The Needles: Master Chief Goes to Washington
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'm really not sure which part of this is giving you trouble. Movies, music and books are protected by the First Amendment. Videogames are not.Fenixius said:
I don't know how much clearer about it I can be, so I'm going to move on.
It's a uniquely American approach, absolutely. And a lot of the mystified responses come from non-Americans who aren't steeped in traditions of individual liberties like the Americans are. Those traditions have created a lot of nuttiness, but I don't consider the First Amendment to be part of that. It's obviously not perfect, but neither are the systems found in Germany or Australia and given the choice, when it comes to speech and expression I'd rather err on the side of freedom.Archangel357 said:
Sure they do, sometimes. And from a purely functional perspective of, "You can't buy M-rated games if you're under 17," nothing really changes. But declaring an entire medium exempt from the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? That's pretty huge.ObsessiveSketch said:
It stands to reason that there should be a law allowing the restriction of the sale of games to those under a certain age. As Andy has argued repeatedly, this practice is widely upheld by the videogame industry itself. Normally in a society, accepted standards in which lines are drawn are formally assembled together in LAWS. I think all of this should be common sense.
So then the major argument comes into play as for why it should not be law. Due to it violating certain precedents already set by law according to the First Amendment. Why should those previous precedents not be struck down as not in accordance to the First Amendment? After all, for each circumstance of an age restriction being held up in the mediums of film, music and books, should it not be thus argued that they are violating the minors rights according to the constitution?
Just to be clear on why a law barring the sale of rated games to minors would be fair and somewhat necessary. As it stands, if any small-time entrepreneur or large-scale enterprise, not explicitly dealing in games, sell without the 'industry regulation', what stops them from exploiting the current law/lawlessness? As another commenter illustrated, he can go to "... Ed he sells drugs at this school, over there, yeah that's Jon. Jon sells M rated video games for a 10% markup". I apologize for taking your situation somewhat out of context, but regardless; The two examples are both morally wrong, but what stands out between them? The sale of M-rated games to minors, in even an exploitatious state is not illegal. Can Andy and we as gamers not see this as a possible loose end?
So then the major argument comes into play as for why it should not be law. Due to it violating certain precedents already set by law according to the First Amendment. Why should those previous precedents not be struck down as not in accordance to the First Amendment? After all, for each circumstance of an age restriction being held up in the mediums of film, music and books, should it not be thus argued that they are violating the minors rights according to the constitution?
I'm sorry, but it seems you're being willfully ignorant of the point Fenixius is trying make Mr. Chalk. He's not arguing that First Amendment rights not be given to games. I think the insinuation that the exception be made for games(as outside of protection) is ridiculous to most of us and should be to all(including the state of California and the Supreme Court). He's arguing both that restrictions be made on all forms of media, not to exclude them from the First Amendment, but to make the restriction outside of First Amendment rights being upheld, and also that the education of older people in the medium of games(through sale, perhaps) will allow them to see games as a medium to be rightfully protected. That is to say, they will make no exceptions based on their medium of choice, as gaming would also be one. As far as 'pandering' goes, in gaming's current state pandering is the de facto reason for nearly all of the major publications, that's just how you make money.Andy Chalk said:
Here is where you reveal the major stumbling block to your argument. You seem to hold the First Amendment to be holy, yet you admit it's not perfect. Why then, can't the First Amendment be amended as it were, to include the clause "Age restrictions are not considered to be in violation of the First Amendment and thus cannot be revoked through it's use as a protection" to some varying degree of wording assuredly? The Canadian government frequently amends it's constitution, and that does not make it weak, it makes it applicable to the changing and more complete understanding of society.Andy Chalk said:
As a final point of refutation, why can't videogames be the first to accept some regulation? Could we not bring ourselves up into such a standing that we are seen as the 'the most mature' medium rather than the 'the least' and hold us regardless of the age of our medium? You may see us as being picked on, but if a perhaps lesser recognized medium such as our falls under fair regulation, couldn't the others follow suit in a domino effect?Andy Chalk said:
Just to be clear on why a law barring the sale of rated games to minors would be fair and somewhat necessary. As it stands, if any small-time entrepreneur or large-scale enterprise, not explicitly dealing in games, sell without the 'industry regulation', what stops them from exploiting the current law/lawlessness? As another commenter illustrated, he can go to "... Ed he sells drugs at this school, over there, yeah that's Jon. Jon sells M rated video games for a 10% markup". I apologize for taking your situation somewhat out of context, but regardless; The two examples are both morally wrong, but what stands out between them? The sale of M-rated games to minors, in even an exploitatious state is not illegal. Can Andy and we as gamers not see this as a possible loose end?
i don't buy the argument on self regulation working. I believe vested interests will trump this, and it is in the industries interests to focus on their sales. It rather depends whether you believe that people will voluntarily stick to rules of their own devising which are inconvenient to them or not. I don't - or at least think not in enough cases to make it effective.
