Jaffe: Gamers' Rights Efforts are "Pointless and Naive"

PrototypeC

New member
Apr 19, 2009
1,075
0
0
Hehe. I mean, this is interesting that he thinks so, because I always did, and like I said that sending of signed controllers was an act of aggression, not devotion in the eyes of everyone else and it was a bad idea. However, I can no longer read this article seriously as I got caught up in giggling when he said, "president" instead of precedent. Hehehehe.
 

The Big Eye

Truth-seeking Tail-chaser
Aug 19, 2009
135
0
0
So basically what Jaffe is asking is: "Why bother, if we're not going to win?"
The answer, of course: "Because if we don't, we're pussies."
This is the stuff of revolution, guys. Last stands. Open rebellion. Don't let your misgivings about the system stop your voice from being heard.
 

ecoho

New member
Jun 16, 2010
2,093
0
0
Wolfram01 said:
I must be missing something, but isn't this basically they want to make ESRB law? (I mean, in essense)... so selling M games to minors is a crime. I'm not sure how that really affects much. But I must be missing something deeper on this issue.
if you would like to know why we realy dont want these guys to win i sugest you watch the extra credits free speach.

OT: hes right and wrong in my opinion. Now let me explain that, first hes right yelling our opinoin at the court is a bad idea they wont take us seriously and that may effect their judgment. Now hes wrong because we should be speaking out just not to the court, make those polititions know that we WILL vote them out if they support this. "I know most of you think that if the suprime court rules against us on this its over well its not at that point we would need congress to make an amendment and that while hard (im not kidding guys we realy dont want to have to do this just giveing facts) is possible. Now i dought the suprime courts justices are stupid enoth to rule in calis favor for the sole fact that this could cause a radical regeim change and thats not good. Not to mention the polictical fallout could get them removed.

These are my thoughts so if you disagree please just say you do and explain your point i report idiots and trolls equaly so please be nether i have no problems with others disagreeing with me as long as they explain. :)
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
Democracy has a nice little thing about it. It's based on the philosophy of Locke. If the people are unhappy with something, they have the right to overthrow their government, or topple the power for what they believe in, or whatever it is...

this being said, the government can't ban video games just because video game players don't get laid as much as their actors.

True, there is an issue to be had here, but banning games, is silly. Restrictions aren't too much to be asked. ID needs to be displayed at 18A rated movies and bars, so why not video games? a 10 year old buying a M17+ game, shows an issue.

Why aren't the ESRB ratings being enforced? maybe they should
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Cryo84R said:
The news post is incorrect. The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic. There is a difference.
It's a form of representative democracy. Why are you even bringing this up? What could it possibly contribute to the matter at hand?
 

dalek sec

Leader of the Cult of Skaro
Jul 20, 2008
10,237
0
0
ProtoChimp said:
*massive depressed sigh* Unfortunately I agree with him. I genuinely think we don't stand a chance.
I hate to be a nay-sayer but it's true, I honestly think this law will be passed and bit by bit we can kiss our rights goodbye starting with the First Amendment. I know I sound all emo and such but honestly, I just don't have any faith left in our court system here in the US.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
He's right to some extent.

The rights of the American people hinge on our right to keep and bear arms. The abillity to resist violently, and even move on our own goverment if we're ignored is the root of our power. Guys like Martin Luthor King Jr. understood this, non-violent protests and the like base their power in violence, it's a show of force and solidarity "do what we want, or next time we'll come back with weapons". Oh sure it's dressed up a bit, but that is what it amounts to. It's better to make a show of force, than to actually inflict violence. However for it to work people have to believe your going to actually fight if you don't get what you want.

All of the petitions and bold statements in the world don't make one bit of differance to any branch of the goverment, especially when the people holding the offices might have personal benefits to be gained by doing whatever it is they want to do.

Right now, the big question here is whether or not enough people in our Supreme Court have enough vested interest in backing free speech, than supressing it. By the letter of the law, this should be an open and shut thing, with games remaining unregulated, however the big question arises as to what we, the people who are going to be affected by this, are going to do about it if they make the other desician?

In the end we're not going to do anything. For all the trash talking you might see on the internet from time to time, I'd be surprised if even one gamer got up and decided to gun down a politician over this, or made even a pathetic attempt to kill a Supreme Court Justice... never mind the kind of massive rally that would be needed to actually change anything. Our society is designed so that the authorities can deal with an armed individual, or even a small group of such people, but not with massive uprisings.

With no threat of armed insurrection, what we are ultimatly banking on is whether or not the game industry is going to offer more surpreme court justices a better deal, than the politicians opposing them. Cynical, but that's what it comes down to. The people cannot influance a bureaucracy on it's own terms, which is why in the US Constitution we were given the inalienable right to arm ourselves, that's something that cannot be ignored. Even if the volunteers in the military were to attack the people on behalf of the goverment, when the smoke cleared there would be nothing left for the politicians to rule over.

