The Needles: Master Chief Goes to Washington
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
For everything above the bottom, see my post on Pg. 3.The3rdEye said:
As for the bottom bit, yes, that was an absolute buttfuck to the Constitution and the entirety of the United States. But again, I must stress the significance of something called a PRECEDENT.
The reason why Habeas Corpus was removed in the first place was because of a ridiculously small legal battle. What happened though? The wrong side won, because nobody gave a damn. More cases popped up, and then more. Eventually, it got to the point where the astoundingly retarded PRECEDENT was set, and Habeas Corpus ceased to exist in its effective form.
The only reason this is being brought up in the first place, and the only reason it made it to court, was because of that specific PRECEDENT, and allowed them to question the Constitution and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights.
This is not one of those small court cases, those opportunities to nip this problem in the bud are gone. This is a HUGE, MAJOR, IMPORTANT COURT CASE. It is in the Supreme Court, our highest form of legal judgment in the United States, and it has the power to "interpret" the Constitution.
If this passes under the radar like the Habeas Corpus mishap, if we show continued apathy toward this extremely sensitive subject, than we will set yet another legal PRECEDENT, resulting in a major blow to the First Amendment rights every single man, woman, and child are given at birth in this nation.
Please, people. I cannot stress this enough. LISTEN to me. LISTEN to Andy. LISTEN TO THE COUNTLESS OTHER PEOPLE WHO SEE WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING ON HERE, AND STOP THIS BEFORE IT BEGINS. Once these people are given an inch in such utterly sensitive territory, they can begin to dismantle, piece by piece, the Bill of Rights - and ultimately - the United States of America.
Some of you would think that I am overreacting. I can assure you I am not. Situations like this are highly delicate, and require the utmost attention and seriousness. We CANNOT, under good conscience, let this slip through our fingers. This country is unique, we are the only one in the world with the amount of freedom like this. Don't let it fail. Don't let the Great Experiment end people. It may be about Video Games now, a totally inconsequential form of entertainment, but soon, oh yes very soon, it will be something bigger. You, as a normal citizen, would never think to wield such mild and harmless topics like these BARBARIANS plan to, to cut a vast swath through the heart of our nation. But heed my warning, they do not think like we do. They will use anything and everything in their power to achieve their ends, and to them, that justifies the means, no matter what the means are.
And in this case, those means stem from what would appear as a simple hobby.
Well, and in a larger context, the prohibition against regulating books, music and DVDs is explicitly a first amendment protection. If the ruling came down that it was okay to regulate videogames in this way, the extension of that would be that videogames are not entitled to first amendment protections.Andy Chalk said:
Really, the legal issue at the heart of this case is precisely that: are videogames entitled to first amendment protections? Not, should they be regulated?
First of all, BEEFING UP YOUR TEXT and repeatedly referring back to your text as the sole support for referring back to your text does not an argument make.
All this time gamers have been jumping on FOX news and certain legal officials, flaming them to all hell, all the while ignoring the general audience, whose continued ignorance over the issue of video game content has left them just as susceptible to misleading information as before. Now however, since no one made it a point to correct the information they were given, they actually still believe some of the crap that was fed to them. And no wonder, look what happens when someone tries to present gaming in a calm and concise manner:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.182302-Slanderous-Anti-Game-Discussion?page=1
In any event, all sensationalism aside (I hope), I'm confident that this will get nipped in the bud. It's the parent's right and responsibility to nurture a child and keep them from what they believe to be harmful influences, not the governments. Videogames are an exploration and expression of free speech, and should be protected as such. Two issues, one ****storm. And on the slim chance that it isn't and our government tries to copy the 'States, then I'll rest easy knowing that there will be a vote of no confidence.
Small case or no, wouldn't the president of the United States signing away the legal right to appeal wrongful detainment under those circumstances create a big deal, or A PRECEDENT? My point was that if America can be convinced that it should revoke certain legal rights from the people, why wouldn't they be convinced that letting the government choose what little Billy can and can't play. This isn't the threat of escalation, it is the result.ionpulse2 said:
All this time gamers have been jumping on FOX news and certain legal officials, flaming them to all hell, all the while ignoring the general audience, whose continued ignorance over the issue of video game content has left them just as susceptible to misleading information as before. Now however, since no one made it a point to correct the information they were given, they actually still believe some of the crap that was fed to them. And no wonder, look what happens when someone tries to present gaming in a calm and concise manner:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.182302-Slanderous-Anti-Game-Discussion?page=1
In any event, all sensationalism aside (I hope), I'm confident that this will get nipped in the bud. It's the parent's right and responsibility to nurture a child and keep them from what they believe to be harmful influences, not the governments. Videogames are an exploration and expression of free speech, and should be protected as such. Two issues, one ****storm. And on the slim chance that it isn't and our government tries to copy the 'States, then I'll rest easy knowing that there will be a vote of no confidence.
