Games on Trial

[Ihniwid]

I love that a man who once was the model for violent video game heroes is now the frontman for a direct attack on the same genre.

This law will not go through. =)

 

[yellowhead]

Unless this law is streched to every form of medium then i can't support it in any way.

They really should show the Supreme Court a few episodes of Extra Credits and then maybe they can appreciate this art form a lot more.

 

[spartan231490]

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

 

[JDKJ]

The 16th ammendment is the only ammendmet which completely reverses something in the original constitution, all the others are just additions. and it's use, violates the constitution, because it allows them to use financial pressures to exert power over those areas which they are specifically forbidden from interfearing in, hence, it is unconstitutional. read what i said. I also discussed several other things which you choose to ignore because, i can only assume, you have no argument against them. Also, the constitution originally set a date at which the importation of slaves would be stopped, showing a foreknowledge that slavery would have to end, and the ammendment which did so did not reverse anything in the document, it only added to it, just like all the others except number 16.

Also, it is important to remember that the constitution is just a means to an end. It was put in place to create an effective government, under which teh rights of the people would be protected. When the document no longer serves that purpose, by haveing no power, or in any other way, then it no longer fulfills it's purpose, and is as good as destroyed.

1. I didn't choose to ignore your other arguments (I assume the Kelo case and the Patriot Act?) because I don't have arguments against them; I chose to ignore them because I hold a similar point of view regarding them (though my views are much less hyperbolically-driven and derived from different values).

2. The point of my 13th Amendment argument was to show that the amendment directly rendered another part of the original Constitution entirely moot (the Three-Fifths clause) thus "violating" the original clause. It did just that. Three-Fifths clause says that all slaves count as 3/5 of a person; 13th Amendment abolishes slavery. Three-Fifths clause entirely moot. End point. I don't know why you're bringing up the slave importation clause. That has nothing to do with this. The slave importation clause doesn't even end slave importation. It protects slave importation from prohibitive legislation until a certain date (1808).

3. I don't see how the 16th Amendment violates something in the original Constitution. Congress already had the power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8). How does the income tax violate this?

4. Or do you mean it indirectly violates the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights? Because that's not part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights is still a series of amendments, and there has also been a precedent for an amendment directly reversing another amendment, namely the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment (Prohibition).

Edit - Important personal note: All in all, I don't see how the Constitution has been grossly violated by the 16th Amendment. In my eyes, Kelo and the Patriot Act have violated some constitutional provisions. But I don't base my assessment of the righteousness of government and the effectiveness of the Constitution on a few things I don't agree with, because there's more than one way to interpret the text. When shit happens, it's easy to point to the Constitution and piss and moan about rights being violated. It's harder to accept these things as genuine differences in perspective. Personally, I believe the greatest threats to the Constitution are the ravenous ideologues that latch onto the Constitution as a rallying point for partisan warfare. A society can't function if people can't work together civilly.

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

If a State doesn't want the Federal government telling them what the speed limit on an interstate highway is, then the solution is simple: they can reject the federal funding for highways within the state, build them with their own state funding, and post whatever speed limit they like. Plain and simple.

But having chosen to take the federal funding, don't complain about the strings that come attached.

 

[captainwalrus]

I have no problem with the 16th amendment allowing for income taxes. The problem i have with the 16 amendment is that it reversed the clause saying that spending for the general welfare would be divided amongst the states according to population and allowed the feds to do whatever they wanted with it. This has lead to porkbarreling, and to federal interfearence in matters which the constitution still says it has no place being in, like education. As well as things that were not mentioned, which the constitution says will belong to either the state or the people, like the drinking age and speed limits. The feds now give grants conditionally, only if your standards match ours, which is exerting federal influence over things which are supposed to be states powers. That, is my problem with the 16th amendment, not the amendment itself, but the way it is used to violate other parts of the constitution.

There's no provision in the Constitution saying that spending for the general welfare will be divided amongst the states according to population. Are you referring to Article I, Section 9? Because that apportionment in that sense means that direct taxes, like the income tax, have to levied based on state population and cannot be geographically uniform. The general welfare clause says that the federal government can levy taxes for the general welfare. Full stop. No elaboration. You can interpret that broadly or narrowly, whatever.

The Constitution also doesn't say that Congress can't legislate on education, speed limits or the drinking age. It enumerates powers that Congress can legislate on, and the 10th Amendment says that powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states. The Constitution doesn't directly enumerate those things. And this is an important point, because we get to the crux of the problem, which is constitutional interpretation. The 10th Amendment may say that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the States, but things like the Necessary and Proper clause and the Commerce clause imply powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. This is a problem not solely with the 16th Amendment, nor is it a recent problem; it's been a problem in the entire history of constitutional law and with all other amendments. If the Constitution just had one correct interpretation, then being a Supreme Court justice would be a cakewalk.

 

[JDKJ]

Whenever I hear the "state's right" spiel, for some strange reason a Southern, red-neck voice from the past comes to mind, saying, "We don't need nobody from Wershington comin' down here an' tellin' us how we should treat our Negroes."

