Sure, the porn industry does alright in the US in comparison to other countries, but a more valid and useful example is comparing it to Hollywood. Which one of those two do you think makes more money? Hint: not porn.Jamash said:Would that really be such a bad thing? Doesn't the US have the largest and richest pornography industry in the world?
Playboy is practically a household name and even the Escapist features porn stars more frequently than game developers. If the porn stigma was such a bad thing, then surely I Hit It With My Axe wouldn't be a weekly feature and it would be replaced with a video featuring game developers instead.
As far as I can tell, the obscene label hasn't damaged the porn industry very much, and maybe that label would mean that the games industry gets the respect and success that seems to be afforded to the porn industry.
No, we didn't, but now you're seeing the problem here - "porn" and "R rated fims" are two different things in the US. Selling porn to kids IS illegal because it's classified as "obscene", but R rated films (as in, some tits allowed, but nothing else) are not. Instead we have the MPAA, an industry-run, private organization that rates films, but the adherence to their rating are strictly voluntary. What California is trying to do is throw violent games in there with the porn, and thus expand our definition of "obscene" to include violence, but only in games. That's ridiculous, of course, but that's what they're trying to do. Of course, if they succeed it may one day extend to movies and such as well, but that's missing the point - I don't want to see it happen at all, because when it does, as I've just noted in another post, many game studios go from being Hollywood to being the porn industry, and it's a lot easier for Hollywood to make, say, "Avatar" than it is for Playboy to do it.Danzaivar said:There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?
You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn?![]()
Still WAY smaller than the video games industry.Jamash said:Would that really be such a bad thing? Doesn't the US have the largest and richest pornography industry in the world?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.Danzaivar said:This has confused the hell out of me too. Selling an 18 rated game to a minor in the UK is already a criminal offence, and hasn't made a bit of difference to sales. Can't really see anything in this except Americans hating it when they lose their rights, or something. *Shrug*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.
Playboy is practically a household name and even the Escapist features porn stars more frequently than game developers. If the porn stigma was such a bad thing, then surely I Hit It With My Axe wouldn't be a weekly feature and it would be replaced with a video featuring game developers instead.
As far as I can tell, the obscene label hasn't damaged the porn industry very much, and maybe that label would mean that the games industry gets the respect and success that seems to be afforded to the porn industry.
This is true, but "democracy" has two different definitions, really. I mean, yes, technically we are not a democracy as in the strict, "system of government" definition, but you can also treat it as a generalized descriptor for any representative system of government. It's generally used that way nowadays, regardless of its more traditional definition. When the UN says it's committed to "spreading democracy" they're not saying they want to spread that type of government, but rather a set of ideals and values organized into some sort of free, representative system. I know, I know, they should just say that, but it's realityCryo84R said:The news post is incorrect. The United States is not a democracy. It is a Republic. There is a difference.
No porn is government regulated. Refer to this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech] as to y Porn isn't protected under the constitution.Danzaivar said:There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?
You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn?![]()
Ah, right. I see what you guys are worried about now. It's really weird how the most liberal state can also be the most draconian sometimes.hitheremynameisbob said:No, we didn't, but now you're seeing the problem here - "porn" and "R rated fims" are two different things in the US. Selling porn to kids IS illegal because it's classified as "obscene", but R rated films (as in, some tits allowed, but nothing else) are not. Instead we have the MPAA, an industry-run, private organization that rates films, but the adherence to their rating are strictly voluntary. What California is trying to do is throw violent games in there with the porn, and thus expand our definition of "obscene" to include violence, but only in games. That's ridiculous, of course, but that's what they're trying to do. Of course, if they succeed it may one day extend to movies and such as well, but that's missing the point - I don't want to see it happen at all, because when it does, as I've just noted in another post, many game studios go from being Hollywood to being the porn industry, and it's a lot easier for Hollywood to make, say, "Avatar" than it is for Playboy to do it.Danzaivar said:There's no law against selling an R rated film to kids? Seriously?
You guys outlawed booze, but skipped kids buying porn?![]()
It's complicated, for sure, but at least so far they've mostly done a good job. Australia just regulates the hell out of everything and makes getting games there a pain in the ***, from what I understand. 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. It's really a shock to a lot of people that the court is hearing this case at all here, because so far our lower courts have unanimously rejected the previous attempts (there have been more than a few) to do this. Usually the supreme court doesn't weigh in on things that seem this clear-cut, but what can you do.Danzaivar said:Ah, right. I see what you guys are worried about now. It's really weird how the most liberal state can also be the most draconian sometimes.
That's a really messed up ratings system. And I thought Australia's was bad.
that's what Jaffe's missing. The point of the petition is not to attempt to sway the court with public opinion, it's to establish the fact that Americans in general and video game consumers in particular consider games to be a form of free speech, that they would be negatively affected by legal restrictions on that form of speech, and that government has no legitimate interest in restricting it.Andy Chalk said:"The Supreme Court does not rule based on how a vocal majority - let alone a vocal minority like gamers and other media folks - feel about a case in front of them. At best the court will use solid judgment, facts, and president to make a decisions. At worse they will let their own political agendas rule the day. But either way, what do they care what the public thinks?"
Oh, so that's the point. I also never got what the reaction of American gamers was all about.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.