1) Sounds like Australia with the governement refusing an R18+ rating because they wanted it too much.dogstile said:
2) I believe swearing is okay here. In my experience, the mods usually don't mind as long as you don't go overboard with it. I could be wrong though.
OT: Great article Andy. Posted the link for the petition on my facebook page.
Wow, I'm shocked to see so many people willing to let that pass because "parents are stupid", "it won't change a lot of thing" and because they are seemingly to lazy to care and do something about this. You people seem to be forgetting that if this pass, they get to say what is a violent game, and believe me, they will rake a lot wider than the ESRB. Knowing that 99% of retailers won't hold AO games on their shelves, imagine if every games that would be released with a M rating would get an AO instead by the new "government approved standard". Hell, now that games are not protected by the first amendment, what stops them from banning games that they consider unpatriotic? Games that are not sending the message that they want to be sent? Other medium will follow soon after because why should we protect our children from the evil of video games when there is also corruption and "unpatriotisms" in movies, books and music.
It's not about letting games like GTA4 or MW2 in the hands of 10 years old, they shouldn't be playing that. It's about not letting the government, people with political agendas and different lobby to please, decide what games gets to be played and by whom. The Hays code stood for 34 years and was dropped in 1968. May seem like an eternity ago to someone in their 20's but it's only been 42 years. That is not that long ago. Do you really think that none of those politicians trying to get that law passed isn't thinking about something similar for video games? Do you think that this won't pass with all the fear created around violence, extremists, terrorists and socialists? Once games are stripped away of their constitutional protection, it's free buffet for the law makers and since no one will have cared for that first little law, the first little slice in freedom of speech, why would they care if some more cuts are made, you know, in the name of the children and our very vocal minority of supporters and lobbyists.
Just like Mr. Chalk, I am Canadian. I don't know why we care so much about what happens to your constitution. maybe it's because we know what whatever shit you cook up down there, we are going to get it that we want it or not. Not on political level, but just through business and social changes. It's sad to see people fighting more vigorously to defend their right to walk around with a freaking loaded weapon than to defend a little piece of their freedom of speech.
A few years ago there was a shootout at a college in Montreal. A bunch of people got hurt and a girl was killed by a gunman who killed himself when cops showed up. Did the media go on a rampage about violent video games and trying to point fingers? No. They talked about the isolation of people like him and mental illness. Did the government tried to pass a law restricting the sell of games? No. They created better restrictions for gun sales.
Maybe you'll care about this when video games end up like comic books. Beat into the ground by massive censorship because nobody cared enough to get their thumbs out of their ass and speak up.
And for irony's sake: http://www.virtualshackles.com/107
It's not about letting games like GTA4 or MW2 in the hands of 10 years old, they shouldn't be playing that. It's about not letting the government, people with political agendas and different lobby to please, decide what games gets to be played and by whom. The Hays code stood for 34 years and was dropped in 1968. May seem like an eternity ago to someone in their 20's but it's only been 42 years. That is not that long ago. Do you really think that none of those politicians trying to get that law passed isn't thinking about something similar for video games? Do you think that this won't pass with all the fear created around violence, extremists, terrorists and socialists? Once games are stripped away of their constitutional protection, it's free buffet for the law makers and since no one will have cared for that first little law, the first little slice in freedom of speech, why would they care if some more cuts are made, you know, in the name of the children and our very vocal minority of supporters and lobbyists.
Just like Mr. Chalk, I am Canadian. I don't know why we care so much about what happens to your constitution. maybe it's because we know what whatever shit you cook up down there, we are going to get it that we want it or not. Not on political level, but just through business and social changes. It's sad to see people fighting more vigorously to defend their right to walk around with a freaking loaded weapon than to defend a little piece of their freedom of speech.
A few years ago there was a shootout at a college in Montreal. A bunch of people got hurt and a girl was killed by a gunman who killed himself when cops showed up. Did the media go on a rampage about violent video games and trying to point fingers? No. They talked about the isolation of people like him and mental illness. Did the government tried to pass a law restricting the sell of games? No. They created better restrictions for gun sales.
Maybe you'll care about this when video games end up like comic books. Beat into the ground by massive censorship because nobody cared enough to get their thumbs out of their ass and speak up.
And for irony's sake: http://www.virtualshackles.com/107
umm, sorry, I've obviously missed something here... Why is it that you think its a bad idea to protect children from inappropriate content - just run that by me again.
