Anti-Censorship Group Seeks Veto of Gaming "Disinformation" Bill

[shirkbot]

"... scientific findings that show children who play violent videogames are more likely to be involved in physical altercations with classmates, perform poorly on academic tasks, and are unable to relate to adults in positions of authority."

Because it's not like those statistics are skewed by the fact that the people who actively seek out video games tend to be nerds searching for escape fantasy and bullies searching for power fantasies. Not to mention, authority must always be questioned, just like everything else in life. Even me.

Not only that, but it goes against the supreme court. Which is illegal.

Going against the Supreme Court isn't illegal, just insanely stupid. What will happen is the bill will pass, it'll be brought to court, who will then issue a freeze on its implementation for the duration of proceedings. They'll use the existing precedent, overturn the law, it'll get appealed until it hits the Supreme Court, who will again look to precedent, uphold that this is a no-go and send everyone home. It's basically just a waste of time and resources to advance the anti-rock n' roll agenda.

 

[Quantum Glass]

So wait, did the studies in question have control groups? Because if that sort of thing isn't considered necessary anymore, I intend to milk it for all it's worth.

Fun fact: Everybody who hasn't elected me dictator for life has a high chance of dying at some point in the next eighty years, and all non-homosexual marriages end in either death or divorce.

 

[Andy Chalk]

I think you misread his post. He was interested to see what would happen if the prohibitionists actually got their way and some unlucky state had to do without video games.

Maybe a crime wave as millions of adolescents find themselves with nothing to do and start roaming the streets.

More likely though is that the entire state would just pirate everything.

Pretty much this.

Oh, I see. Uhh... that's trickier. The trouble is that for all intents and purposes, that literally cannot happen. Any state that does enact such a law will immediately run into a legal challenge filed by the ESA and an injunction to bring it to a halt; after that, precedent and the First Amendment take over. There have been attempts to skirt the Constitutional issues but thus far they've all been shot down, because at their root they're all doing the same thing: imposing government restrictions on protected speech.

Your best bet for laying eyes on a "what if?" scenario is probably Australia, which had (and still has) a far more censorious attitude toward videogames but as far as I know isn't terribly far ahead of the US (or anywhere else) on the quality of life/youth running wild/crime-ridden hellhole index. To take it to a greater extreme, I suppose you could compare it to drugs - people want what they want, and they'll get it one way or the other.