Schwarzenegger and Yee Unapologetic for Failed Supreme Court Battle
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
It's not all citizens though, it's minors. And people are pretty much in universal agreement that children shouldn't see things that are rated as unsuitable for kids. That's why the rating exists. And you said yourself that a lot of people think those things are legally enforced, would it really make that much difference if they were?Aidinthel said:
It's the principle of the thing. This really comes down to a fundamental question of the proper role of government, and I just don't think it has any place in people's personal lives.Bobic said:
This law wouldn't make much difference, but I don't like where the mindset behind it would lead.
Buddy, if Thomas and Breyer are the only dissenters who are in favor of what you said, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.
So I think it was a waste of money.
So I think it was a waste of money.
Please don't put words in my mouth; it's hardly constructive.Bobic said:
Since you bring it up, I would make a critical distinction between physical wellbeing (which has obvious, universal standards) and an abstract, personal moral choice like what children should be allowed to watch/play/read. The government does have a measure of responsibility for the former, but not the latter.
And thus petty deluded bureaucrats continue to eat away at the American economy. Bravo, you troglodytes. Brav-fucking-o.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where they're coming from, and I can see why they would feel strongly about the issue. However flawed I may feel their argument or reasoning is, bottom line is that they want to protect kids. But is that worth 1.8 million that could have gone to any number of more important and deserving things in a state that has an insane debt problem? Not at all. Not even close.
I'm a little conflicted over this. Part of me agrees that if these people thought they had a legitimate concern, then they should have pursued it. However, if they had been shot down in two previous courts and their legal counsel advised otherwise, that shows negligence of a leader when it comes to listening to sound advice.
On the plus side, the this sad attempt at legislating games has created a court precedent for video games as a medium of speech. I kinda look at this like the same as the debacle with Jack Thompson and video game violence. Inept vilification has only strengthened and legitimized the medium.
On the plus side, the this sad attempt at legislating games has created a court precedent for video games as a medium of speech. I kinda look at this like the same as the debacle with Jack Thompson and video game violence. Inept vilification has only strengthened and legitimized the medium.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was making a comparison, don't put intentions in mine.Aidinthel said:
Anyway, if the government don't regulate what kids see, who should? You said the cinema's self regulate, but why wouldn't they let children watch whatever they want? Wouldn't that lead to more money for them, which is what a business is all about?
I'm so glad Arnold "has killed more people on screen than the Ebola virus has killed in real life" Schwarzenegger is concerned about violence in video games. That takes chutzpah, no doubt about it.
Yee? It's hard to believe someone would be this mule-headed on a subject unless they were, indeed, a true believer. It's hard to hold someone wanting to protect children against them. But the assumption that there's nothing between children and violent video games unless the state steps in is so incorrect on so many levels, not to mention suggesting elements of a kind of reflexive Luddite-ism.
It was only worth it if they don't try again. What are the chances?
Yee? It's hard to believe someone would be this mule-headed on a subject unless they were, indeed, a true believer. It's hard to hold someone wanting to protect children against them. But the assumption that there's nothing between children and violent video games unless the state steps in is so incorrect on so many levels, not to mention suggesting elements of a kind of reflexive Luddite-ism.
It was only worth it if they don't try again. What are the chances?
Sad part is, most retailers already have policies against selling MA games to minors as it stands.
And if this law went through, who would stop the 'government' from fining retailers, when they very clearly sold it to an adult, who then gave it to the child?
If they make such a law, then it should be equally 'illegal' to give said 'content' to minors.
Much akin to buying pornography to minors or booze.
That said... wtf are they complaining since most retailers already 'restrict it' without government regulation?
Add a fine? You'll kill MA games in retailers, and only promote online distribution.
And if this law went through, who would stop the 'government' from fining retailers, when they very clearly sold it to an adult, who then gave it to the child?
If they make such a law, then it should be equally 'illegal' to give said 'content' to minors.
Much akin to buying pornography to minors or booze.
That said... wtf are they complaining since most retailers already 'restrict it' without government regulation?
Add a fine? You'll kill MA games in retailers, and only promote online distribution.
Make them foot the bill and then we'll see how quickly they try that kind of thing again. Hell, we'll see how fast any politican trys that kind of bill again. There's an idea. Make it so that those in the government that try to create these types of laws which have to go to court have to personally pay the bills for the case if they lose. I think that'd make things a lot better.
Frankly, this is just them trying to cover their asses. And using the 'we don't feel bad about trying to protect kids' excuse doesn't help. When it's pretty obvious the law won't be considered legal and there isn't any solid evidence that these things cause problems, then that excuse falls flat pretty quick. I really hope Yee isn't re-elected anytime soon.
Frankly, this is just them trying to cover their asses. And using the 'we don't feel bad about trying to protect kids' excuse doesn't help. When it's pretty obvious the law won't be considered legal and there isn't any solid evidence that these things cause problems, then that excuse falls flat pretty quick. I really hope Yee isn't re-elected anytime soon.
As a Californian I'm not surprised that they don't care. Seriously I don't know anyone who actually thinks Schwarzenegger was actually a good governor with how much he has screwed the people of California.
Believe it or not we actually do have that in my city: Chula Vista. It is in Southern California and what the law is is that all persons under the age of 18 can't be out alone unless they are accompanied with someone 25 or older. Surprisingly it works very well.RatRace123 said: