Mail Your Busted Controllers to Leland Yee

[Snotnarok]

I have no broken controllers, which is good but also bad news.

Wait, I do have an old broken SNES controller, I think he'll be hit with some retro controller action

 

[DonJavo]

I love the idea about this! Just need to find myself an old controller.
I just hope the people who do get involved with this keep it clean and civilized. We do not need to give Senator Lee ammo for his campaign against video games by threatening him, or slandering him, or throwing any sort of mud his way.
Keep it clean, and he will hear our voice. We do not stand for the vilifying of our hobby, and we will show him that his battle is fruitless, and will gain him no political ground, or clout. If anything it will have him voted out!
Wish I could cast a vote to get him out, but I do not live in the right state. I will make sure to fight anything as absurd as what Sen. Lee is doing in my state if the need arises.

To those that do not have a broken controller--just mail a letter. Let your voice be heard. Doing nothing is the same as being angry at him and doing nothing. Tell Sen. Lee that he is in the wrong and the minority. Show him that you care about your hobby and that you will not stand for this violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Rusty Bucket]

I keep getting told two different versions of this vote/law.

1-the law will stop under 18's buying games that are rated 18+

2-it's something to do with banning all games with adult content

Now #1 seems perfectly sensible, just like kids shouldn't be able to go out and buy porn/the latest fore film from Slashy McButtrape. If the US doesn't already have a law stopping adult material from getting into kids hands...it should do.

#2 seems obviously a big deal with far reaching consequences for some big name titles.

Which one, if any is it?

It's #1. The big fear is that it may result in the same response as if it was #2, due to knee-jerk reactions from large US retailers.

Not quite. It'll mean that video games aren't covered by the first amendment. They'll no longer be protected by free speech, which means that any violent game (and remember that what constitutes violence will be entirely decided by the government) is completely open to restriction and cencorship. Retailers will likely have a seperate section for mature games, if they stock them at all, developers will stop making them because of the risks and games will be reduced to little more then a childs plaything. If it passes, it has the potential to pretty much destroy the industry. So it's pretty damn serious.

There's no way in hell it should pass though, it's quite clearly unconstitutional.

 

[hurfdurp]

Neat, a protest. How exciting, I wish I knew more about the cause. I wonder what the outcome will be.

 

[mattttherman3]

I would also suggest putting 10 bucks in there, politicians like their money

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

I totally would do this, but unfortunately, all of my controllers are in perfect working order.

That's what the wall is for. ;D

 

[Macgyvercas]

I totally would do this, but unfortunately, all of my controllers are in perfect working order.

That's what the wall is for. ;D

Well, yeah, But I only have one Dual Shock 3, (which is used regualrly), 2 Game Cube controllers (used for SSBM), a Wiimote (used when Grandma comes down to kick my ass at Wii Bowling), and 2 SNES controllers (used by me and mom for Donkey Kong Country).

 

[Mr. Gency]

Curse my excellent care for video games and video game accessories!

I totally would do this, but unfortunately, all of my controllers are in perfect working order.

That's what the wall is for. ;D

Curse my lack of spare controllers!

 

[The Random One]

If the VGVN can keep a bunch of gamers from acting like a bunch of retarded trolls that's already a huge win. Giving them a tangible goal such as this is a great idea.

Won't do much, though. If the guy cared about what we think wouldn't be doing this in the first place.

 

[Erana]

If I weren't a Canuck I'd be getting in on this, but unfortunately not only does my vote "not count"... Canada doesn't have a first amendment.

I'm the same, just replace Canadian with Brit, so I can't really help.

I'm sure some American 'Scapists would love extra parchment for their messages... Britian would be pricey shipping, though...

And you're a Brit? Never knew that...

 

[AndyRock]

This would be pretty sweet, too bad i'm a brit. But if we get a large number of people doing this it would show him just what he is up against

 

[Serioli]

A lot of Non-US, (non-applicable vote), citizens wanting to get involved.

Perhaps replace 'the first amendment' with 'free speech'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

 

[boholikeu]

I suppose the question is, with number 1, do we really want to equate M-rated video games with pornography? That's going the completely wrong direction.

That. Is. Wrong.

Well I think that excessive violence is something that should be censored more than nudity/sex. Don't get me wrong I LOVE violent games and films etc. I mean I help run a zombie site! I personally thing that ultra violent games that are made for adult should be sold just to adults. If a parent wants to buy the game for their kid then fine it's up to them to be a terrible parent or not.

In the UK it's simply dealt with by the same way films are dealt with. ie everything is given an age rating ranging from U (universally acceptable), PG (parental guidence), 12 (age), 15, 18.

