perfectly fine. Why should games be any different? Some of the content can get pretty graphic.
Um...you do have to be 13 to access the message board. It's just that the internet currently makes age verification difficult.
Well as an adult I can see the upside to this being that there will be less resistance to the types of games I want geared towards me. Legally though I dont know, I dont think children are really protected under free speech... It gets kinda gray there but in all honesty children dont really have FULL rights if I remember correctly, their parents take responsibility for alot of their rights. Either way whatever, meh.