It seems to me thats all thats in contention here; and in what way exactly would it be any different from a constitutional POV from age restrictions on selling alcohol?
you'll have to forgive my British ignorance
It seems to me thats all thats in contention here; and in what way exactly would it be any different from a constitutional POV from age restrictions on selling alcohol?
you'll have to forgive my British ignorance
You tell me you have no problem with putting video games in the same bag as alcohol and cigarettes?Continuity said:umm, sorry, I've obviously missed something here... Why is it that you think its a bad idea to protect children from inappropriate content - just run that by me again.
It seems to me thats all thats in contention here; and in what way exactly would it be any different from a constitutional POV from age restrictions on selling alcohol?
you'll have to forgive my British ignorance
You're totally misinterpreting what I'm saying. I never said I was in support of the law, in fact I said quite the opposite in a previous post. I am saying that the nature in which mature games are exposed to unintended audiences is different from the nature in which mature movies and their ilk. The environ in which one plays a mature game is much different from the one in which one watches a mature movie, not to mention the difference in time duration. Games engage interactivity, movies engage vision and spectacle (though I am not saying games encourage violence - only that games encourage people to play them). Therefore, it's rash to assume that the same methods and restrictions should be applied to all media in general.Tenmar said:
My point of 'kids will get the games anyways' was *in spite* of the fact that there is voluntary enforcement of ratings at the retail distributor level. The nature in which they get the games is something of a slip under the radar. This is my logic:
1. Rating systems like the ESRB exist to inform parents and guardians of age-inappropriate content in games.
2. Children are getting age-inappropriate games.
3. The system doesn't work.
Yes, ultimately, it's a parental decision to permit kids playing games that weren't intended for them. Do I think the majority of parents are making the correct decisions? No, (and that includes parents who strictly forbid games with *any* violence or the like), but that's not for me to decide. My position isn't of what most people have indicated in this game forum, but it's not of those pushing for the legislation either. I'm just trying to evaluate both sides of the argument. Unfortunately, you're making the mistake of thinking that anybody with inclinations towards changing the current system is someone who wants to ban it all.
Your analogy of underage drinking is an excellent one, though. Something considered out of reach is also something that is considered a privilege to attain in spite of how it's forbidden, and this is one of the reasons why I think legislation in this case would be ineffectual. In any case, legislation only serves to formalise the enforcement of ratings that is already in practice, which as I've already stated, doesn't seem to work as well as it should. Still working with your analogy, games haven't been around as long as alcohol and as is such, their content and nature are not as well-understood by the general public, and thus they have a certain stigma attached to them. And that's why I feel a different approach is necessitated; grouping them in the same category as movies, music, and other passive forms of entertainment isn't the right solution.
(Oh, and your youtube link is broken.)
So how would writing our Congressmen affect the outcome of a Supreme Court case? The only thing I can think of is the confirmation of Elena Kagan. Is there any word on when this case is scheduled to appear in court, or when Kagan would begin presiding if she is confirmed, or Kagan's stance on video game restrictions? In all honesty I don't think there is anything we can do to affect this case.
So you agree that they shouldnt be regulated,....but by saying that, im being irrational? Why the hell are you arguing with me, then? Ill just assume out your weirdness that you disagree withme, since im "irrational"Shynobee said:
No, they do NOT need to regulate it. They dont regulate the storylines of books, they dont regulate the storylines of movies, so they dont need to regulate the storylines of games. You actually compared games to alchohol or porno or driving, but you didnt get my "videogames dont get you addicted to heroin" simile. So, it makes more sense that videogames actually get you drunk, then? When you crash in a racing game, does someone actually die? Does everytime someone reads Dumbledore dying on page 154, does an old man actually die? Is harry potter a "protected substance"?
Just for clarification, they rating systems arent Laws, either. They are just there to let parents know beforehand.
So no, they DONT HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE ART REGULATED. I dont see why thats so complicated to understand. Our rights are much more important. If you dont want to watch a scary movie with your kid, you dont. It doesn't need to be a "controlled substance" To think, actually comparing videogames to real life drunk driving.....
OH MY GOD, MY BOOK READING IS GETTING OUT OF CONTROL. WOW, I JUST CAST A MAGICAL SPELL! OH MYGOD, THANK THE LORD THESE BOOKS REQUIRE A LICENSE TO READ! lol
But, for one thing, a lot less 15 year olds on online games. Hmm, something to consider, lol
Ok, I'm gonna try one last time to make my point clear.Flauros said:
I agree that the laws are wrong, what I disagree with is the arguments that you chose to use against these laws.
I'm not even going to bother addressing your other points because now, we are so off topic its not even funny.