The store won't sell you anything movie/game unless you are that age (proof of ID if you look under).

There isn't this system or an equivelent in the US? If this law is just putting somethign like this in palce then surely it's just sensible its like not letting a 5 year old buy a gun.

Or is there no system in place and people want to put in something which will make adult games a thing of the past?

Some facts about the situation for those of you not living in the US.

1) Currently it is only illegal to sell "obscene" material to minors. In order to be considered obscene a work must be considered obscene by the average adult AND it must lack any significant educational or artistic value. Since almost everything outside of flat out pornography can be considered either educational or artistic, XXX rated films are pretty much the only thing restricted by law in the US.

2) Having said that, you will rarely see a store sell a child an R rated movie/MA rated game because almost all vendors follow the ratings code.

3) The new California law basically states interactive works are "special" and thus they should not be granted the same first amendment rights as other forms of media. It's true that the only stated effect would be that the California government could now regulate what games can be sold to minors, but the entire legal effect of the law would be that video games are no longer protected by the first amendment even if they are educational or artistic.

In other words, yes, the goal of the law is technically just to prevent children from buying violent games (which most people agree with), but it achieves that goal by changing the legal status of video games. Hopefully you can see why this is so bad even though the overall intent of the law is good.

 

[lostzombies.com]

I suppose the question is, with number 1, do we really want to equate M-rated video games with pornography? That's going the completely wrong direction.

That. Is. Wrong.

Well I think that excessive violence is something that should be censored more than nudity/sex. Don't get me wrong I LOVE violent games and films etc. I mean I help run a zombie site! I personally thing that ultra violent games that are made for adult should be sold just to adults. If a parent wants to buy the game for their kid then fine it's up to them to be a terrible parent or not.

In the UK it's simply dealt with by the same way films are dealt with. ie everything is given an age rating ranging from U (universally acceptable), PG (parental guidence), 12 (age), 15, 18.

The store won't sell you anything movie/game unless you are that age (proof of ID if you look under).

There isn't this system or an equivelent in the US? If this law is just putting somethign like this in palce then surely it's just sensible its like not letting a 5 year old buy a gun.

Or is there no system in place and people want to put in something which will make adult games a thing of the past?

Some facts about the situation for those of you not living in the US.

1) Currently it is only illegal to sell "obscene" material to minors. In order to be considered obscene a work must be considered obscene by the average adult AND it must lack any significant educational or artistic value. Since almost everything outside of flat out pornography can be considered either educational or artistic, XXX rated films are pretty much the only thing restricted by law in the US.

2) Having said that, you will rarely see a store sell a child an R rated movie/MA rated game because almost all vendors follow the ratings code.

3) The new California law basically states interactive works are "special" and thus they should not be granted the same first amendment rights as other forms of media. It's true that the only stated effect would be that the California government could now regulate what games can be sold to minors, but the entire legal effect of the law would be that video games are no longer protected by the first amendment even if they are educational or artistic.

In other words, yes, the goal of the law is technically just to prevent children from buying violent games (which most people agree with), but it achieves that goal by changing the legal status of video games. Hopefully you can see why this is so bad even though the overall intent of the law is good.

Ahh excellent You get awesome cookies for the first person to explain what the law is trying to do. It kinda just seems like the law is based on common sense but somehow along the way someone decided that the constitution needed to get involved.

It makes you wonder if there is an ulterior motive to all this, seeing as there is already a system in place which stops a child going and buying someone that is classified as adult content. Not sure why someone would go to all this trouble to put in something that is already inplace if they did not want to achieve something else ie this whole bill is secretly sponsored by Jack Thompson

 

[boholikeu]

I suppose the question is, with number 1, do we really want to equate M-rated video games with pornography? That's going the completely wrong direction.

That. Is. Wrong.

Well I think that excessive violence is something that should be censored more than nudity/sex. Don't get me wrong I LOVE violent games and films etc. I mean I help run a zombie site! I personally thing that ultra violent games that are made for adult should be sold just to adults. If a parent wants to buy the game for their kid then fine it's up to them to be a terrible parent or not.

In the UK it's simply dealt with by the same way films are dealt with. ie everything is given an age rating ranging from U (universally acceptable), PG (parental guidence), 12 (age), 15, 18.

The store won't sell you anything movie/game unless you are that age (proof of ID if you look under).

There isn't this system or an equivelent in the US? If this law is just putting somethign like this in palce then surely it's just sensible its like not letting a 5 year old buy a gun.

Or is there no system in place and people want to put in something which will make adult games a thing of the past?

