We've already had similar laws shot down.
GamemasterAnthony said:
and the GOP dig themselves into a deeper hole for it.
I agree with the possibilities, but think it's incredibly unlikely this will be a hole-digger for the GOP.
Seracen said:
AH yes, and while they're at it, ban all movies that rate higher than PG...because, you know, THAT'S a great idea....
Idiots...
But that's totally different because movies
have a lobby aren't interactive!
RJ 17 said:
Just because the GOP is coming up with this bill doesn't mean that both sides aren't still a bunch of self-serving ass-wipes.
Just because both sides are self-serving asswipes doesn't mean there's any real level of parity, either.
Keiichi Morisato said:
there already is? the government actually already taxes guns greatly. actually the government has an agenda to keep guns away from it's citizens as much as possible, if she hits the fan we would be less likely to fight back.
Which is why guns are so cheap and accessible. That's weird. Is this like Obama being a socialist, while accidentally coming up with all these capitalist policies?
FalloutJack said:
That's funny. It reads "Washington Tax Plan Would Punish Violent Game Makers", but is reads as "Conservative Party Makes Another Kneejerk Reaction At Things It Doesn't Understand Or Like", and then it interprets as "Stupid Politicians Wave Arms Ineffectually At Issue They Can't Actually Do Anything About". *Sigh*
This is America. We love empty gestures and symbolic measures. We've repealed Obamacare symbolically like 9000 times.
JoJo said:
Is this proposed amendment unconstitutional though? I'm no constitutional lawyer, I'm not even American, but I'm pretty the U.S. Constitution just prohibits the government from making laws that prohibit free speech. This on the other hand doesn't prohibit anyone from making any sort of game they want, it rather restricts tax credits to certain games. I don't see how lack of government support could reasonably be taken as actually infringing on a person's freedom of speech.
Such laws have been argued on free speech ground because it's seen as a form of government advocacy in the first place. That is, it's seen as the government endorsing X over Y. But then, I find much of the fight over video games should probably come down to commerce, not free speech. Even Brown v EMA strikes me as a commerce clause deal, not a first amendment one.