 

[Negatempest]

Wait, WAIT just a freakin moment. Okay so this thought just came to me while on a commute. Don't we recently have quite a few museums being interactive toward the public? So if games won't be protected because they are interactive, does that mean it would be a no no for interactive museums soon as well?

 

[JDKJ]

Wait, WAIT just a freakin moment. Okay so this thought just came to me while on a commute. Don't we recently have quite a few museums being interactive toward the public? So if games won't be protected because they are interactive, does that mean it would be a no no for interactive museums soon as well?

You don't even have to stretch that far. There's interactive books. Like the "Choose Your Own Adventure" series.

 

[theultimateend]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

Yeah I'm surprised any laws like this have EVER passed.

Telling parents you'll do the work for them is obnoxious and should be looked at with disgust at all times.

My father was out to sea most of the year and my mom had 3 kids to work with (different ages) who all had different times they were busy, sleeping, at school, or whatever else.

There is no excuse to half ass being a parent, either be one or don't. These laws are unnecessary :/.

 

[Negatempest]

How about if a parent doesn't want their kid to play a game they tell them they can't?

Yeah I'm surprised any laws like this have EVER passed.

Telling parents you'll do the work for them is obnoxious and should be looked at with disgust at all times.

My father was out to sea most of the year and my mom had 3 kids to work with (different ages) who all had different times they were busy, sleeping, at school, or whatever else.

There is no excuse to half ass being a parent, either be one or don't. These laws are unnecessary :/.

Damn straight.

I LOVE and RESPECT my mums (single parent). If I go anywhere I at least let her know so if any **** happens to me she at least knows where to look first. So if "YOU", as the parent, don't want to be informative with your children on why "YOU", as the parent, don't believe they can handle certain parts of life than maybe it was just a tad bit early to be one? I am not saying that parenting is easy, I AM saying that kids aren't toys or trophies. Whether we like it or not they each come with their own view of the world.

 

[blitzphoenix]

forgive my ignorance, but i'm not quite sure what these people are trying to do with this law. what are they trying to accomplish? not selling violent video games to minors?

 

[skywalkerlion]

I'm not very worried. In GameStops you're not allowed to sell M games to minors. My mom still gets carded. I also highly doubt this means people won't be able to purchase games like that via stores like GameStop because they'll stop stocking it, which is very doubtful. Guys, GameStop stocks tons of shitty games that never sell. I highly doubt they're gonna stop selling some of the most popular games on the earth because now kids will just send out their oblivious parents (like they always have) to fetch their games. Not to mention, just because California passes it doesn't mean every state in the U.S. is gonna pass it.

The only reason I'd be worried is that this case is even being considered. No matter who wins, it's such a stupid thing to fight over, because the constitutional option is the most obvious. Hell, it's not even worrying, just frustrating how broken the system is in this country.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

It's always postal 2 they go for.

Postal 2 is such a small blip on the gaming radar that it really shouldn't even be in the debate. It's ancient, we all know it's horrible, and its gimmick doesn't last long even in the hands of children. But politicians LOVE it, because they can point to it and say "Look at that horrible games industry, look what they did".

Does Anyone own that, that thing.

I honestly don't know anyone that does, and I know a lot of PC gamers. It's one of those games that people pirate for a couple lols, get tired of, and delete.

But politicians keep bringing it up like it's the ONLY THING THAT GAMING HAS EVER PRODUCED

I own this game. And Apocalypse Weekend retail disc too. It's really hilarious. But, well, I'm not American, I'm Russian. And my country never censor any games.

 

[Wened]

You two just made my day

 

[thepyrethatburns]

It scares me that even one of the justices on the Supreme Court would side with this law.

While I realize that this was a New York Supreme Court Justice, this story pretty much sums up the state of the U.S. legal system.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20021342-504083.html

So, no. It isn't all that surprising anymore.

How so does it sum up the state of the U.S. legal system? You might have missed the all important fact that "and their parents" can also be sued was what the Justice decided. This reflects nothing more than the age-old legal concept of vicarious liability (i.e., a parent can be sued along with a child for the harms caused by the child even if the parent was nowhere around when the harm occurred). Despite the obvious spinning of the facts so that it reads as if the children are the ones primarily being sued, the more meaningful subject of the suit are the children's parents (the ones who I have to assume are in the position, unlike the children, to actually pay any monetary damages which may be awarded to the plaintiff). If you take the time to search for similar decisions among those of any Anglo-Saxon-based civil law system, including that of the UK's, I'll bet you'll easily find a number of similar decisions. This decision is neither unique nor peculiar and hardly serves as some sort of negative commentary on the state of the U.S. legal system.

It's generally a good rule of thumb to believe half of what you hear and nothing that you read in the news.