Some facts about the situation for those of you not living in the US.

1) Currently it is only illegal to sell "obscene" material to minors. In order to be considered obscene a work must be considered obscene by the average adult AND it must lack any significant educational or artistic value. Since almost everything outside of flat out pornography can be considered either educational or artistic, XXX rated films are pretty much the only thing restricted by law in the US.

2) Having said that, you will rarely see a store sell a child an R rated movie/MA rated game because almost all vendors follow the ratings code.

3) The new California law basically states interactive works are "special" and thus they should not be granted the same first amendment rights as other forms of media. It's true that the only stated effect would be that the California government could now regulate what games can be sold to minors, but the entire legal effect of the law would be that video games are no longer protected by the first amendment even if they are educational or artistic.

In other words, yes, the goal of the law is technically just to prevent children from buying violent games (which most people agree with), but it achieves that goal by changing the legal status of video games. Hopefully you can see why this is so bad even though the overall intent of the law is good.

Ahh excellent You get awesome cookies for the first person to explain what the law is trying to do. It kinda just seems like the law is based on common sense but somehow along the way someone decided that the constitution needed to get involved.

It makes you wonder if there is an ulterior motive to all this, seeing as there is already a system in place which stops a child going and buying someone that is classified as adult content. Not sure why someone would go to all this trouble to put in something that is already inplace if they did not want to achieve something else ie this whole bill is secretly sponsored by Jack Thompson

Thanks for the cookies! *nom nom*

It does seem as though there is some sort of ulterior motive here. After all, why just focus on games if you really want to protect the children? Basically I think it comes down to the fact that video games are an "easy target", and Yee thinks this is an easy way to get himself some positive press with his constituents. It's a bit frustrating actually because I'm a resident of CA, but I live in a different district so I still can't vote against him. So close yet so far...

 

[archvile93]

I keep getting told two different versions of this vote/law.

1-the law will stop under 18's buying games that are rated 18+

2-it's something to do with banning all games with adult content

Now #1 seems perfectly sensible, just like kids shouldn't be able to go out and buy porn/the latest fore film from Slashy McButtrape. If the US doesn't already have a law stopping adult material from getting into kids hands...it should do.

#2 seems obviously a big deal with far reaching consequences for some big name titles.

Which one, if any is it?

That should be for the parents to decide, not the government.

 

[lostzombies.com]

I keep getting told two different versions of this vote/law.

1-the law will stop under 18's buying games that are rated 18+

2-it's something to do with banning all games with adult content

Now #1 seems perfectly sensible, just like kids shouldn't be able to go out and buy porn/the latest fore film from Slashy McButtrape. If the US doesn't already have a law stopping adult material from getting into kids hands...it should do.

#2 seems obviously a big deal with far reaching consequences for some big name titles.

Which one, if any is it?

That should be for the parents to decide, not the government.

Any law which takes power and rights away from terrible parents should be passed.

A parent who:

buys their child adult films/games, or so much fast food that their health is at risk should have their kids taken off them and given to people who actually have the intelligence and morals to rise children.

Sorry but zero sympathy here, adult games are for adults, just as guns are for adults and alcohol is for adults.

Do you see people protesting for children to have access to alcohol because it should be 'up to the parents to decide'? no, because that's stupid.

 

[archvile93]

I keep getting told two different versions of this vote/law.

1-the law will stop under 18's buying games that are rated 18+

2-it's something to do with banning all games with adult content

Now #1 seems perfectly sensible, just like kids shouldn't be able to go out and buy porn/the latest fore film from Slashy McButtrape. If the US doesn't already have a law stopping adult material from getting into kids hands...it should do.

#2 seems obviously a big deal with far reaching consequences for some big name titles.

Which one, if any is it?

That should be for the parents to decide, not the government.

Any law which takes power and rights away from terrible parents should be passed.

A parent who:

buys their child adult films/games, or so much fast food that their health is at risk should have their kids taken off them and given to people who actually have the intelligence and morals to rise children.

Sorry but zero sympathy here, adult games are for adults, just as guns are for adults and alcohol is for adults.

Do you see people protesting for children to have access to alcohol because it should be 'up to the parents to decide'? no, because that's stupid.

No it's not uncommon for children to be given alchohol. I had my first drink when I was seven. Also, I believe it's not uncommon for children to be given alchohol in Europe and they have a much lower rate of alchohol dependence if I recall. But I'm getting off track here, you're right, why should parents get to decide what is good for their kids or not? We just let the government run our lives and follow it like sheep. The Constitution is a stupid idea anyway.