So your problem with child porn is that there was abuse involved in making it? Fair enough, though I glad to see that you recognise your original statement needed some qualification and that you think it is ok to censor sometimes. Your points remain analytically lacking however. You say "If you allow them to ban video games for kids what is to stop them from banning them for adults?" without any regard for the functioning of democracy or indeed the system at present. Children aren't allowed to vote or consume alcohol, yet you don't seem to be worried about mass disenfranchisement on the part of the entire adult population, and neither do you seem worried about a second prohibition. Why do you think regulation of alcohol seems to stop at adulthood but videogames will fall down your slippery slope? On an unrelated point, in the world as it exists today, videogame sales to minors are regulated, almost universally, so the practical side of the legislative coin is already in place. The experience of the people will be no different in either case, it is just the ESRB may have some legislative backing.DarkSpectre said:
P.S. Use the 'quote' button if you plan on replying - that way it sends me a notification of your post.
The alcohol issue actually happened once already. The already tried to outlaw it once. It got repealed but only after the protests against it were to strong and it was apparent that it was a failure because people did what they wanted anyway. It also spawned massive amounts of illegal activity. Not something I think banning gaming would do, but loose your rights in huge sweeping movements you loose them slow over time as they are chipped away at while you sleep. Till one day you wake up and you have no more freedom than a pleb in Imperial Rome or a peasant in Soviet Russia. It is like boiling a live frog. The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. If you can ban things for children what is to stop you from banning them from adults? There is no distinction between adults and children in the bill of rights. It then is just the will of the majority that is keeping them from being banned from adults. What happens if the will of the majority decides that adults shouldn't have them either? If you cross the line even once then it is easier to cross it again later. A slow steady erosion of protection of our liberties is inevitable unless we zealously guard our rights even the rights of people we don't like or agree with. I think that excessive violence isn't a good thing for mature adults to consume, but that doesn't give me the right to try to force them to not use them. I have no right to force you to raise your child as I see fit unless you are clearly violating the child's rights. This country is founded on the belief that humans have inherent rights that are universal and not subject to majority approval. This is why racism is bad because blacks have the same rights whites do, but if you had gone with majority opinion they didn't. Our country is structured on the idea that their is a natural law that governs the behaviour of men like there is a law of gravity. Right and wrong are hard coded into the universe so to speak. This country was founded on the idea that government's primary responsibility was to ensure the protection of the rights of the citizens according to this natural law. Government should be structured to ensure that natural law is carried out justly and fairly to all people. If people don't like that idea they can move elsewhere. There are plenty of places in this world that don't have the protections we do or the outlook on government that this country was founded on. Mobility and the freedom of choice is a fundamental principle behind this country. The United States is a set of ideas more than a piece of land. Individuals have rights that can't not be infringed upon by force only given up voluntarily. Which is why the Government shouldn't get involved.Sikachu said:
In this country the sale of games is not legislated. The companies themselves do it. The government should not take the place of good parenting and personal responsibility. It also requires good citizenship and behaviour of the companies selling the material. Even then if Jimmy is able to buy a game that his parents don't think is good then they should just take it away from Jmmy until he is ready for it. Parents should actually get involved with their children's lives instead of having the government take care of it for them. Tell them to take the time to sit down and find out what Jimmy is consuming through media. Tell them to take an active interest in their kids and look out for them. My dad did that with any media we consumed. Granted at a certain age like around 7 we could watch any g or pg movie we wanted it was the more mature stuff he examined before we were allowed to have it. Even as a kid I could see that my dad was actively looking out for me and at times I thought he was wrong but I could see he just wanted what was best. It gave us a real strong relationship. The problem with kids will only get worse the more the parents give away their duties to the government. Children won't behave for a parent that doesn't show an active interest in the everyday activities of their children.
p.s. My bad on not using the quote. I forgot. I wonder why you hadn't responded. You seem like a right amicable fellow. Nice to debate with somebody that is civil yet vigorous. Good exercise for the brain.
Here's the thing about laws: they are always backed, either implicitly or explicitly, by the threat of physical violence. Every law. You might say that some laws are only punishable by a fine, but what happens when you don't pay that? What happens when you resist every attempt the government makes to collect from you? They arrest you. Men with guns come to your home, handcuff you, and then haul you away as a prisoner. And the entire time you know that if you resist, they will take out their guns and shoot you. That is their job. And in many cases that's a good thing--the government should use this kind of force to detain murderers and child molesters and the like. But this scenario doesn't just apply to vicious criminals like that--it applies to all criminals. Even people who just sell games to kids.
Government force should not be taken lightly. We should not be so willing to put a gun to the head of anyone who does something we disagree with. If you do not find it morally acceptable to physically attack someone for selling violent games to children, then you should not support a law that would allow the government to do just that.
Government force should not be taken lightly. We should not be so willing to put a gun to the head of anyone who does something we disagree with. If you do not find it morally acceptable to physically attack someone for selling violent games to children, then you should not support a law that would allow the government to do just that.