There was this one game that pretty much taught people how to kill others with stuff lying around, such as a plastic bag. That was banned.TheTurtleMan said:
A question for Americans
- Thread starter Random Name 4
- Start date
Recommended Videos
are you kidding me? free speech is nonexistent in ANY large civilized body! any time any group is significantly more powerful than another group, you can bet your ass the more powerful group will attempt to limit the rights and privileges of the lesser group. this of course, includes free speech.
Free speech is pretty good over here.
It's just not totally free, but that's kinda good, yet kinda bad.
It's just not totally free, but that's kinda good, yet kinda bad.
Yes, it has been a long time since Amurhika was the land of the free. We dont have freedoms, we have privileges that can be countermanded and modified by management with or without notice.
Ok perhaps thats exaggerating a tad, but you know what they say... after 9/11... everything changed.
Ok perhaps thats exaggerating a tad, but you know what they say... after 9/11... everything changed.
Ever heard of the KKK? They hated a group and they expressed it quite a bit - you're saying that sort of thing is justified? Even taking it away from those that lynched people to the people that spoke out against blacks and incited the hatred of them into others, you think that should in any way be protected?Father Time said:
Thus far the only type of speech that is out-and-out banned is that which is considered to be dangerous and/or harmful in and of itself, the common example being yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Child pornography is banned, and there is some danger of being legally vulnerable if you say untrue things about someone that could be damaging to their reputation. Certain other materials are resticted to adults, and probably should be. It's my sincere hope that the Supreme Court will recognize that the California law is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, with a "chilling effect" with the potential to go well beyond the much flogged vaunted intent of protecting children. Though I'll admit that I'd be much happier if the SC had just recognized the ridiculousness of the case in the first place and refused to hear the appeal.
In that regard (while I wait to hear what the Court rules in November,) I don't think the U.S. is doing to badly with regard to "free speech". Better than many, honestly.
What I find more disturbing is the recent relaxing of laws about money going to political advertisements. Free speech is a lot less free when the common citizen has to whisper while those who have no greater worth than having a lot of money get to yell into a bullhorn from a soapbox.
In that regard (while I wait to hear what the Court rules in November,) I don't think the U.S. is doing to badly with regard to "free speech". Better than many, honestly.
What I find more disturbing is the recent relaxing of laws about money going to political advertisements. Free speech is a lot less free when the common citizen has to whisper while those who have no greater worth than having a lot of money get to yell into a bullhorn from a soapbox.
Okay, most of this kind of debate is caused by not understanding what free speech means.
Free speech means that the government cannot censor a person or entity. The only exceptions have to do with security, like how it is reckless endangerment to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or having to do with how locations of covert teams on enemy soil are classified.
So, barring a military game made with classified information or something, video games do not fall under the category of safety and national security so they cannot be censored out of existence. Then again if we keep going down the path of socialism then they're just going to throw the constitution out and then they can censor video games or ban fried foods.
Free speech means that the government cannot censor a person or entity. The only exceptions have to do with security, like how it is reckless endangerment to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater or having to do with how locations of covert teams on enemy soil are classified.
So, barring a military game made with classified information or something, video games do not fall under the category of safety and national security so they cannot be censored out of existence. Then again if we keep going down the path of socialism then they're just going to throw the constitution out and then they can censor video games or ban fried foods.
Ok, the only way you can "incite" hatred into someone is if that someone already agrees with you. It's not like the KKK went up to black families and said "We're gonna go lynch the Washingtons down the street cause they're black and black people are bad!"Woodsey said:
You are glamorously oversimplyfing this. Freedom of Speech isn't "justified" by anything; it's a basic human right. If some redneck from the boonies wants to scream about how blacks and Jews are ruining the world then he has every right to say so. It doesn't make it right, it doesn't justify it, it doesn't affirm it. The same right he's using to proclaim his hatred is being used to denounce it by other, more intelligent people.
You can't make exceptions to the rule or else the rule will go away.
It's a difficult question. For one thing, nobody is banning anything, just making it a crime to sell to minors. The only things that are banned are things like child pornography and such. Also, a person can say whatever they want, within reason. Libel and Slander are not protected forms of speech in America, and for valid reasons. Once you are an adult you can choose to watch and hear whatever you want, or to make any movie of game that you want, but you can't sell it to minor's. I don't find that to be really restrictive at all.
Disallowing threats like that is done on the basis that the fear you would inflict on the other person is damaging to thier state of mind and could push them to act differently, impeding thier freedoms. It's the same thing as not being able to yell "fire" in a movie theater because someone could easily be hurt badly in the rush to escape.Greyfox105 said:
I'm seeing a lot of people here that don't seem to understand how the 1st Amendment actually works. Freedom of speech has nothing at all to do with whether some Joe Schmoe likes or dislikes what is being said, but instead protects the people from government infringement of speech. The fact that the KKK is still around is a good example of this. Have you ever been to or seen video from some sort of racist or offensive rally or protest? The police are often there protecting the offensive party that is hosting the rally. Why is this? Because they have the right to assemble and the right to spew their hatred. These come with reasonable limitations though. These limitations are that they can't incite a riot, they can't do anything slanderous or libelous, and they can't threaten bodily harm to anyone. A good quote to sum it up is "being offensive is free speech, death threats are not." The Westboro Baptist Church protests and says horrible things all the time and they have not been shut down for it. They protested in my town once and said that my best friend's father, who is a reverend, is going to hell. My friend had to walk into church that day and see posters saying awful things about her dad. It sucks, but they have the right to say these things. On the other hand, I have every right to be offended by their bullshit and tell them that I disagree.
"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."
The most important part of this is that CONGRESS shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. This does not apply in any way, shape, or form to any other private entity. The Escapist deleting an offensive post or banning a user doesn't violate freedom of speech. A magazine or TV station firing someone for being offensive does not violate freedom of speech. The only body in America that can violate freedom of speech is the US government. The MPAA, ESRB, and other such ratings boards are private, non-government entities and if they rate something as offensive then they are in no way violating freedom of speech. The government is not banning these things, the private ratings boards are.
"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."
The most important part of this is that CONGRESS shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. This does not apply in any way, shape, or form to any other private entity. The Escapist deleting an offensive post or banning a user doesn't violate freedom of speech. A magazine or TV station firing someone for being offensive does not violate freedom of speech. The only body in America that can violate freedom of speech is the US government. The MPAA, ESRB, and other such ratings boards are private, non-government entities and if they rate something as offensive then they are in no way violating freedom of speech. The government is not banning these things, the private ratings boards are.
would you like me to find some more knits you can pick, i think you may have missed a few.Father Time said:
Might want to read up, bud. Your free speech amendment also includes exception clauses for libel, slander, and 'fighting talk'.yamitami said:
And psh, socialism doesn't necessarily lead to that. The UK, if you judge it by its budget deficit, is one of the most socialistic countries in the world, yet you can pretty much say what you like- especially about the government. We have a long tradition of doing as such. Hell, some of our most popular newspapers publish libellous articles all the time.Wikipedia said:
So, as long as you have your gun, people have to listen to what you have to say? That sounds like it could be hypocritical in some way.flying_whimsy said:
And that second line genuinely made me smile. You really think your nation would have any chance against your military? The military that is more powerful than the next 17 militaries in the world combined? Really?
But spreading Bad Ideas is like giving away free knives at a playground, its not illegal but it is meant to make other people acting like you want.GWarface said:
Spreading the idea of wiping out the jewish race didnt came out that harmless if i recall correctly