What I think is a much better commentary on the state of the U.S. legal system is the fact that the second the California Governor signed the law into effect, a lawsuit seeking to block it was filed and, by all accounts, looks as if it will succeed in shooting down what by any stretch of the imagination is nothing more than a foolish attempt at censorship. Say what you want to about the Americans, but you can't say that there isn't a vocal contingent of them who just happen to think that the right of free speech is an important right and who will go to any lengths to protect that right against government interference. For better or worse, many of them also feel that way about the right to own a gun.

No. I didn't.

I also didn't miss the part that CBS got the story wrong and that the woman died three months (not weeks) later. I also didn't miss the part that the woman died from unrelated issues according to her doctors. I didn't miss the part about the judge applying an artificial standard of "reasonable prudence" to a four-year-old. I didn't miss the fact that the judge concluded that the mother had no active role in the incident but he is still alowing the estate to sue her anyway. I didn't miss the fact that, while it is true that this is being used as an avenue to sue the parents, the children will still be taken to court and have their lives turned upside down at an age where they'll need booster seats just to reach the witness microphone. I also didn't miss the part that CBS decided to expose 4-year-olds to media scrutiny by naming names.

I also didn't miss the part that, despite all this, the judge is letting the lawsuit proceed despite it being a completely groundless suit. By itself, it doesn't serve as a negative commentary on the U.S. legal system. The fact that this type of thing is increasingly the norm and is not "unique or peculiar" does serve as a negative commentary on the U.S. legal system.

 

[Jumplion]

Also, when I argued that the ESRB does a much better regulatory job, with an 80% compliance rate compared to the movies 30%, he asked "why isn't it 100%?"

I wonder how your dad feels about all those other places where people aren't caught 100% of the time.

Hell, speeding is against the law, but we don't catch 100% of speeders. Would changing this from a voluntary step to a legal mandate increase the effectiveness? Maybe, but kids can still buy cigarettes with alarming frequency, and that's illegal. That even carries stiff fines.

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-*****", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

Your Dad's not entirely out in left field. Self-regulation does often produce crappy results. When the fox is in charge of guarding the hen-house, don't be surprised if he helps himself to a hen for dinner.

I'm sure self-regulation does and doesn't work at times depending on the thing that's being regulated, but the point here is that video games as is are doing fine in self-regulation. There are certainly discrepancies with the ESRB at times, but it's doing a good job as is and with an 80% compliance rate [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/87679-Game-Industry-Earns-Top-Marks-on-Report-Card] to boot by most retailers. He was just saying why isn't it 100%, when that's just a fallacious statement.

EDIT: Cleaned up the post, whops.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-*****", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

I know how you feel, trust me. I love my Aunt. She's a smart woman. But she turns everything into a conservative talking point on the evils of liberals and communism (which she sees everywhere). And I don't really want to fight, but sometimes I just want to SCREAM at her. Oddly enough, she's always on about small government and the state out of our lives, but supports banning violent video games.

 

[Jumplion]

It's funny, because my dad is a very aggressive driver and constantly drives at least 10mph above the speed limit.

Then he would ask "Why aren't cigarettes/alcohol/pornography not protected by 1st amendment rights?" or "then why are cigarettes/alcohol/pornography regulated by the government?" and we would both be too riled up from all the yelling to make the connection to a fallacy. And I really don't want to get back into the arguing since it can be very tiring to argue with him, as it is with most Israeli's (it runs in the family, yelling is the "normal" speaking voice for us)

He also cited the banks "self-regulatory" stuff that got the US in the recession, and medicine, and how tobacco used to be regulated, now that all the yelling has subsided and I'm starting to remember what was going on.

I don't want to paint him as an "ignant-son-uv-a-*****", I love him with all my heart of course, I just found it funny and decided to share with you guys. It's great that we were arguing over this case since both of us learned a bit (at least, I hope he did).

I know how you feel, trust me. I love my Aunt. She's a smart woman. But she turns everything into a conservative talking point on the evils of liberals and communism (which she sees everywhere). And I don't really want to fight, but sometimes I just want to SCREAM at her. Oddly enough, she's always on about small government and the state out of our lives, but supports banning violent video games.

I guess you could classify by dad as a "leeburall!", though I personally consider myself in the "common sense" department

 

[Lord RPGs]

You know what makes me sad? The bit where they ranted "We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg for mercy, pour gasoline over them, and urinate on them... We protect children from that." Last time I checked, videogames like that get banned or not made EVER. Seriously, what kind of messed up ideas do they have about gaming? People who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't be asked to talk.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

..And I am still in high school...

Really nosey - but is this true? Profile says your 28. Maybe 'High School' means something different in the USA.


Thanks JDKJ.

How might this affect online steam-like distribution of games?

I never put my actual birthday on anything online, I don;t want people making assumptons about me because of my age, I am under 21 however.

EDIT: sorry the first time I qouted you it didn't show up so now we have 2, my bad.

Can't say I blame you. I don't disclose personal information online, either. But I'm less concerned about assumptions and more concerned about someone getting a credit card in my name and then using it for a week-long, all-inclusive ski trip to Aspen.

Ah, also a good reason, If you're wondering why I picked 1982, I believe that is the year Bladerunner (my favorite movie) came out.