Never got the whole thing about freedom of speech, I mean, America still has liable laws and such, does it not?
"You have insulted me without merit, freedom of speech shan't apply here!"
Sorry, sorry, off track.
It would be a sorry state of affairs if this got through, because then they could possibly push to do it with other media.
"You have insulted me without merit, freedom of speech shan't apply here!"
Sorry, sorry, off track.
It would be a sorry state of affairs if this got through, because then they could possibly push to do it with other media.
I'm not an American but I don't see how the two things can be related, Age restricted sales and censorship surely it would not change games content or allow the gov to dictate what is and isn't suitable contentAndy Chalk said:
GOD FUCKING DAMNIT! SHIT!
See, this is exactly what I said would happen a couple of months ago in a similar thread. If this bullshit gets passed, if this sets a legal precedent, MY GOD.
People. I cannot stress this enough. TAKE THIS SHIT SERIOUSLY. If we don't, it'll be giving them an inch, and we all know what happens when we give them an inch - they take a goddamn mile. It will start with legally enforcing the ESRB guidelines, then soon enough, we'll have a system much like Australia's, and trust me when I say that with the radicals in this country, it will go one step further. It will end at the virtual destruction of the First Amendment, and potentially the Bill of Rights itself.
Sure, that sounds crazy reading it, but just think about it - All they need is a single precedent, be it in video games or professional cup stacking - to end it all for us. Once there is a precedent, there is almost nothing standing in their way. They'll be able to bring up that case on multiple grounds, and use it in ways it was never intended, as they do.
Simply put, they will use the legal precedent this case will make to either make or break the Constitution of the United States of America. It's about video games, sure - they're anything but serious business. However, as I said, it could be about cup stacking or wearing baseball caps, it is still under the First Amendment, and it is still on the thinnest legal ice ever developed in the history of the nation. Please, PLEASE, TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. Write your congressman, write your senators, write the President, Vice President, neighborhood hobos, I don't care, but make sure that you are HEARD.
See, this is exactly what I said would happen a couple of months ago in a similar thread. If this bullshit gets passed, if this sets a legal precedent, MY GOD.
People. I cannot stress this enough. TAKE THIS SHIT SERIOUSLY. If we don't, it'll be giving them an inch, and we all know what happens when we give them an inch - they take a goddamn mile. It will start with legally enforcing the ESRB guidelines, then soon enough, we'll have a system much like Australia's, and trust me when I say that with the radicals in this country, it will go one step further. It will end at the virtual destruction of the First Amendment, and potentially the Bill of Rights itself.
Sure, that sounds crazy reading it, but just think about it - All they need is a single precedent, be it in video games or professional cup stacking - to end it all for us. Once there is a precedent, there is almost nothing standing in their way. They'll be able to bring up that case on multiple grounds, and use it in ways it was never intended, as they do.
Simply put, they will use the legal precedent this case will make to either make or break the Constitution of the United States of America. It's about video games, sure - they're anything but serious business. However, as I said, it could be about cup stacking or wearing baseball caps, it is still under the First Amendment, and it is still on the thinnest legal ice ever developed in the history of the nation. Please, PLEASE, TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY. Write your congressman, write your senators, write the President, Vice President, neighborhood hobos, I don't care, but make sure that you are HEARD.
and this is exactly why working off a constitution written a few hundred years ago fails.
Video games and such "interactive" forms of media (key word: interactive) didn't exist then and so DO need looking at seperately.
And what's with the freedom of expression bollocks? If this law was going to stop companies creating and selling violent games, I'd be shooting it with shit, but -
Does this law stop companies from making Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector? No.
Does this law stop companies from selling Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector? No.
Does this law stop me, a 23 year old, from buying Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector? No.
If the industry ratings guys don't think that a kid should be shoving a cat onto the end of a shotgun's barrell and blowing people apart with said shotgun, I don't understand why it's a big deal if it suddenly becomes law to stop kids buying that material.
A cinema would be shot to bits if they let a 14 year old in to see Nightmare on Elm Street, likewise I agree that Asda/Walmart would be shot to shit for selling that 14 year old Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector, if the age on the box says 18+
Video games and such "interactive" forms of media (key word: interactive) didn't exist then and so DO need looking at seperately.
And what's with the freedom of expression bollocks? If this law was going to stop companies creating and selling violent games, I'd be shooting it with shit, but -
Does this law stop companies from making Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector? No.
Does this law stop companies from selling Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector? No.
Does this law stop me, a 23 year old, from buying Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector? No.
If the industry ratings guys don't think that a kid should be shoving a cat onto the end of a shotgun's barrell and blowing people apart with said shotgun, I don't understand why it's a big deal if it suddenly becomes law to stop kids buying that material.
