Gaming Faces Its "Single Most Important Challenge" at the Supreme Court

[Andronicus]

Gaming's "single most important challenge"? Really? You do know what Australia has to put up with [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100607-Australian-Government-Slows-R18-Rating-Process], right? And Switzerland [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/99266-Switzerland-to-Ban-Violent-Videogames]? And Somalia [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97842-Somali-Islamist-Group-Bans-Videogames]? Sure, this could affect videogames in America; hell, it could be America's "single most important challenge" in terms of videogames. But the most important? Please. Get a bit of perspective.

 

[Treblaine]

Freedom of speech here (UK) is treated like the 2nd amendment seems to be treated in the USA:

i.e. Everyone accepts it is a right but at the same time so many people are always chipping away at it and frankly see it more as a limited privilege and a dangerous one at that.

I mean the idea that selling Adult rated games to children should be constitutionally protected is absurd here in the UK, even if the material is not classified as obscene (like pornography) it is very popular the idea that ALL media should be heavily restricted by law as to who can access it.

Personally, I'd prefer an American style Bill of Rights but we don't have that, I'm just saying how it is over here.

 

[Brain_Cleanser]

Signed as both a gamer and a supporter of the first amendment.

And I'll be forcing everyone I know to sign it as well.
I really wonder why this is even coming up. I was playing Uncharted 2 and my sister really did mistake it for a movie, there's no reason in hell they shouldn't be judged on the same level.

 

[meepop]

Ah, I see, now this explains it a little more clearly than the other thread I posted in. I agree with the law itself, but I also think that games should be considered the same as films and music.

Exactly, because many kids went and saw Nightmare on Elm Street and I heard some f**king third-graders up my street talking about L4D2; people need to learn that kids will play violent video games and watch gory/scary movies. If the kids see something like in GoW 3 with the sex scene, and the kids are scarred for life by it, that's the parent's problem.

 

[likalaruku]

California was always the most liberal state, so I'm ashamed of them whenever they do something concervative. Hmmm...Australifornia.

 

[Kurokami]

Equal Rights for Games! Let us make a march on Washington California for all those who live in America. The rest of us, eat some Crisps.

Calumon: Yay, Jack's back from School! ^^

Do you do that Calumon thing in most your posts? If so then awesome! =]

Sorry to post offtopic, not much I can say here except... well hoorah for games.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

You misunderstand. I agree with the law to prevent Little Timmy of 5-years old from buying Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage. I don't agree, however, in trying to bend that into preventing Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage from being created.

He said he agrees with the law, but he feels that movies and music should be treated the same way. Thus, movies and music should be included in the law.

So no, it's not either/or. And I'm inclined to agree. If violent video games are bad, violent movies and music are just as bad. They should all be restricted from sale to minors, but available to adults who want them.

We'll get two birds stoned at once here.

I don't misunderstand at all. The simple fact is this: If you agree with the law, then you agree that videogames aren't entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media. That means you don't think videogames should be treated the same as movies and music. You can't have it both ways.

Including movies and music in the law? Can't be done, because it's already been well-established that they are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. If you want to start messing with the Constitution to give the government discretionary power over what you can play (and watch, and listen to, and read), that's a different matter entirely. And what a shame if you're willing to voluntarily go down that path.

Jesus Christ, are you being hard-headed on purpose!?

I am saying that I agree with the part of the law that says a 5-year old can't buy Manhunt, just as law states a kid can't watch Saw 6 in a cinema. This does not immediately mean I don't want them playing it, just buying it. If it's rated 18, then there should be restrictions in place to make sure that a child who doesn't have their parent's permission to play the game doesn't get hold of it.

Is this too hard a fucking idea to get? That maybe a 10-year old shouldn't be able to just readily buy Manhunt, a game that pretty much teaches you how to murder someone?

As someone above already stated, if preventing minors from buying games inappropriate for their age automatically means that the government can tell you what you can and can't play, then I'm sure you're perfectly fine with relaxing laws to let a kid watch 18-rated films in the cinema and buy porn, right?

 

[Aenir]

Signed.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Ehh, the Supreme Court reviews something like 2,000 cases yearly, and only actually has hearing for about 100

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

You misunderstand. I agree with the law to prevent Little Timmy of 5-years old from buying Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage. I don't agree, however, in trying to bend that into preventing Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage from being created.

He said he agrees with the law, but he feels that movies and music should be treated the same way. Thus, movies and music should be included in the law.

