Grand Theft Childhood Author Pokes Holes in SCOTUS Research
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Grand Theft: Childhood?
I ... I.. this is not what I think it is, is it?
Either a GTA game set in the mind of a 9 year old trying to become a druglord at his 18th birthday.
Or a DLC for GTA IV (who plays that still?) remminiscing about Niko's Past.
Probably neither.
I ... I.. this is not what I think it is, is it?
Either a GTA game set in the mind of a 9 year old trying to become a druglord at his 18th birthday.
Or a DLC for GTA IV (who plays that still?) remminiscing about Niko's Past.
Probably neither.
After everything I've read in the last few days on the topic, I am now officially confident.
I think we've got this case in the bag. I think we all underestimate the "SCOTUS." As long as they stick to logic and facts, there's no way they can rule against us.
I think we've got this case in the bag. I think we all underestimate the "SCOTUS." As long as they stick to logic and facts, there's no way they can rule against us.
The problem with making arguments like that, while being quite true, is that it just gives control freak fuckheads like Stephen Conroy a reason to try and bring in a nationwide internet filter.BiggityB05 said:
Games are a powerful medium. If nothing else, this court case proves that people on both sides of "the fence" are starting to take notice of that.
She actually makes a fairly compelling case in her argument which can be read in <a href=http://media.industrygamers.com/misc/GTC-updated-intro-standalone.pdf>full. It might not be the argument people around here would choose, but it is effective enough.
She basically points out that the claims they make have no data to back them. That they use data that has already been discredited in past cases. That California's argument uses, as an example, a game (Postal 2) that was never sold in California (and therefore would not have been subject to the law in question), and that no study linking video games and youth violence has ever been conducted with an eye towards making a policy decision. She also points out that such an endeavor would be expensive and could conceivably do little more than call attention to the content this law seeks to hide from the children.
As far as I can tell, that more or less annihilates California's argument.
She basically points out that the claims they make have no data to back them. That they use data that has already been discredited in past cases. That California's argument uses, as an example, a game (Postal 2) that was never sold in California (and therefore would not have been subject to the law in question), and that no study linking video games and youth violence has ever been conducted with an eye towards making a policy decision. She also points out that such an endeavor would be expensive and could conceivably do little more than call attention to the content this law seeks to hide from the children.
As far as I can tell, that more or less annihilates California's argument.
"Another way the law might backfire is to create a sense that we've taken action to protect children, when in fact nothing's been accomplished. Resources spent on the law could have gone to parent education, or to support youth programs shown to reduce aggression and delinquency."
This^ if this law gets passed, and doesn't do a fucking thing, California is up shit creek without a paddle, not just with Gamers, but with the whole American Government.
I will say that they makes some good points, as for the whole "Hot Coffee" scandal, if it weren't for all that media coverage, I never would have know about it. Also we are wasting precious time and resources debating this issue, we could be discussing way to improve the new healthcare system, or discussing stemcell research, but NOOOOOOO we have to spend 3 whole months proving how moronic the California government is, and debate an argument with so many holes it's ridiculous
As I said before, I pray to god above that this law is thrown out and the world is shown just how frakking stupid the California government really is and that prick senator is thrown out of office for wasting tax dollars and time on this. I'm just hoping at this point the SCOTUS isn't going to want to go down in history for striking something from the First Amendment like this.
Well, if this article is correct (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/104889-Supreme-Court-May-Be-Proving-Point-By-Hearing-CA-Law) then this case might all be the Supreme Court's attempt to stop this madness once and for all.TheEvilCheese said:
I am glad to see an ally that is "thinking about the children" and showing that this law does even less then nothing to help protect children.
Everyone has a point where even they have to admit that the people they're cheering for are batshit bonkers, have an agenda or need to get their facts straight.Khaiseri said:
She still hates violent videogames being sold to children, but to take one of Senator Yee's analogies, this rather heavy handed tactic of doing so is like banning alcohol because there's a chance someone might buy it for their child.
Rush Limbaugh is a conservative, if you know anything at all about conservative philosophy beyond the tired old pigeonholing and demonizing provided by such titans of intellectual honesty as can be found at MSNBC, then you'd know that conservatives generally want government to leave people alone to make their own choices, and live their own lives. If violent games were really a problem (laughs), conservatives would say that it is the sole responsibility of the parents to handle it.lwm3398 said:
Remember, it was a panel of liberals led by Tipper Gore that tried to censor music back in the 80s. But MSNBC tells you different, and you believe it, because it fits in with your preconceptions of who your enemy is.
Don't consoles have family filters anyway? I'm sure there's a function to say 'don't play any DVD's that are rated '...' and above'.
How about they slap that same feature on for games? If a parent can set a password on the console that stops their kids from being able to play these games, regardless of how they get hold of them, then the responsibility is back where it should be.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that if you're a mother skimpering out to buy your 8 year old kid some x-mas presents, Black Ops ain't for them!
'Games' aren't all children's playthings anymore. Learn the difference.
There's no need for the governator to step in and get all moody about it. This is a guy who openly practiced 'free love' and drug use throughout his youth. His visage has been used in games since the 80's! Not to mention that when I was about 5 or 6 I had a Terminator action figure...a big one, said 'Asta La Vista Baby' and stuff like that...WHY THE FECK WERE THEY MARKETING AN EXTREMELY ADULT MOVIE AT KIDS?!
How about they slap that same feature on for games? If a parent can set a password on the console that stops their kids from being able to play these games, regardless of how they get hold of them, then the responsibility is back where it should be.
Basically what I'm getting at here is that if you're a mother skimpering out to buy your 8 year old kid some x-mas presents, Black Ops ain't for them!
'Games' aren't all children's playthings anymore. Learn the difference.
There's no need for the governator to step in and get all moody about it. This is a guy who openly practiced 'free love' and drug use throughout his youth. His visage has been used in games since the 80's! Not to mention that when I was about 5 or 6 I had a Terminator action figure...a big one, said 'Asta La Vista Baby' and stuff like that...WHY THE FECK WERE THEY MARKETING AN EXTREMELY ADULT MOVIE AT KIDS?!
Er... why? Grand Theft Childhood was all about debunking the studies and theories on the effect of violent games on minors. Why would this be surprising? Cheryl Olson has never been against games.Khaiseri said:
All in all, I read the entire PDF. She was very comprehensive and brought plenty of good evidence to the fore. Let's hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing. I'm British, but I still don't want to see anything bad happen to games anywhere in the world.