A cinema would be shot to bits if they let a 14 year old in to see Nightmare on Elm Street, likewise I agree that Asda/Walmart would be shot to shit for selling that 14 year old Postal 3: Kitten Corpse Collector, if the age on the box says 18+
But unless I'm missing something my point still stands. First amendment, freedom of expression - that expression (creation, distribution of the games with adult ratings) isn't being hindered in the slightest by this law. Only the enforcement of age-restricted sales of these types of games which is meant to be done anyway would be coming into play.ionpulse2 said:
If another case were to be appealed on the basis of the first amendment, and wanted to use this case as an example in their favor, I dont understand how any court would agree that they're similar.
"We, the state of Pennsylvania, have decided NOT to let you, mr angry person, shut down other mr angry person's radio show talking about Obama being the anti-christ, because the first amendment lets him do it."
"But you legally stop kids from simulating murder!"
"...So what? Get out."
So you're suggesting that the videogame industry should surrender its First Amendment rights so it can lead the charge toward an across-the-board loss of these rights in other industries?arealperson said:
That's really quite a position to hold. Can you tell me what led to it? Have you ever called for legislated restrictions on the sale of movies, or books?
I honestly don't mean to argue from the position of "it is because it is," but there is simply no reason why the legal regulation of videogame sales would be necessary or acceptable, but not the regulation of other media. A number of you think that other media should be regulated - which would essentially spell the end of the First Amendment, and what happens to the Constitution after that is anybody's guess - and while I'm not terribly surprised that non-Americans would take the position, I'm absolutely blown away that American gamers would be so willing to let their rights slide.
Of course the First Amendment isn't perfect. I don't Germany or Australia have it quite right either. The UK had trouble just deciding who gets to make the rules, but they did manage to keep Manhunt 2 off the shelves for a year - not just out of the hands of kids, but out of the hands of everyone. Seems to me that nobody's come up with a perfect system yet, so why should we (well, they, or you, I suppose) change the system to make it more like something that we all know is no better, and quite possibly worse, than what's already there?
The bottom line is this: If you believe that videogames should be regulated, and you'd like to see some steps taken toward the erosion of the First Amendment, then do nothing. Just sit quietly and let a few vote-chasing government agencies do their thing and pretty soon, if you're lucky, you'll get what you want - and, I daresay, what you deserve.
The rest of us will be over here, standing up on your behalf.
The first amendment comes down to protecting everybody's right. If we start saying one group or one type of speech is outlawed then what is to stop them from saying your speech is wrong. What will you do if you are the minority and people don't like what you have to say? The bill of rights is there to protect everybody equally. If we start to knock down these walls of liberty to stop nasty influences on our children and to make laws in place of involved parenting what is going to protect us when a tyrant arises and turns on us? What then will protect you? If we use our power as the majority we to ban things we don't like then we are no better than bullies and destroyed what this fair nation stands for. This nation was designed so the strong could not prey on the weak. It was meant to have a law that applies to all members of the nation regardless of their power or numbers. We tried to free ourselves from the tyranny of right by might and instead create a land that was free under a equal and blind law. A law all men could read and understand. A law that applied to every person the same way. A law that protected the weak and the strong. This is the idea that is the United States of America. That was the dream that propelled us to revolt in the first place. Thousands have died to protect that right. Do not let their sacrifice have been in vain by giving up your liberties.
Mr. Chalk thank you for watching out for a nation that is not your own. You are an American at heart. America is an idea and any person that holds to that idea is a citizen at heart.
Mr. Chalk thank you for watching out for a nation that is not your own. You are an American at heart. America is an idea and any person that holds to that idea is a citizen at heart.
Ok, I understand that you're upset about all this, but you seem to be WAY off the mark here.Flauros said:
There is no "right" to outlaw videogames, but law makers to have the right to make laws, its kinda in their job description. What they plan on doing is to put video games in the same category as porn, in that the government would be allowed to regulate who uses it, and it would not be protected by the first amendment.
Getting addicted to heroine also has nothing to do with this, so, I'm not really sure where you were going with that argument.
AS for it being their buisness, well, it became their buisness when parents came screaming to lawyers desks because their lil' Johnny just Bought CoD: MewTwo, and they heard him yell, "FAG" at the television, and now their panties are in a bunch.
Essentially, people are giving lawyers money to bring video games to court, so that's just what they are doing.
Yes, um, "fails" is a pretty strong word there bud.the_maestro_sartori said:
Now, trust me, I'm on your side here, but, if we're gonna be arguing the same point, I'd rather you choose a more viable point. The US constitution is considered by many to be one of the most successful constitutions in the world, having only been amended 27 times since its inception. That is a pretty good track record by anyone's standards.