So no, it's not either/or. And I'm inclined to agree. If violent video games are bad, violent movies and music are just as bad. They should all be restricted from sale to minors, but available to adults who want them.

We'll get two birds stoned at once here.

I don't misunderstand at all. The simple fact is this: If you agree with the law, then you agree that videogames aren't entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media. That means you don't think videogames should be treated the same as movies and music. You can't have it both ways.

Including movies and music in the law? Can't be done, because it's already been well-established that they are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. If you want to start messing with the Constitution to give the government discretionary power over what you can play (and watch, and listen to, and read), that's a different matter entirely. And what a shame if you're willing to voluntarily go down that path.

Jesus Christ, are you being hard-headed on purpose!?

I am saying that I agree with the part of the law that says a 5-year old can't buy Manhunt, just as law states a kid can't watch Saw 6 in a cinema. This does not immediately mean I don't want them playing it, just buying it. If it's rated 18, then there should be restrictions in place to make sure that a child who doesn't have their parent's permission to play the game doesn't get hold of it.

Is this too hard a fucking idea to get? That maybe a 10-year old shouldn't be able to just readily buy Manhunt, a game that pretty much teaches you how to murder someone?

As someone above already stated, if preventing minors from buying games inappropriate for their age automatically means that the government can tell you what you can and can't play, then I'm sure you're perfectly fine with relaxing laws to let a kid watch 18-rated films in the cinema and buy porn, right?

We don't HAVE 18 or anything federal like that in the US. We have an R rating that most theatres enforce by choice, but that's it. They won't get punished if a 15 year old gets into an R rated movie.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I am saying that I agree with the part of the law that says a 5-year old can't buy Manhunt, just as law states a kid can't watch Saw 6 in a cinema. This does not immediately mean I don't want them playing it, just buying it. If it's rated 18, then there should be restrictions in place to make sure that a child who doesn't have their parent's permission to play the game doesn't get hold of it.

Personally I'd want to go further than that and say that if a 5 year old wants to buy GTA IV, and they're refused, and the parent says it's ok, then it's still illegal to sell it to the kid.

The more we can stop idiot parents using adult entertainment as some kind of babysitter because they can't say no to their kid, the better, imo. By all means plonk your kid down in front of the console because you want to watch the superbowl, but damn, there's ratings for a reason, don't blame the industry because you skipped the episode of Sesame Street featuring the letters M, R, and the number 18.

Anything we can do to stop games being blamed when the kid shouldn't have had the game, or access to thousands of dollars of military weapons in daddy's bedroom cupboard, and then went to school to deal with the bullies, is a good thing, I'd say.

As for movies and music seeing games as a threat, sure they do, taking WOW as an example, do you really think most WOW players are going to see as many movies as they did last year? Hell, a lot of them are buying less games, never mind cds and dvds. When it comes down to it, a movie gives you 2 hours entertainment, a decent game, far more, and you can repeatedly enjoy it with friends too. All the time people are having gaming nights, they're not having movie nights.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

As a similar example, you only have to look at UK newspapers, constantly writing stories about how terrible the BBC is, how they waste public money, how they show morally wrong TV shows, how they offend people and ignore what people want...

Then you look under the surface and notice it's only BBC getting attacked, not the other channels, and they're being attacked by the newspapers that are owned by the same person who owns SKY and many other TV channels. If the BBC was wiped out, Sky suddenly finds a hole in the market. Personally I'm happy paying my £10 a month for Charlie Brooker, QI and Mock the Week. The only thing Sky showed last year that I have any interest in was the Discworld adaptation, and I am looking forward to Going postal, but I'll buy it on DVD, I'm not going to subscribe for a year for 2 hours.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

You misunderstand. I agree with the law to prevent Little Timmy of 5-years old from buying Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage. I don't agree, however, in trying to bend that into preventing Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage from being created.

He said he agrees with the law, but he feels that movies and music should be treated the same way. Thus, movies and music should be included in the law.

So no, it's not either/or. And I'm inclined to agree. If violent video games are bad, violent movies and music are just as bad. They should all be restricted from sale to minors, but available to adults who want them.

We'll get two birds stoned at once here.

I don't misunderstand at all. The simple fact is this: If you agree with the law, then you agree that videogames aren't entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media. That means you don't think videogames should be treated the same as movies and music. You can't have it both ways.

Including movies and music in the law? Can't be done, because it's already been well-established that they are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. If you want to start messing with the Constitution to give the government discretionary power over what you can play (and watch, and listen to, and read), that's a different matter entirely. And what a shame if you're willing to voluntarily go down that path.

