Mstrswrd said:
Well, there's really nothing left for me to say that hasn't already been said. I would like to say that I am becoming impatient in my waiting for him to be dis-barred... WAIT! I got an idea. Dis-bar him, and don't tell him, so that when he tries to pull pseudo legal-crap, he'll look like even more of a fool.
I believe he's no longer allow to file anything himself - the judge apparently going tired of receiving 'visual media' legal documents, including gay pornography and kangroos in court (amazingly true - only Jacko would try that and think it reasonable, heh - see his wikipedia page for full details).
That said, I feel sorry for the lawyers trying to encourage sensable measure on the sale of games to underagers. They all probably get overshadows by Jackie-boy and end up getting associated with him, even if they are sane. Games rated 18+ shouldn't be sold to kids. If the adult buys it and doesn't review it, well, thats there problem. But too many shop assistants look on games with an ole world view of pac-man and so forth, I think.
HOWEVER, this doesn't mean that these games shouldn't be made, at all. After all, 18+ voilence and sexual content appear in other media, and gamers should be free to choice within the limits of regional laws. But blaming the game developers for the sale of unsuitable material to kids is madness itself (i.e. Jacko's mindset). After all, if your supermarket started selling porn to 6 year olds, its unlikely you'd run off and try to ban porn at the source (or maybe you will, but good luck with that!). You'd have the shop sued for illegally supplying it.
Admittly, the dawn of the digital era means that age-checking online is far more difficult, but if you give your young kids a credit card and access to the internet, again, another case for parenting to be license holders only.
(btw, thanks guys
)