If this was about what the laws actually said, this case would not be being heard to begin with. It was pretty imprssive just that this was going to be heard before the Supreme Court given the way they operate, and previous rulings. While cynical, that pretty much means that they decided to open bidding. :)

-

While unrelated I will also say that Jaffe's example was awful. While the media does lead people to believe that there is a left wing majority, there really isn't one. Or at least not a clear majority. Our nation is polarized 50-50, and has been for quite a while. Back in 2000 there was no real reason to interfere in the election as such tiny percentages of victory were to be expected. People tend to think Obama won the last election by a landslide, but he only had a 7% lead in the vote, which is only signifigant because of how the nation is polarized.

People who complain about the "Dubya" elections frequently seem to think that there was this massive majority of people who didn't like him, and that somehow a minority put their guy into power. That has never been true. The very fact that so many people think this kind of thing is why there is so much discussion about left wing media slant. It gives people who side with the left the perception that a lot more people agree with that side of things than actually do. In reality there is pretty much 1 person on the right for every person on the left. It flucuates a few percentage points here and there, but it's a deadlock.

-

At any rate, I hope for the best, but I'll be blunt: As Heinlan put it, it's naive for people to think that they can have anything they want simply by voting for it, or wagging their lips. Anything worth having, especially freedom, must constantly be fought for.

Problems like the one we're dealing with are because we, the American people, have become increasingly softer with each generation, and this is exploited by our politicians who are increasingly corrupt because nobody is willing to take any kind of effort to do anything besides whine about it.

As Heinlan also put it, "You can either have freedom, or you can have safety, never both".

The fact that those of us who are going to be affected by rulings like this won't actually do anything that will compromise our safety, is exactly why we're in danger of losing our freedom.
 

Autofaux

New member
Aug 31, 2009
484
0
0
Leave it to Jaffe to draw the hard line and put everyone back on the reality train, and while campaigning for the case may be pointless, to try and influence and convince the public of our intentions, our rights and the *truth* behind gaming, is not a fault.

In fact, more gaming enthusiasts should band together to show a united front against politicians and reactionaries (like my favourite bible-straddling conservatives, the Australian Christian Lobby, whom I still call insane because believing that a man rose from the dead is a symptom of psychosis).
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
Andy Chalk said:
Okysho said:
Why aren't the ESRB ratings being enforced?
They are being enforced. We've talked about this before, you know.
I must have missed that discussion, because I video games are still being bashed... not only that... I don't see anything done to really strongly enforce them. I still hear 8 year olds butchering english on M rated FPS servers
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Danzaivar said:
There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?

You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn? o_O
R rating = just an MPAA rating, which is just a private trade group that is merely there to INFORM the public based on their own arbitrary criteria and opinion on what is SUITABLE for relative ages, not Permissable. It is nothing but a suggestion. Cinemas may follow it as a rule if they want to keep their licenses. DVDs and stores may be willing to sell unrated DVDs.
See the MPAA as a trade organisation, not a legal entity. They are there to make a judgement on media for cinema customers, but if a cinema or store feels brave enough to break ranks then it can. Though it may not get much business.

In the UK there is huge overlap between uk's 18-rating and R-raring but they are not the same.

Porn = a LEGAL distinction of work considered obscene. Show, give, sell to or merely allow an underage person to view such material and you'll have to explain yourself to Chris Hansen i.e. get charged with child abuse laws. It is considered HARMFUL material to minors and not to be displayed in public regardless of age of who sees it. Uk's 18 rating catches most of this except in the UK what our censors would call obscene is banned completely, can't buy, can't sell, often can't even OWN!

That's the difference between US and UK:

What America's legal system calls obscene (Normal pornography to the most extreme) is forced "under the counter" via public decency and child protection laws. Any adult can get it, but they have to seek it out.

What the UK legal/censorship system call obscene ("extreme" Pornography, anything more risqué than simple sex) is rendered completely illegal, they too define obscene as "morally corrupting" but to the extent that not even adults can access it.

America's 1st amendment mean only the very worst of the worst images, usually depiction of ACTUAL criminal acts like murder or child abuse, can be restricted in ownership. UK anything is on the chopping block in the name of decency and public order, "peace (and quiet) at any cost" I'd call it.
 

Okysho

New member
Sep 12, 2010
548
0
0
I don't wanna seem like a troll... It's an issue even in Canada.