Jesus Christ, are you being hard-headed on purpose!?

I am saying that I agree with the part of the law that says a 5-year old can't buy Manhunt, just as law states a kid can't watch Saw 6 in a cinema. This does not immediately mean I don't want them playing it, just buying it. If it's rated 18, then there should be restrictions in place to make sure that a child who doesn't have their parent's permission to play the game doesn't get hold of it.

Is this too hard a fucking idea to get? That maybe a 10-year old shouldn't be able to just readily buy Manhunt, a game that pretty much teaches you how to murder someone?

As someone above already stated, if preventing minors from buying games inappropriate for their age automatically means that the government can tell you what you can and can't play, then I'm sure you're perfectly fine with relaxing laws to let a kid watch 18-rated films in the cinema and buy porn, right?

We don't HAVE 18 or anything federal like that in the US. We have an R rating that most theatres enforce by choice, but that's it. They won't get punished if a 15 year old gets into an R rated movie.

Wait, seriously? At all?

Huh, learn something new every day. I find it screwy myself. Our Video Recordings Act seems to work just fine.

 

[Lullabye]

I like how people want the Law to parent for them. If you don't want 5 year old Timmy playing God of War 3, then make the Parents do something. Also, again, I couldn't have enjoyed many of the games I have to date if this sort of law had been in place here, as my parents didn't like violent games, and I knew no one over 16. I say, leave it as it is.
The only silver lining to the actual actual law, if it goes through, is that X bo live will become slightly less retarded.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Equal Rights for Games! Let us make a march on Washington California for all those who live in America. The rest of us, eat some Crisps.

Calumon: Yay, Jack's back from School! ^^

Do you do that Calumon thing in most your posts? If so then awesome! =]

Yep. In pretty much all of them, Calumon will have a say in the matter.

Calumon: If your confused then click this Magical Writing! ^^

 

[Kurokami]

Equal Rights for Games! Let us make a march on Washington California for all those who live in America. The rest of us, eat some Crisps.

Calumon: Yay, Jack's back from School! ^^

Do you do that Calumon thing in most your posts? If so then awesome! =]

Yep. In pretty much all of them, Calumon will have a say in the matter.

Calumon: If your confused then click this Magical Writing! ^^

That is ****ing awesome! ^-^

if only Domokun wasn't mute. =[

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

You misunderstand. I agree with the law to prevent Little Timmy of 5-years old from buying Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage. I don't agree, however, in trying to bend that into preventing Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage from being created.

He said he agrees with the law, but he feels that movies and music should be treated the same way. Thus, movies and music should be included in the law.

So no, it's not either/or. And I'm inclined to agree. If violent video games are bad, violent movies and music are just as bad. They should all be restricted from sale to minors, but available to adults who want them.

We'll get two birds stoned at once here.

I don't misunderstand at all. The simple fact is this: If you agree with the law, then you agree that videogames aren't entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media. That means you don't think videogames should be treated the same as movies and music. You can't have it both ways.

Including movies and music in the law? Can't be done, because it's already been well-established that they are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. If you want to start messing with the Constitution to give the government discretionary power over what you can play (and watch, and listen to, and read), that's a different matter entirely. And what a shame if you're willing to voluntarily go down that path.

Jesus Christ, are you being hard-headed on purpose!?

I am saying that I agree with the part of the law that says a 5-year old can't buy Manhunt, just as law states a kid can't watch Saw 6 in a cinema. This does not immediately mean I don't want them playing it, just buying it. If it's rated 18, then there should be restrictions in place to make sure that a child who doesn't have their parent's permission to play the game doesn't get hold of it.

Is this too hard a fucking idea to get? That maybe a 10-year old shouldn't be able to just readily buy Manhunt, a game that pretty much teaches you how to murder someone?

As someone above already stated, if preventing minors from buying games inappropriate for their age automatically means that the government can tell you what you can and can't play, then I'm sure you're perfectly fine with relaxing laws to let a kid watch 18-rated films in the cinema and buy porn, right?

We don't HAVE 18 or anything federal like that in the US. We have an R rating that most theatres enforce by choice, but that's it. They won't get punished if a 15 year old gets into an R rated movie.

Wait, seriously? At all?

Huh, learn something new every day. I find it screwy myself. Our Video Recordings Act seems to work just fine.

YEah. The MPAA ratings are a suggestion to theaters, not a legally binding move.