A 12 year old died a couple years ago because his dad took his x-box away. it caused a massive uproar and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) did a special on it. It wasn't very encouraging..
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Staskala said:
hitheremynameisbob said:
It's not that simple in the US. First off, the UK is a significantly smaller market, so changes there don't effect the industry as much as they do in the US, but that's mostly besides the point. The problem is the WAY that they're going about this case. They're trying to single out games and put them in a legal category currently occupied mostly by pornography. In the UK you also have legally binding film ratings, so games aren't being set apart from other media in your case. Not so in the US. This WILL have drastic consequences for the industry if violent games are deemed obscene.
Oh, so that's the point. I also never got what the reaction of American gamers was all about.
In that case I have to argue that this law not so much affects the industry itself but rather the (perception of) gamers. After all, pornography is a lucrative industry despite being "obscene". The core gamers will continue to play and new/casual gamers are pretty much unaffected, so money will keep coming.
I also have to note that a statement like Mr. Jaffe's is rather naive, of course the group that is affected by this should make their voices heard, whether those voices directly change anything or not.
The pornography industry is also largely stagnant and seedy. Society as whole tends to look down on those who involve themselves with porn. Someone else in this thread pointed out the differences between the American porn and movie industries; the legal restrictions and social stigma on pornography have limited the profitability and growth of the industry. Likewise, the negative public perception of gamers will absolutely affect the game industry. People will buy fewer games, and games will be less profitable.
 

cobra_ky

New member
Nov 20, 2008
1,643
0
0
Okysho said:
Andy Chalk said:
Okysho said:
Why aren't the ESRB ratings being enforced?
They are being enforced. We've talked about this before, you know.
I must have missed that discussion, because I video games are still being bashed... not only that... I don't see anything done to really strongly enforce them. I still hear 8 year olds butchering english on M rated FPS servers
Enforcing the ESRB ratings means not selling M-rated games to minors without parental consent. If a parent decides that they'll allow their child to buy the game or buys it for them, that's their right as a parent. (this raises a question: if the supreme court rules that M-rated games are harmful to children, will it be illegal for parents to allow their kids to play them?) The same is true of R-rated movies, children under 17 can go seem them if they're accompanied by a parent or guardian.
 

The Bandit

New member
Feb 5, 2008
967
0
0
Tenmar said:
Pingieking said:
He is right, since the courts don't care about public opinion. We should be directing our efforts at ousting the politicians who want to shut us down rather than the courts.
Actually the supreme court judges do care about public opinion because every supreme court case just like any other part of our judicial system requires both the majority and minority judge to write an opinion on why they are dissenting or supporting the ruling.

This is actually critical as although the judgement is essentially black and white the philosophical and rational logic as to why that judgement is black and white is important because as society changes the opinions can be challenged as outdated or irrelevant to the case essentially nullifying the need to have such a judgement that became law to exist.

Also Jaffe is wrong because our justice system is based a lot more on creating a narrative and creating feelings as much as facts. Remember justice is blind so each side must present a case that while facts are important must also persuade the judges how their decision changes society. Remember abstract cases like these are not as clear cut as your standard criminal cases.

Jaffe is right that it should be facts that make our position right but facts in our modern society are easy to manufacture and propagate as truth. California State senator Leeland Yee has just as much of a chance that it is the governments job to essentially treat video games as a substance because children are effected and do not have the rational or will power to buy anything else but violent games. Remember that NO case in the supreme courts history has there ever been a majority and dissenting opinion or judgement that relied 100% on the facts, opinions and feelings do matter.
The purpose of a life-time term is specifically designed so judges won't be swayed by public opinion. They do not have to worry about reelections. They care about both sides of the issue, but not about what everyone else thinks.
 

FirstOne617

New member
Mar 13, 2010
45
0
0
hitheremynameisbob said:
Danzaivar said:
The ESRB may seem strange, but recently they've been doing a pretty good job at encouraging their ratings to be taken seriously. Most major retail outlets will card customers and do actually refuse to sell Mature rated games to kids.
^This is really true. My 18-year-old friend too an entire evening getting his copy of Fallout: New Vegas because he forgot his drivers' license and only had his college ID card. No one would sell to him because he couldn't prove he was 18 and responsible enough to buy it. Retailers are really good about these things, to the point of annoyance for some people, but the system is really effective. I have yet to see any retailer that doesn't ask minors for their parents' OK in person or if they're 18 and to see ID if they say yes. It's not the game industry's fault, or the retailers' fault, it's the parents' faults if their 12-year-old is scarred for life by playing Red Dead Redemption. The parents are the ones who allowed it. Don't condemn an entire industry for the apathy of parents.
 

The Bandit

New member
Feb 5, 2008
967
0
0
Okysho said:
Andy Chalk said:
Okysho said:
Why aren't the ESRB ratings being enforced?
They are being enforced. We've talked about this before, you know.
I must have missed that discussion, because I video games are still being bashed... not only that... I don't see anything done to really strongly enforce them. I still hear 8 year olds butchering english on M rated FPS servers
I don't know what your last comment has to do with anything, but that's one of the main problems with this case. It's all based around some people's political agenda.

Mature games are not as obscene as porn. The ESRB is enforced to a higher standard than R rated movies. Objective facts that are being ignored to "protect our children."

Here's a subjective opinion: mature rated games aren't harmful. It's cartoon violence. Halo, perhaps the most popular mature rated video game of all time, has cartoon enemies running around making jokes. It's silly.
 

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
0
0
Okysho said:
A 12 year old died a couple years ago because his dad took his x-box away. it caused a massive uproar and CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company) did a special on it. It wasn't very encouraging..
Which 12-year-old is this?